• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Conservative said:
What do you call the over 1 million people who were discouraged last month and stopped looking for jobs? You see, hemorraghing jobs that you cannot see or aren't counted is never a problem for a liberal.
Click to expand...

The Labor Force increased in June...more people entered the labor force than left.
 
pinqy said:
The numbers are accurate, but your understanding is off. The number of discouraged in June is NOT the number who left the labor force in June nor the number of people who became discouraged in June. The U6 includes all marginally attached, not just discouraged.
You don't seem to understand what the data actually mean. For example:

U6 is the rate, not a number, and it's unemployed plus marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus marginally attached.

[

Neither does the U6. No single number can tell the full story.
Click to expand...

Never said the number of discouraged in June was the number that left the labor force, the number of discouraged in June just like every other month since 1994 aren't counted in the official unemployment numbers which make the unemployment numbers look better than they are
 
pinqy said:
The Labor Force increased in June...more people entered the labor force than left.
Click to expand...

The labor force increased by about 177,000 but one million discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed. Are discouraged workers unemployed?
 
upsideguy said:
I see you still meet poignant counter-argument with obfuscation. I was merely taking apart your assertion that debt to GDP was not relevant. The post I took issue with.....



.....made no mention of unemployment or Obama ideology, nor did I reply with any assertion mentioning unemployment or Obama ideology.

When you are called out on a math problem, it is not sound argument to interject theology. It just shows all of the readers that you can't answer the math problem.
Click to expand...

In an economy that is predominantly private sector comparing govt. spending and debt to the private sector GDP is an exercise that excites liberals but means nothing.
 
Donc said:
According to this site if we stay at the current rate of job creation, the unemployment rate will drop to 6% in about two years.BAD NEWS FOR CON.:2wave:
Click to expand...

I think it is wonderful to have over 21 million plus unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers as apparently do you. If enough people drop out because of being discouraged why not 5% unemployment?
 
Conservative said:
I think it is wonderful to have over 21 million plus unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers as apparently do you. If enough people drop out because of being discouraged why not 5% unemployment?
Click to expand...

Sadly,:( according to the site thatta happen in about 2017.But it will happen a lot sooner if we kick the wingers outta the house and get some sanity installed in 2014.:2wave:
 
Donc said:
Sadly,:( according to the site thatta happen in about 2017.But it will happen a lot sooner if we kick the wingers outta the house and get some sanity installed in 2014.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Absolutely, there is no question that Obamanomics including Obamacare, higher taxes, and more regulations are excellent for business growth and hiring. We need more govt. spending from a lower tax base. That will always work.
 
Conservative said:
Never said the number of discouraged in June was the number that left the labor force,
Click to expand...

Oh? Your second post in this thread stated "the over 1 million people that dropped out of the labor force last month. " Certainly seems to be saying the discouraged are the number that dropped out.

the number of discouraged in June just like every other month since 1994 aren't counted in the official unemployment numbers which make the unemployment numbers look better than they are
Click to expand...
The discouraged have never been counted in the UE numbers...ever. Before 1967 some of what we know call discouraged could be included in special circumstances at the interviewer's discretion.

Conservative said:
The labor force increased by about 177,000 but one million discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed. Are discouraged workers unemployed?
Click to expand...
Not by any definition ever used. Unemployed has always meant not working but actively looking for work.

Why do you consider the discouraged to be unemployed? What about the rest of the Marginally Attached? or the rest of the ?people who want a job but are not classified as unemployed or discouraged or marginally attached?
 
pinqy said:
The Labor Force increased in June...more people entered the labor force than left.
Click to expand...
You really shouldn't waste so much time confusing people with facts. Republicans/conservatives hate facts when said facts have an obvious liberal bias.
 
Conservative said:
Absolutely, there is no question that Obamanomics including Obamacare, higher taxes, and more regulations are excellent for business growth and hiring. We need more govt. spending from a lower tax base. That will always work.
Click to expand...

" Obamanomics" seems to be working; as for "Obamacare"it should be junked and a more sensible Medicare for all installed instead...maybe after 2014 thatta start.Higher "higher taxes"?? Seemed to work for BJ didn't it?:mrgreen:
 
15lyPTk


:2wave:
 
Helix said:
not a horrible month. i agree that the money printing should stop.
Click to expand...

It would be nicer to see how many people remain unemployed. This figure should include not only those drawing unemployment benefits, but also those on welfare, early retirement, and the homeless.

Then there is the figure that seems to remain elusive...those people who are no longer eligible for unemployment, but are also not yet drawing any social welfare funds. This would include people who are living off savings while seeking jobs, returned to school using student loans in hopes of qualifying for better jobs, or young people just entering workforce age and looking for their first job.

Then we can see what effect 195,000 "new" jobs has.

P.S. How about a breakdown of those "new jobs." Like how many are part-time and how many are "Contract" (i.e. temporary worker status) positions. Important distinctions because most part-time and almost all temporay workers remain ineligible for benefits, and their "jobs" are not very stable.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
Oh? Your second post in this thread stated "the over 1 million people that dropped out of the labor force last month. " Certainly seems to be saying the discouraged are the number that dropped out.

The discouraged have never been counted in the UE numbers...ever. Before 1967 some of what we know call discouraged could be included in special circumstances at the interviewer's discretion.

Not by any definition ever used. Unemployed has always meant not working but actively looking for work.

Why do you consider the discouraged to be unemployed? What about the rest of the Marginally Attached? or the rest of the ?people who want a job but are not classified as unemployed or discouraged or marginally attached?
Click to expand...

Really?

'Definition: A discouraged worker is an unemployed worker who is not actively seeking employment.'

Discouraged Worker Definition

So no one has ever defined discouraged workers as unemployed...interesting.
 
DA60 said:
Really?

'Definition: A discouraged worker is an unemployed worker who is not actively seeking employment.'

Discouraged Worker Definition

So no one has ever defined discouraged workers as unemployed...interesting.
Click to expand...
No, I said "ever used." An entry in a glossary is not used for any statistical or economic purposes. What country or official stats have ever used discouraged as part of its definition?

And Conservative's claim was that discouraged were part of the US definition of unemployed until 1994.
 
pinqy said:
No, I said "ever used." An entry in a glossary is not used for any statistical or economic purposes. What country or official stats have ever used discouraged as part of its definition?

And Conservative's claim was that discouraged were part of the US definition of unemployed until 1994.
Click to expand...

If someone defines something a certain way AND then someone uses that definition...then that definition has been used.

You statement is wrong in that there have been people who have defined discouraged workers as unemployed...and that definition has been used (by me for one, just now).

You really should learn to avoid using terms like 'ever' or 'never' if you wish to maintain a respectable level of exactitude, IMO.

Ever and never are VERY long times.

Just sayin'...
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
It would be nicer to see how many people remain unemployed. This figure should include not only those drawing unemployment benefits, but also those on welfare, early retirement, and the homeless.

Then there is the figure that seems to remain elusive...those people who are no longer eligible for unemployment, but are also not yet drawing any social welfare funds. This would include people who are living off savings while seeking jobs, returned to school using student loans in hopes of qualifying for better jobs, or young people just entering workforce age and looking for their first job.

Then we can see what effect 195,000 "new" jobs has.

P.S. How about a breakdown of those "new jobs." Like how many are part-time and how many are "Contract" (i.e. temporary worker status) positions. Important distinctions because most part-time and almost all temporay workers remain ineligible for benefits, and their "jobs" are not very stable.
Click to expand...

don't i know it. i was an "independent contractor" for two years at a job i really liked. felt like Pinocchio hoping to be made into a real boy the whole time. of course, it's pretty much true for any new job these days : you're not going to have anywhere near the level of security that your parents had at their jobs, you'll have less ability to negotiate pay, and you might not even have a shot at full time.
 
Unfortunately in these times we the people are not being told the whole story, but rather being led to what either side wants the narrative to be.

Anyone with common sense can drive their town, and see businesses closed, boarded up. They see headlines of "49% of Americans on govt. assistance of some sort." They prices rising, groceries, gas, and nearly everything they have to spend money on to live going up in cost, and they hear from their bosses at work speculation that they don't know if their employer will carry health insurance when the mandates fully kick in, or if they'll even have a job because of the parameters included in such trash regulations like that horrible law.

I don't have to be a statistical genius, or any kind of mathematical whiz to drive around and see strip malls shuttered in entirety, see manufacturing down here idle, see prices of my groceries, my gas, my day to day living all through the roof. I don't have a nickel to spare, and this administration is trying to tell me things are getting better? They can bite my ass.
 
Slyfox696 said:
You really shouldn't waste so much time confusing people with facts. Republicans/conservatives hate facts when said facts have an obvious liberal bias.
Click to expand...

You ought to try and address the actual facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What is it about Obama that creates this kind of loyalty and total lack of understanding as to his economic policies and failures?
 
pinqy said:
No, I said "ever used." An entry in a glossary is not used for any statistical or economic purposes. What country or official stats have ever used discouraged as part of its definition?

And Conservative's claim was that discouraged were part of the US definition of unemployed until 1994.
Click to expand...

BLS data changed during the Clinton administration so rather than continue to word smith posts suggest you focus more on context and the actual results.
 
DA60 said:
If someone defines something a certain way AND then someone uses that definition...then that definition has been used.

You statement is wrong in that there have been people who have defined discouraged workers as unemployed...and that definition has been used (by me for one, just now).
Click to expand...
You really think that such pedantry is more important than relevancy?


[/quote]You really should learn to avoid using terms like 'ever' or 'never' if you wish to maintain a respectable level of exactitude, IMO.

Ever and never are VERY long times.

Just sayin'...[/QUOTE]
I should avoid using those terms but it's ok for you to? That's a little hypocritical, Don't you think?
 
Donc said:
" Obamanomics" seems to be working; as for "Obamacare"it should be junked and a more sensible Medicare for all installed instead...maybe after 2014 thatta start.Higher "higher taxes"?? Seemed to work for BJ didn't it?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yes, it worked for Clinton, gave us a GOP Congress and the rest is history. What is it about Obama that generates this kind of loyalty where people like you pick and choose the data you want to use?
 
You really should learn to avoid using terms like 'ever' or 'never' if you wish to maintain a respectable level of exactitude, IMO.

Ever and never are VERY long times.

Just sayin'...
I should avoid using those terms but it's ok for you to? That's a little hypocritical, Don't you think?
Click to expand...

What I suggest you do is read the bls report on the changes put into place in 1994. In addition this is an educational tool for many here who don't seem to have any concept as to what the various rates of unemployment are and how that unemployment definition has changed. Those that think 195,000 jobs created in an economy with 14.3% total unemployment need a new understanding of reality and just how poor this President's economic policies are.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
 
Donc said:
" Obamanomics" seems to be working; as for "Obamacare"it should be junked and a more sensible Medicare for all installed instead...maybe after 2014 thatta start.Higher "higher taxes"?? Seemed to work for BJ didn't it?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The operative word here for you is "seems" because you buy the rhetoric and ignore the totality of results. 195,000 is a big number for many but not in an economy that has 2 million fewer people employed today than when the recession began in December 2007 and a labor force that doesn't keep up with population growth. It has been over 4 years since the end of the recession and the numbers today are still worse than when the recession began over 6 years ago. I wonder if you would be so complimentary if these numbers were generated by a Repubiican President?
 
pinqy said:
You really think that such pedantry is more important than relevancy?


You really should learn to avoid using terms like 'ever' or 'never' if you wish to maintain a respectable level of exactitude, IMO.

Ever and never are VERY long times.

Just sayin'...
Click to expand...
I should avoid using those terms but it's ok for you to? That's a little hypocritical, Don't you think?
Click to expand...

Hey, if I get it wrong...please point it out...only way I will learn.


As for pedantry...you are one to talk.

Every time a government numbers thread comes up...you seem to always be there nit-picking every, little, tiny mistake everyone makes.
You seem to pay more attention to the minutia rather then what the numbers mean for America.

I honestly get the impression that you come into these threads to partially set the record straight...as you see it.

But mostly to pad your ego.

You are not rude about it...which I give you credit for.

But you are pretty anal on this stuff...that is why I get picky on you.


Now, I will ask you again, is this a good jobs report to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom