• 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%

It's actually because I've already answered it twice, including in a post he later quoted. Proof provided below.

You replied to one of my posts in which I answered it. Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

Aww, hell, I'm tired of your trolling and/or laziness. I'll even circle the relevant part, because I'm not sure if you possess what's necessary to find it on your own.

View attachment 67150098

View attachment 67150099


So either you obviously lack reading comprehension or you were trolling. Neither one would surprise me.

The authoritarian credo is kinda hard to shake. That’s why I said its notta yes or no question. Our world is mostly shades of grey,not black or white.Sadly the Don Quixote’s of the world will continue flailing at the yes or no windmills.:2wave:
 
The authoritarian credo is kinda hard to shake. That’s why I said its notta yes or no question.
It's really not. Most things related to politics are not simple, but it is customary for Americans to want to reduce them into simplistic terms. But then you have people like DA, who love to be deceptive and misrepresent positions, who asks what appears to be a simplistic question, but is really designed to launch into a more complex/detailed tirade.

The more detailed answer is that while this is not an ideal or perfect jobs report, it certainly is better than a report which shows losses and this report is generally taken as a continued sign of an improving economy.
Our world is mostly shades of grey,not black or white.Sadly the Don Quixote’s of the world will continue flailing at the yes or no windmills.:2wave:
Because they don't wish to debate honestly. Even now, look at where he just admitted he repeatedly asked a question he didn't care to read, and wouldn't have discovered (despite me posting it two times previously) if he had taken the time to look. It's just blatant dishonesty and I consider it a lack of integrity in debating.

Even though I truly enjoy talking politics, it's people like him who ruin it for those interested an honest intellectual discussion.
 
During the Bush term the labor force increased by almost 11 million, during the Obama 5 yeas the labor force has increased 1.5 million.
Please address my actual post. True or False: Is the Labor Force currently increasing or decreasing? You seem to have been claiming it's decreasing.

Oh, and where on earth are you getting the idea that the number of discouraged is only the number who became discouraged that month? It makes no sense to reach that conclusion.
 
Please address my actual post. True or False: Is the Labor Force currently increasing or decreasing? You seem to have been claiming it's decreasing.

Oh, and where on earth are you getting the idea that the number of discouraged is only the number who became discouraged that month? It makes no sense to reach that conclusion.

Yes, the labor force is increasing as it should due to population growth. The problem is the labor force isn't keeping up with the population growth including people entering the work force. Discouraged workers is a monthly number not a cumulative one.
 
Yes, the labor force is increasing as it should due to population growth. The problem is the labor force isn't keeping up with the population growth including people entering the work force.
You seem to be making a distinction between labor force and work force, so I'm not sure you understand what the definition of the labor force is. What difference are you making between labor formce and work force? Oh, and for the last few months, the Labor Force has increased more than population growth.

Discouraged workers is a monthly number not a cumulative one.
It is a monthly snapshot of the number of discouraged, yes, but it is NOT the number who became discouraged that month. Again, where are you getting that idea and why is that one number the number of new people in the category, when every other number in the report is the level that month?

And further: May showed 780,000 Discouraged. What do you think those who still had not searched for work were classified as in June if not Discouraged?
 
Last edited:
It is a monthly snapshot of the number of discouraged, yes, but it is NOT the number who became discouraged that month. Again, where are you getting that idea and why is that one number the number of new people in the category, when every other number in the report is the level that month?

I am not going to play this academia game of yours with definitions but stand by my posts. Labor force is the number of people eligible to work and work force is the employment numbers as I am using them. I have had numerous conversations with BLS and understand that the Obama numbers are a disaster and support for those numbers show the dumbing down of this country. Obama supporters simply cannot admit they are wrong. Don't know if you are an Obama supporter or not nor do I care. What I do care about are the number of unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers that has remained high during the entire Obama term, the slow growth in the labor force, the lack of incentive for the private sector to grow jobs, and the roadblocks Obama has implemented that hurts private business

This country has a 2% GDP growth, slow labor force growth, high debt, puny job creation and Obama gets a pass. That is the point that I will continue to drive this home
 
I am not going to play this academia game of yours with definitions but stand by my posts.
The problem is that when you use technical terms incorrectly, including in a colloquial use, your statements will be confusing. You can't expect someone to understand you if you're not using the proper terms.

Labor force is the number of people eligible to work
What does "eligible to work" mean? The Labor Force is and has always been defined as Employed plus Unemployed, where unemployed is defined as wants to work, available to work, and actively looking for work.

and work force is the employment numbers as I am using them.
then why not say "employed?" Work force is often used interchangeably with labor force.

I have had numerous conversations with BLS
Not as many as I have, and you don't appear to understand them if you keep insisting that Discouraged is only the people who became discouraged that month.

Of course there are many problems with the current state of the labor force, but you only confuse things with improper terminology and misunderstanding of the most basic concepts.
 
pinqy;1062029819]The problem is that when you use technical terms incorrectly, including in a colloquial use, your statements will be confusing. You can't expect someone to understand you if you're not using the proper terms.


What does "eligible to work" mean? The Labor Force is and has always been defined as Employed plus Unemployed.


then why not say "employed?" Work force is often used interchangeably with labor force.

Aw, yes, basic concepts and numbers like 14.3% U-6, 177,000 fewer people unemployed today over four years after Obama took office and before adding 6.2 trillion to the debt, 2% GDP growth coming off a terrible recession, a labor force that hasn't kept up with population growth, people accepting unemployment benefits for two years and then stop looking for work. Yes, the actual data shows what people in the real world understand, Obama's record is a disaster and yet people still support the empty suit.

Discouraged workers are not counted as unemployed regardless of when they became discouraged. That is the important part of the equation and in June that number was over a million and that is the number that isn't included in the unemployment number. What is the true unemployment for June? Whether it is a million discouraged, 950,000, or 900,000 it is too high which is being ignored. People aren't motivated to find a job, any job, and when they do today it is going to be predominantly a part time job. That isn't the foundation upon which our economy was built.

Reality sucks to a liberal and Obama supporter.
 
I am not going to play this academia game of yours with definitions but stand by my posts. Labor force is the number of people eligible to work and work force is the employment numbers as I am using them. I have had numerous conversations with BLS and understand that the Obama numbers are a disaster and support for those numbers show the dumbing down of this country. Obama supporters simply cannot admit they are wrong. Don't know if you are an Obama supporter or not nor do I care. What I do care about are the number of unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers that has remained high during the entire Obama term, the slow growth in the labor force, the lack of incentive for the private sector to grow jobs, and the roadblocks Obama has implemented that hurts private business

This country has a 2% GDP growth, slow labor force growth, high debt, puny job creation and Obama gets a pass. That is the point that I will continue to drive this home

Here's the problem, the jobs simply are no longer here, the wealth of our nation is literally being sucked out from us. What's left will be concentrated to a few.

US Trade Deficit: How Our Negative Balance of Trade is Harming the Recovery

America has tallied a $6.75 trillion net exports deficit since 2000. No matter your view on American trade policy, $6.75 trillion in reduced GDP cost this country the equivalent of over 3% in annual growth for over a decade and millions of potential jobs.

Net exports are the value of a nation’s total exports minus its total imports one of the components used in measuring gross domestic product.

GDP = C + I + G + Net exports

For decades, economic analysts have disagreed over the impact of net exports on a nation’s financial well being. Some economists believe that a trade surplus creates employment and increases GDP growth. Others believe that the balance of trade has little impact.

America has not had a trade surplus since 1974. The following chart based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Division traces the recent history of America’s trade deficit.

d86e1186454c94217f6ee6c451ec77be.png
p

 
Here's the problem, the jobs simply are no longer here, the wealth of our nation is literally being sucked out from us. What's left will be concentrated to a few.

US Trade Deficit: How Our Negative Balance of Trade is Harming the Recovery

America has tallied a $6.75 trillion net exports deficit since 2000. No matter your view on American trade policy, $6.75 trillion in reduced GDP cost this country the equivalent of over 3% in annual growth for over a decade and millions of potential jobs.

Net exports are the value of a nation’s total exports minus its total imports one of the components used in measuring gross domestic product.

GDP = C + I + G + Net exports

For decades, economic analysts have disagreed over the impact of net exports on a nation’s financial well being. Some economists believe that a trade surplus creates employment and increases GDP growth. Others believe that the balance of trade has little impact.

America has not had a trade surplus since 1974. The following chart based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Division traces the recent history of America’s trade deficit.

d86e1186454c94217f6ee6c451ec77be.png
p


Population continues to grow, the service industry continues to grow, new industries continue to crop up. The race to mediocrity by liberals will never be accepted by a good leader. A good leader will take the hand he is dealt and play it to the best of his ability. We have seen how Obama plays the hand, poorly, placing blame, never cheerleading the greatness of America, or implementing pro growth economic policies. Barack Obama shows what happens when you put a community agitator into a position of leadership. Cheerleaders in his camp will trumpet numbers like we got last month ignoring the reality of those numbers and the very poor example Obama is setting for the country. He is a perfect example of what good leadership isn't.
 
Population continues to grow, the service industry continues to grow, new industries continue to crop up. The race to mediocrity by liberals will never be accepted by a good leader. A good leader will take the hand he is dealt and play it to the best of his ability. We have seen how Obama plays the hand, poorly, placing blame, never cheerleading the greatness of America, or implementing pro growth economic policies. Barack Obama shows what happens when you put a community agitator into a position of leadership. Cheerleaders in his camp will trumpet numbers like we got last month ignoring the reality of those numbers and the very poor example Obama is setting for the country. He is a perfect example of what good leadership isn't.

You don't create real wealth with service, you create real wealth by taking raw materials adding labor to create goods. Adam Smith. Thats what capitalism is, and what made us a great nation. You simply don't realize that, you would rather trash the guy in the WH, That's understood.
 
You don't create real wealth with service, you create real wealth by taking raw materials adding labor to create goods. Adam Smith. Thats what capitalism is, and what made us a great nation. You simply don't realize that, you would rather trash the guy in the WH, That's understood.

You create wealth by creating services that people want, i.e. Facebook. You have such a narrow minded view of the economy and what leadership is. Wonder if you would have the same outlook if these were a Republican numbers vs. a Democrat? Capitalism made this country great, too bad liberals and Obama are trying to destroy it? You think demonizing individual wealth creation helps capitalism? You think that things like Obamacare, more regulations, and higher taxes promote capitalism? You think having people dependent on the govt. promotes capitalism?

I trash the guy in the WH because he lacks the leadership and executive experience to be there. Sometimes it takes a leader to cheerlead and Obama would rather blame someone else vs cheerleading the workers in this economy
 
Are we talking about buildings...or employment?

I know you have to keep going on and on, taking multiple swings at the same point, reviewing and trying to find a crack for your wedge, but again it is all just dishonest argument.

Actually, what is evident to all, is your dishonest argument.

I posted a quite factual, and quite literal, statement claiming thousands of FACTORIES had closed since FDR. If you checked the post I was replying to, FACTORIES was used in the claim.

You, quite dishonestly, perverted that statment into something about EMPLOYMENT, which I never mentioned.

When you learn to debate, I might consider investing more time doing so. In the mean time, I see no point.
 
Wonder if you would have the same outlook if these were a Republican numbers vs. a Democrat?
I can't speak for pbrauer, but I would have the exact same outlook. But you wouldn't, you would be praising these numbers as if we were on the cusp of the second coming of the Clinton economy...errr...Reagan economy.

Sorry to interject, I just thought it was funny that YOU made that statement.
 
Last edited:
OK... back to EMPLOYMENT.

I suppose one could now go absolutist and argue that "jobs were lost" in a discussion about US manufacturing, but as I made clear, the level of employment remained steady until 2000. I did not say the same people held the same jobs in manufacturing....so I guess you have that dishonest out also.

Now you understand.

When you learn to control your bias, you will be able to read what somebody has posted, rather than allow your brain to insert what isn't there.
 
I can't speak for pbrauer, but I would have the exact same outlook. But you wouldn't, you would be praising these numbers as if we were on the cusp of the second coming of the Clinton economy.

Sorry to interject, I just thought it was funny that YOU made that statement.

Aw, yes, such positive attitude and understanding about our economy. Your opinion noted. You have no way of knowing that but logic and common sense says you are wrong. No Republican would have proposed Obamacare, a stimulus program that simply rewarded unions and pro liberal states, higher taxes on producers, and more regulations that prevented private sector growth.

I suggest you look at what led to that Clinton economy you Obama supporters want to tout. Obama is no Clinton for Obama has no idea how to compromise. I find it amazing how you tout an economic performance that you don't understand. Have you ever heard of the Contract with America? How much of that did Clinton sign?
 
Why do we have so many people here trying to change history and ignoring why we have the problems we have today and the lack of leadership to solve them. It might help if we had a President who understood the foundation upon which this country was built. We now have an ideology that is trying to change that foundation.

walk
 
Businesses don't produce things they can't sell. Hence this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_utilization) is really a function of available consumption.

As for how, supply side economics moves money from the consumer class to the investor class to fix stagflation. Demand side economics moves it back.

Business produces things they hope they can sell. Demand is created all the time. If business only produced what they can sell, innovation wouldn't exist. That's the flaw with the current emphasis on demand. The never ending chicken/egg argument.

Obviously, a company doesn't want dead inventory, but it happens. Many manufacturers sell products at a loss, so that other products they produce can be sold at a sufficient profit to benefit the entire enterprise.

Think about it, the automobile was a gamble, as was the personal computer. Cells phones carried enormous risk, considering mobile phones had existed for some time prior to companies "betting the farm" with investments in cell towers and the rest of the required infrastructure.

Capital sitting idle is the worst thing for a company, it must be put to work. But why are so many sitting on such big profits? The demand siders would suggest they need to pay their workers more, and hire a bunch of people so demand will pick up, and the economy will grow.

With so much economic uncertainty, why would a company do that? Obamacare is real, and it's a major concern. Energy continues to be a variable that is a significant issue.

At present, it takes @$300,000 in revenue to sucessfully cover the annual cost of an employee being paid $15+/hr. Do you know how much it costs to raise revenue by $300,000?

Lot's of variables that charts, and theories, and statistics have a difficult time defining.
 
Why do we have so many people here trying to change history and ignoring why we have the problems we have today and the lack of leadership to solve them. It might help if we had a President who understood the foundation upon which this country was built. We now have an ideology that is trying to change that foundation.

walk

I think you're projecting. :coffeepap
 
I can't speak for pbrauer, but I would have the exact same outlook. But you wouldn't, you would be praising these numbers as if we were on the cusp of the second coming of the Clinton economy...errr...Reagan economy.

Sorry to interject, I just thought it was funny that YOU made that statement.

So, if a Rep was in the WH and the jobs report showed only 2 new jobs created (which you said was a good report) - would you still call that a good report?

Yes or no, please?
 
Thinking is not equal to being.

What exactly in that video is wrong? Have you ever been to D.C? The history of our country is there and you can interpret it your way all the time but you cannot change it. This country wasn't built on the economic and social principles of Obama and the economic results show total failure. You are entitled to your own opinion but you aren't entitled to your own facts. I am so sorry but liberalism outlived its usefulness decades ago but dies hard. A much weaker country couldn't survive decades of trying to re-write history and fundamentally changing this country. It is just taking a little longer to destroy it and remake it into that perceived liberal utopia. Funny how liberal nations really aren't utopias
 
Back
Top Bottom