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

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

winston53660 said:
Fine have **** heads showing up to your jobs stoned or drunk or whatever. If the job ain't worth it it just ain't. The company gets to pay the price whatever price that is.

It is always the company's fault isn't it? The employees are never at fault and always have the best interest of their employer at heart? No monetary investment, no 24/7 responsibility, no business expenses or taxes to worry about, always the first paid. Is that the way your employees were?

winston53660 · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
It is always the company's fault isn't it?

Did I ever say that?

The employees are never at fault and always have the best interest of their employer at heart? No monetary investment, no 24/7 responsibility, no business expenses or taxes to worry about, always the first paid. Is that the way your employees were?

If one can not handle it do not do it. To wine and and gripe about it though shows alot.

Sheik Yerbuti · Jul 19, 2013

winston53660 said:
Did I ever say that?

If one can not handle it do not do it. To wine and and gripe about it though shows alot.

How funny is it that Conservatives' ideal business model is the Chinese business model?

j-mac · Jul 19, 2013

winston53660 said:
If one can not handle it do not do it. To wine and and gripe about it though shows alot.

This goes both ways....

Sheik Yerbuti said:
How funny is it that Conservatives' ideal business model is the Chinese business model?

Ad hominem, coupled with a strawman argument....This is typical...No one says that companies don't want to provide their employees with decent wages, and incentives to keep employees at that particular company...It costs business more to continually train up new employees to do a job, than it does to keep trained employees from leaving. With that said as an employee, when you get hired, you don't "own" that job. You are there at the pleasure of your employer, and as long as you do a good job at what they hired you for. To obtain a job, then start in with demands of what you expect as if you are in control of what that is worth is ludicrous. If you don't like the pay, or benefit package, find a different employer.

Boo Radley · Jul 19, 2013

j-mac said:
This goes both ways....

Ad hominem, coupled with a strawman argument....This is typical...No one says that companies don't want to provide their employees with decent wages, and incentives to keep employees at that particular company...It costs business more to continually train up new employees to do a job, than it does to keep trained employees from leaving. With that said as an employee, when you get hired, you don't "own" that job. You are there at the pleasure of your employer, and as long as you do a good job at what they hired you for. To obtain a job, then start in with demands of what you expect as if you are in control of what that is worth is ludicrous. If you don't like the pay, or benefit package, find a different employer.

But he does pick the Chinese model. He sees government in control of the economy. There is no way for that to be true other than a model more in line with the Chinese. I admit he doesn't fully understand this or where his logic fails, and he's not alone.. And this is not an attack, but a fail critique of his arguments.

j-mac · Jul 19, 2013

Boo Radley said:
But he does pick the Chinese model. He sees government in control of the economy. There is no way for that to be true other than a model more in line with the Chinese. I admit he doesn't fully understand this or where his logic fails, and he's not alone.. And this is not an attack, but a fail critique of his arguments.

Unfortunately in this day and age, and with the current administration the government acts like it is in control of the economy, except when it comes time to answer for the dismal slow growth due to government policy, and over regulation. Then all of the sudden it is someone elses fault, or heck even blame for ATM's, or the weather....:roll:

It's real easy Joe, you either agree that a free market with minimal regulation is the engine of a free society, or you think that someone owning a business in this country is somehow responsible for "taking care of" the individual they hire, with government there to make sure they do in the name of "fairness".... One is freedom, one is not.

Unitedwestand13 · Jul 19, 2013

j-mac said:
Unfortunately in this day and age, and with the current administration the government acts like it is in control of the economy, except when it comes time to answer for the dismal slow growth due to government policy, and over regulation. Then all of the sudden it is someone elses fault, or heck even blame for ATM's, or the weather....:roll:

It's real easy Joe, you either agree that a free market with minimal regulation is the engine of a free society, or you think that someone owning a business in this country is somehow responsible for "taking care of" the individual they hire, with government there to make sure they do in the name of "fairness".... One is freedom, one is not.

the relationship between the employer and its workers should be one of mutual dependence. a employer depends on his workers in order to run a bussness, and workers depend on the income provided by their employer. one cannot abuse the other.

and what kind of regulations are holding back the economy? what is holding back the banking sector, or the manufacturing sector, or any business in general?

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

Boo Radley said:
But he does pick the Chinese model. He sees government in control of the economy. There is no way for that to be true other than a model more in line with the Chinese. I admit he doesn't fully understand this or where his logic fails, and he's not alone.. And this is not an attack, but a fail critique of his arguments.

Your opinion noted but as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. It is very naïve to believe that a private business owner who cannot print cash isn't influenced by govt. tax and regulation policies. Why would anyone hire an employee today and grow their business with the uncertainties regarding govt. tax policies and the unknown costs of Obamacare. It costs an employer a lot of money to hire and train and employee and then provide them with the pay and benefits required. Do you have any concept as to hiring costs and then yes, firing costs?

You don't know me but you think you do just like you think you are an expert on just about everything. It is more than logical to assume that a private business isn't going to invest more money until govt. economic policies are clearer and costs associated with those policies analyzed. The EPA, NLRB, and the entire Obama administration doesn't have a clue how business works and operates and neither apparently do you.

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

Unitedwestand13 said:
the relationship between the employer and its workers should be one of mutual dependence. a employer depends on his workers in order to run a bussness, and workers depend on the income provided by their employer. one cannot abuse the other.

and what kind of regulations are holding back the economy? what is holding back the banking sector, or the manufacturing sector, or any business in general?

Obamacare, EPA, proposed tax policies. Why would any business person invest their own cash into a business not knowing what future costs are going to be?

j-mac · Jul 19, 2013

Unitedwestand13 said:
the relationship between the employer and its workers should be one of mutual dependence. a employer depends on his workers in order to run a bussness, and workers depend on the income provided by their employer. one cannot abuse the other.

And in a general sense that is correct. But to project that you as an employee can go into a job, then dictate to the employer what you want, and they have to do it or face some sort of smack down by government for not doing so, is laughable...Like I said, you don't 'own' the job....

and what kind of regulations are holding back the economy? what is holding back the banking sector, or the manufacturing sector, or any business in general?

Plenty. In fact you have unwittingly written down three sectors of businesses here that all have separate regulations numbering in the thousands. I am sure you don't want a dissertation on every individual regulation that harms business in this country, and I have no want to lay all that out...If you want to research it yourself, just start with the 80K new regulations instituted last year....That ought to keep you busy for a while.

Unitedwestand13 · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted but as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. It is very naïve to believe that a private business owner who cannot print cash isn't influenced by govt. tax and regulation policies. Why would anyone hire an employee today and grow their business with the uncertainties regarding govt. tax policies and the unknown costs of Obamacare. It costs an employer a lot of money to hire and train and employee and then provide them with the pay and benefits required. Do you have any concept as to hiring costs and then yes, firing costs?

You don't know me but you think you do just like you think you are an expert on just about everything. It is more than logical to assume that a private business isn't going to invest more money until govt. economic policies are clearer and costs associated with those policies analyzed. The EPA, NLRB, and the entire Obama administration doesn't have a clue how business works and operates and neither apparently do you.

why would any buissness invest right now with a congress that cannot pass any legislation or do anything to prevent the cuts caused by sequestration and are doing nothing to address the debt ceiling or other important pieces of legislation?

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

Unitedwestand13 said:
why would any buissness invest right now with a congress that cannot pass any legislation or do anything to prevent the cuts caused by sequestration and are doing nothing to address the debt ceiling or other important pieces of legislation?

Name for me the legislation that Congress is stonewalling that will help private sector economic growth? Have you been looking in Harry Reid's desk at those bills passed by the House that he won't let get to the floor of the Senate for debate?

Do you realize how brainwashed you are, addressing the debt ceiling? How about addressing spending and let that handle the debt ceiling. You really believe we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt?

Unitedwestand13 · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
Name for me the legislation that Congress is stonewalling that will help private sector economic growth? Have you been looking in Harry Reid's desk at those bills passed by the House that he won't let get to the floor of the Senate for debate?

Do you realize how brainwashed you are, addressing the debt ceiling? How about addressing spending and let that handle the debt ceiling. You really believe we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt?

the house has passed "jobs" bills, the senate has passed "jobs" bills. here is an idea, why not go into conference committee to reconcile any differences between the house and senate bills. or would that require actually compromising.

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

Unitedwestand13 said:
the house has passed "jobs" bills, the senate has passed "jobs" bills. here is an idea, why not go into conference committee to reconcile any differences between the house and senate bills. or would that require actually compromising.

In order to go to conference committee the Senate has to at least review the House bills. It takes two to compromise and House bills sitting in Reid's desk isn't a way to compromise

Unitedwestand13 · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
In order to go to conference committee the Senate has to at least review the House bills. It takes two to compromise and House bills sitting in Reid's desk isn't a way to compromise

considering the house has sent 39 bills all repealing Obamacare in some form or another, that will be one of the things taken out by the senate because none of the bills sent to the house have repealing obamacare in their bills.

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

Unitedwestand13 said:
considering the house has sent 39 bills all repealing Obamacare in some form or another, that will be one of the things taken out by the senate because none of the bills sent to the house have repealing obamacare in their bills.

That is the typical liberal argument when confronted with the reality that Reid is sitting on Passed House bills NONE OF WHICH DEAL WITH OBAMACARE. Get your facts and stop buying what you are told.

Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

winston53660 · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
That is the typical liberal argument when confronted with the reality that Reid is sitting on Passed House bills NONE OF WHICH DEAL WITH OBAMACARE. Get your facts and stop buying what you are told.

Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

Okay lets take a look at one of these bills:

H.R 872 carries these CRS index terms: environmental protection, administrative law and regulatory procedures, agricultural pests, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental regulatory procedures, hazardous wastes and toxic substances, licensing and registrations, state and local government operations and water quality

.

Okay where is the mention of jobs?

Now lets see what an actual expert has to say. Not some hyperbolic blow hard idealogical am radio parrot on the internetz.

put the question to Otto Doering, a professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University and a widely recognized farm policy and public policy specialist.

"I know the bill very well," he told us, adding that it had his support. Opposed by some environmentalists, it would "correct" a federal court decision declaring that a farmer spraying pesticide on a field, where the spray could reach a stream, would be required to meet extra Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

Doering argues the bill has nothing to do with employment. "If anything, not passing the bill would create employment by requiring a whole new mess of regulators and inspectors and people out there."
PolitiFact | Defining just what constitutes a 'jobs bill'

Boo Radley · Jul 19, 2013

j-mac said:
Unfortunately in this day and age, and with the current administration the government acts like it is in control of the economy, except when it comes time to answer for the dismal slow growth due to government policy, and over regulation. Then all of the sudden it is someone elses fault, or heck even blame for ATM's, or the weather....:roll:

It's real easy Joe, you either agree that a free market with minimal regulation is the engine of a free society, or you think that someone owning a business in this country is somehow responsible for "taking care of" the individual they hire, with government there to make sure they do in the name of "fairness".... One is freedom, one is not.

Actually, you're factually wrong on both counts. You largely are merely spewing the poisonous propaganda from mindless talking heads and partisans who can't see that when their side does the exact same thing is all of the sudden market driven. Also, next no economy in the world today is purely capitalistic nor socialistic. They use different mixed forms which are actually something else altogether. Only the blind see one or the other.

Furthermore, there are real, tangible, and rational reasons why this is. Pure forms also have problems. And often lack the flexibility to handle serious problems that transpire. A pragmatic approach recognizes this and seeks to make proper adjustments where possible. But even with such a problem solving approach, the government can only go so far, unless you're China. We cannot outlaw out sourcing fir example. Understanding where government doesn't have control of any kind is important. It is also important to understand if government had complete control, like in China, there would Ben no regulations. None. So, to get what you want concerning regulations, you have to have government run business, or at least a government willing to ignore and not respond to the citizens of this country. So, again, many are not thinking it through. They merely choose a IDE and spew vomit without thought.

Boo Radley · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted but as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. It is very naïve to believe that a private business owner who cannot print cash isn't influenced by govt. tax and regulation policies. Why would anyone hire an employee today and grow their business with the uncertainties regarding govt. tax policies and the unknown costs of Obamacare. It costs an employer a lot of money to hire and train and employee and then provide them with the pay and benefits required. Do you have any concept as to hiring costs and then yes, firing costs?

You don't know me but you think you do just like you think you are an expert on just about everything. It is more than logical to assume that a private business isn't going to invest more money until govt. economic policies are clearer and costs associated with those policies analyzed. The EPA, NLRB, and the entire Obama administration doesn't have a clue how business works and operates and neither apparently do you.

Read my response to j. He's better than you at responding. Upgrade at least that far.

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Read my response to j. He's better than you at responding. Upgrade at least that far.

He is indeed outstanding. You on the other hand.............?

Sheik Yerbuti · Jul 19, 2013

j-mac said:
This goes both ways....

Ad hominem, coupled with a strawman argument....This is typical...No one says that companies don't want to provide their employees with decent wages, and incentives to keep employees at that particular company...It costs business more to continually train up new employees to do a job, than it does to keep trained employees from leaving. With that said as an employee, when you get hired, you don't "own" that job. You are there at the pleasure of your employer, and as long as you do a good job at what they hired you for. To obtain a job, then start in with demands of what you expect as if you are in control of what that is worth is ludicrous. If you don't like the pay, or benefit package, find a different employer.

Holy ****! :doh

How do you see ad-hominem or strawmen where there is none??

Do you see dead people too?

Sheik Yerbuti · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted but as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. It is very naïve to believe that a private business owner who cannot print cash isn't influenced by govt. tax and regulation policies. Why would anyone hire an employee today and grow their business with the uncertainties regarding govt. tax policies and the unknown costs of Obamacare. It costs an employer a lot of money to hire and train and employee and then provide them with the pay and benefits required. Do you have any concept as to hiring costs and then yes, firing costs?

You don't know me but you think you do just like you think you are an expert on just about everything. It is more than logical to assume that a private business isn't going to invest more money until govt. economic policies are clearer and costs associated with those policies analyzed. The EPA, NLRB, and the entire Obama administration doesn't have a clue how business works and operates and neither apparently do you.

I doubt anyone can explain how it is you think the Obama administration doesn't have a clue how business works given we're now into the 40th consecutive month of private sector growth where 7.2 million jobs have been created under the very policies you criticize hourly. Seems you're the one who's clueless, not Obama.

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I doubt anyone can explain how it is you think the Obama administration doesn't have a clue how business works given we're now into the 40th consecutive month of private sector growth where 7.2 million jobs have been created under the very policies you criticize hourly. Seems you're the one who's clueless, not Obama.

Yes, only in the liberal world is 7.2 million jobs created leaving 2 million less than when the recession started a strong economic performance but then again wage slaves always have such low expectations of everyone else including themselves.

Sheik Yerbuti · Jul 19, 2013

Conservative said:
Yes, only in the liberal world is 7.2 million jobs created leaving 2 million less than when the recession started a strong economic performance but then again wage slaves always have such low expectations of everyone else including themselves.

Nice attempt to try and change the subject, but you fail. You claim the "Obama administration doesn't have a clue how business works." If that were true, there wouldn't have been a net gain of 7.2 million jobs over the last 40 months.

And by the way, aren't you a man of your word? You said you were done with me? Why are you still posting to me then?

Conservative · Jul 19, 2013

I do hope people are paying attention to the lies of the left. Here are the employment numbers that tell the rest of the story with regardless to the distorted information given to you by Obama supporters. 7.2 million jobs created!!! Wow, incredible number, isn't it? Too bad that it is up 2 million since Obama took office and still down two million from when the recession began and all at the bargain price of over 6.2 trillion added to the debt.

Hope the following helps some here to realize how little credibility Obama supporters have when it comes to the economic numbers they post. Liberals seem to have such low expectations and such a poor understanding of economic policies.

November 2007 Employment, 146.6 million people working
January 2009, 142.2 million people working
July 2013, 144.1 million people working

Yes, that is a liberal success story, hiring someone to get the employment level back to 146.6 million and getting employment back to 144.1 million

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146397 146157 146108 146130 145929 145738 145530 145196 145059 144792 144078 143328
2009 142187 141660 140754 140654 140294 140003 139891 139458 138775 138401 138607 137968
2010 138500 138665 138836 139306 139340 139137 139139 139338 139344 139072 138937 139220
2011 139330 139551 139764 139628 139808 139385 139450 139754 140107 140297 140614 140790
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058