• 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!

US unemployment lowest in 4 years

Misterveritis said:
I read the article and the underlying article it relied upon. Does it strike you as odd that they selected those particular values? Mid wage for example runs from $28,766 to $43,950. It is almost as if they had an agenda and backed into the categories that would "make it so."


Really? So that roughly 4-6% unemployment for 7.5 years out of his eight was pretty bad? And the roughly 8% unemployment throughout all of the Marxist's regime is no doubt much better, right?

The highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last month at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 7.6%. Of course it really helps to have the state-run media on your side.



We should try an experiment. Let's declare an end to ObamaCare and Frank-Dodd. Let's roll back all regulations to those written and approved in 2001. If the economy gets way better in four years, say unemployment back to 4.5% then let's eliminate the job killing regulations permanently. And let's quietly agree that we will never, ever again allow a Marxist back into the White House, even if we call him a liberal, a progressive or whatever new term people of his ilk use to hide behind. If it does not improve then...never mind. It will improve.



Really? So public sector unions were not made whole for three years out of the so-called stimulus funds?
Click to expand...

Your post is not worth my time. It's all partisan crap.
 
Misterveritis said:
You have misunderstood.

This is not correct: " We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%."

It is not even close. Correct is, "of the job losses 60% were mid wage where the numbers were pulled out of my, er, uh, hat at $28,766 to $43,950 in order to match my agenda."

Over half of the recovery has been for jobs earning less than $28,766. Can we all say thank you to the Marxist? He is creating equality of both opportunity and outcome as all Marxists do, at the low end.
Click to expand...

More garbage. Moving along to do something more productive.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Proof that business needs government helping hand to start?
Here's mine that shows that is not necessarily true at all: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

That so called govt. help is allowing them to keep more of what they earn and not be forced to spend money on Obamacare. Businesses cannot print money and govt. can hurt business a lot, staying out of the way would promote the greatness this country as to offer. Hiring and firing expenses seem to be a foreign concept to you just like normal business operating expenses. Get a Business P&L and learn how businesses operate and then ask yourself is govt. helping or hurting Business with higher taxes and Obamacare?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That number of "new" jobs sounds wonderful until you consider that over 336,000 people in the US turned 18 in that month.

How many people turn 18 each year in US
Click to expand...

People don't just automatically enter the work force at 18 anymore. The number of college freshmen rises nearly every year, if I'm not mistaken. Some of those freshmen work, but many do not.
 
Conservative said:
That so called govt. help is allowing them to keep more of what they earn and not be forced to spend money on Obamacare. Businesses cannot print money and govt. can hurt business a lot, staying out of the way would promote the greatness this country as to offer. Hiring and firing expenses seem to be a foreign concept to you just like normal business operating expenses. Get a Business P&L and learn how businesses operate and then ask yourself is govt. helping or hurting Business with higher taxes and Obamacare?
Click to expand...

Private industry jobs started dying off before Obama took office so you can't blame it entirely on Obamacare.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Private industry jobs started dying off before Obama took office so you can't blame it entirely on Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, now stop carrying the water for this empty incompetent and realize what he is doing to the private sector. It isn't about Obamacare, it is about OBAMA. The numbers just don't support your point of view.
 
Conservative said:
Your opinion noted, now stop carrying the water for this empty incompetent and realize what he is doing to the private sector. It isn't about Obamacare, it is about OBAMA. The numbers just don't support your point of view.
Click to expand...

Here we go again with more partisan crap.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Your post is not worth my time. It's all partisan crap.
Click to expand...
Really? So the numbers are wrong then? Or do you realize that they fail to fit your agenda?

Overall real GDP from January 2001 through December 2008 grew at an average annual rate of 2.125%.[68] From 2001 through 2004, GDP growth was clocked at 2.35%. The number of jobs created grew by 6.5% on average. The growth in average salaries was 1.2%.​

I suppose these are all bad too. I wonder what the Marxist's numbers are. Interestingly the wikipedia that had numbers for Bush have nothing for the Marxist. Economic policy of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, there is this:

Overall, according to EPI, the job seekers-to-job openings ratio was 3.1:1 in April. While that's down from the peak of 6.7:1 in July 2009, it's still about twice what it was in the middle of 2007, just before the recession hit.
With the recession having been over since June 2009, the Obama administration has had plenty of time to restore the country's employment health. We should have been booming by now.
But the jobs haven't materialized. In the previous nine recessions before this last one, it took an average of just 24 months to regain all the jobs lost. However, it will take about 80 months — almost seven years — for the country to regain all the jobs lost in the last recession if we continue at Obama's crawling job-creation pace.
In short, don't blame this jobless recovery on bad luck. Blame White House policies.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: White House's Economic Policies Ensure Recovery Will Be Jobless - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook​
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Private industry jobs started dying off before Obama took office so you can't blame it entirely on Obamacare.
Click to expand...
Can you show is with actual numbers?

When did the massive job loss occur. Wasn't it the month the Marxist was elected? Can we say yes it was?
 
Earlier I wrote, "You have misunderstood.

This is not correct: " We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%."

It is not even close. Correct is, "of the job losses 60% were mid wage where the numbers were pulled out of my, er, uh, hat at $28,766 to $43,950 in order to match my agenda."

Over half of the recovery has been for jobs earning less than $28,766. Can we all say thank you to the Marxist? He is creating equality of both opportunity and outcome as all Marxists do, at the low end." To which you, for reasons know only to you replied,

rabbitcaebannog said:
More garbage. Moving along to do something more productive.
Click to expand...

So you cannot recognize your simple error?

Do you really believe we lost 60% of all of the jobs between 29K and 44K? LOL. How many jobs are there?
In October 2008, the month before the Marxist won the election there were about 155 million jobs. Is this approximately correct? How many of those were mid-wage? Shall we guess about half or 70 million jobs. Is this an acceptable number for you? If so are you claiming that the US shed 60% of those jobs or 42 million jobs?

If you believe these numbers are correct why hasn't there been a rebellion?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Here we go again with more partisan crap.
Click to expand...

You are so right, posting data over and over again is partisan bs especially with this President and his supporters. Neither you or he seem to understand that results matter not rhetoric and leaders are responsible for results either good or bad. In Obama's case the numbers are terrible as are his leadership skills.
 
Misterveritis said:
Can you show is with actual numbers?

When did the massive job loss occur. Wasn't it the month the Marxist was elected? Can we say yes it was?
Click to expand...

If you're blaming only Obamacare you're being foolish. Of course it has contributed, but so has the other garbage regulation that's been put into effect. So has the massively destabilizing force of the Fed's monetary policy. You can't build capital with easy money.
 
Higgins86 said:
BBC News - US employment up by 162,000 in July



The US economy added 162,000 new jobs in July.

This was below economists' expectations of more than 180,000 and the government also cut its previous estimates for hiring in May and June.

Nonetheless, the new jobs helped the unemployment rate to fall to 7.4%.





overall positive for the US economy hopefully this is a sign of recovery worldwide.
Click to expand...

Its too bad that the majority of them are PART-TIME jobs.
 
Misterveritis said:
Earlier I wrote, "You have misunderstood.

This is not correct: " We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%."

It is not even close. Correct is, "of the job losses 60% were mid wage where the numbers were pulled out of my, er, uh, hat at $28,766 to $43,950 in order to match my agenda.
Click to expand...

And, what agenda is that exactly? Those numbers aren't looking so good so er, uh, hat someone who doesn't like Obama? I already mentioned most of the job recovery was in low wage jobs so I've no idea what your point is for correcting me.
 
The U-3 Statistics is a very bad indicator of where the country is at in a recovery. The reason for this is that it has a habit of giving the opposite impression of the actual job situation.

If a large number of people give up looking for work or retire we can see the unemployment rate drop, but that isn't a good thing in either case. What we see in the recession/recovery is an increase in early retirement, which is a brain drain on the country's employment base, and a net drop in productivity. This is especially troublesome given that many companies and the government cut payroll by promoting upwards to fill these vacated jobs and simply close the middle or low management vacancies the promotion creates. They don't have to fire anyone, they just cut off paths for advancement.

On the flip side, when the economy starts to surge back we will likely see a lot of early retirees deciding to get back into the market along with a lot of people who just gave up. This surge in people looking for work will lead to a spike in unemployment.

In short, the U-3 numbers are really pretty useless for their intended purpose and anyone you hear quoting them, without discussing the underlying numbers in depth, thinks you are an idiot or they are one themselves.
 
jmotivator said:
In short, the U-3 numbers are really pretty useless for their intended purpose
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the intended purpose. The purpose is to measure the amount of available labor not being used. If people drop putt of the labor force, they're no longer available, but if they start looking, they are.

I'm not sure what you think an unemployment rate should measure.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
WTF is that suppose to mean!?
Click to expand...


What matters are the 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, the 6.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 5 years, the stagnant economic growth, massive dependence on the taxpayers for welfare assistance, and the total incompetence in foreign and economic affairs. Results matter, not rhetoric
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True, yet if PPACA is not part of the solution then it is part of the problem. ;)
Click to expand...

I have many issues with PPACA which I won't get into here because it's not fair to hijack a thread. That does not address a trend I'm seeing with jobs. I made mention of a great article by Bartlett but didn't receive much feedback. Perhaps, I will start my own thread.
 
pinqy said:
You don't seem to understand the intended purpose. The purpose is to measure the amount of available labor not being used. If people drop putt of the labor force, they're no longer available, but if they start looking, they are.

I'm not sure what you think an unemployment rate should measure.
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't understand the statistic. The fact that it doesn't include marginally attached or discouraged workers and completely misses the difference between retirees and those forced into early retirement -- all of these people that the U-3 doesn't track would, if available, take a job -- it doesn't track labor available like you think it does. The fact that it doesn't track all these types of workers is why it is a poor indicator.
 
Conservative said:
What matters are the 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, the 6.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 5 years, the stagnant economic growth, massive dependence on the taxpayers for welfare assistance, and the total incompetence in foreign and economic affairs. Results matter, not rhetoric
Click to expand...

All these issues (unemployment, debt, stagnant economy, massive poverty and inequality) that are on a much larger scale than just the US. It has to do with globalization and until we address the real issue and leave behind the partisan hackery nothing will ever really get resolved.
 
pinqy said:
You don't seem to understand the intended purpose. The purpose is to measure the amount of available labor not being used. If people drop putt of the labor force, they're no longer available, but if they start looking, they are.

I'm not sure what you think an unemployment rate should measure.
Click to expand...

Not available? Why? Are you saying that those which have given up looking for a job because there are really none out there that match the basket of freebies that Obama has made easier to get, means that somehow they are not able? I think that is false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom