Page 110 of 128 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110111112120 ... LastLast
Results 1,091 to 1,100 of 1274

Thread: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

  1. #1091
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Have you noticed the title of this thread?

    GDP for the quarter was a disappointment, largely weather-related. We'll just have to hope for better ones ahead.
    The title of this thread refers to March's job numbers (old news), not April's (latest numbers). My job loss numbers are for April.

    Two, 'largely, weather related' can mean almost anything. More then half of the U.S. population is not even affected by snow. The bad GDP numbers were partially affected by the weather, not caused exclusively by the weather.

    Three, the consumer spending numbers are for April...and have little/nothing to do with the bad winter weather.

    The economy as of April, sucks. I am not saying it won't pick up (especially if the Fed slows the taper). But as of April, it sucks.
    Last edited by DA60; 05-14-14 at 08:01 AM.

  2. #1092
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    All true. Why do you say it would be better?

    >>Sorry, something stinks in the data.

    No need to be sorry. Conditions are what they are.

    >>We also have a lower percentage of the able workforce working.

    Very marginally lower, and has little impact.

    >>If things were as good as they say, this economy should be steamrolling along at a hell of a lot more than a 2% average growth.

    Again, what do you base that on?
    Turn off the Federal Reserve pumping money into the economy and we'll see how good Obama's policies are.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #1093
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,306

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Weirmar was invaded by France because they were defaulting on their war reparations. France shut down the manufacturing segment in Weirmare, and prices rapidly increased due to not having ample goods to satisfy demand.

    Every single instance of hyperinflation that has ever existed was caused by some sort of shortage in supply.

    What does that have to do with our situation? You expected to get invaded by France?
    We don't need an outside force invading, we have one within.... The folly that a service based economy can work without having manufacturing jobs that produce a solid middle income in this country is a pipe dream of the liberal left since the 60s, and their tax policies show it....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #1094
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,306

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    All true. Why do you say it would be better?
    It is really easy for those of us who lived through the last time we had a suck economy like this (the Carter years)...It took a couple of years for Reagan to reverse the trends, but once fair markets were assured, and pro growth policies put in place we enjoyed the longest run of prosperity in this country we have ever seen...

    No need to be sorry. Conditions are what they are.
    See, this is the Liberal battle cry..."Nothing we can do about it".... I don't buy that, it's defeatist, and IMHO, Not what most American's think.

    Very marginally lower, and has little impact.
    Simply not true...The labor force participation rate is the lowest in history, and hasn't seen these type of numbers since 1978...

    Again, what do you base that on?
    Obama has had 6 years so far to turn this around, with similar situations upon entering office it only took Reagan 3 years....We base that on having lived it before.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #1095
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The title of this thread refers to March's job numbers (old news), not April's (latest numbers). My job loss numbers are for April.
    I stand corrected. The number for April was +288,000, with upward revisions for March and Feb of +11,000 and +25,000, respectively.

    The reports can be found at the same URL every month: The Employment Situation. I've read every one for the past fifteen years — it's part of my job.

    >>Two, 'largely, weather related' can mean almost anything. More then half of the U.S. population is not even affected by snow. The bad GDP numbers were partially affected by the weather, not caused exclusively by the weather.

    As you yerself noted, I said "largely," not "exclusively."

    >>Three, the consumer spending numbers are for April...and have little/nothing to do with the bad winter weather.

    The figure you gave is for retail sales, not consumer spending. (They are obviously related; retail sales account for about a third of consumer spending.) The retail sales number for March was a very strong 1.5%.

    Why do you say that consumer spending is unrelated to weather?

    Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased by 0.9% in March and by 0.5% in Feb. (Personal Income and Outlays — BEA) The figure for April will be published June 2nd.

    >>The economy as of April, sucks.

    Sorry you feel that way.
    Last edited by mmi; 05-14-14 at 09:37 AM.

  6. #1096
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    I stand corrected. The number for April was +288,000, with upward revisions for March and Feb of +11,000 and +25,000, respectively.

    The reports can be found at the same URL every month: The Employment Situation. I've read every one for the past fifteen years — it's part of my job.

    >>Two, 'largely, weather related' can mean almost anything. More then half of the U.S. population is not even affected by snow. The bad GDP numbers were partially affected by the weather, not caused exclusively by the weather.

    As you yerself noted, I said "largely," not "exclusively."

    >>Three, the consumer spending numbers are for April...and have little/nothing to do with the bad winter weather.

    The figure you gave is for retail sales, not consumer spending. (They are obviously related; retail sales account for about a third of consumer spending.) The retail sales number for March was a very strong 1.5%.

    Why do you say that consumer spending is unrelated to weather?

    Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased by 0.9% in March and by 0.5% in Feb. (Personal Income and Outlays — BEA) The figure for April will be published June 2nd.

    >>The economy as of April, sucks.

    Sorry you feel that way.
    Do you realize that there were 146 million Americans working in December 2007 when the recession began and that number is 145 million now, 7 years later? No population growth? No significant labor force growth? Please name for me the economic policies that have made this economy better than it was when Obama took office or when the recession began?

    Do you think ACA promotes job growth? How about higher taxes and regulations? How about minimum wage increases? How about delays in the Keystone Pipeline? How about EPA regulations on coal?

    I find it interesting how people here love to point out the proposed lies of GW Bush but ignore the lies and poor performance of Obama. Why is that?

  7. #1097
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    It is really easy for those of us who lived through the last time we had a suck economy like this (the Carter years)...It took a couple of years for Reagan to reverse the trends, but once fair markets were assured, and pro growth policies put in place we enjoyed the longest run of prosperity in this country we have ever seen...
    I lived through it. I was a junior in college when Mr. Carter was elected. I don't remember things the same way.

    Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP grew at 4.6%, 5.6%, 3.2%, and -0.2%. That last year, 1980, certainly was not a good one. We had been hit by the second oil shock in '79, and the Fed put interest rates through the roof.

    There was indeed a recovery in 1981, but real GDP went up only 2.6%. Then we had a very bad year in 1982, down by 1.9%. The next six years were 4.6%, 7.3%, 4.2%, 3,5%, 3.5%, and 4.2%.

    During that time, per capita national debt increased by 92%. That's quite a stimulus.

    nat_debt_per_capita_Kennedy_Obama.jpg

    The underlying trend can be seen by looking at a ten-year moving average:

    GDP_mov_avg.jpg

    Things were more or less steady although somewhat restrained under Carter, and at first declined sharply and then recovered rapidly under Reagan. You can compare the overall numbers in this chart of annualized GDP growth:

    Annualized_GDP.80143921_std.JPG

    I would argue that the very strong year (1984) was a recovery from a business cycle recession, while the economy Obama inherited had suffered a near-collapse of the financial sector more akin to the Great Depression. The dynamics and psychology are different. Even if things are handled properly, a few years are typically required to unwind, deleverage, and settle people's fears. I'm hoping we're in a good position now and that 2014 and beyond will see substantial growth. There's no doubt that public optimism will be required.

    >>See, this is the Liberal battle cry..."Nothing we can do about it".... I don't buy that, it's defeatist, and IMHO, Not what most American's think.

    You mistook my meaning. I was responding to "Sorry, something stinks in the data." I was being a wise-ass. Happens about once every few minutes. Fwiw, I don't agree that the "data stinks."

    >>Simply not true...The labor force participation rate is the lowest in history, and hasn't seen these type of numbers since 1978...

    LFP has indeed been declining since the turn of the century for a variety of reasons, mostly demographic. (The best way to solve that is through immigration reform.) But the numbers aren't all that significant.

    Here's the question i would ask you: Between 1948 and 1968, LFP never went above 60%. Since then, it's gone up to around 66% and now back down to around 63% as baby boomers have begun to retire and fewer women are working. Between '48 and '68, GDP quadrupled. It went up in every year except 1949. I'd say we could use a strong, stable expansion like that. Will we get it? Difficult t' say.

    If we don't, I don't think it'll be because LFP is 63% instead of 66%. Other factors, like our educational and infrastructure base, and, yes, our fiscal discipline will be more decisive. That does not, imo, mean that we need to shrink the government. It means we need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of both the private and public sectors. One way to get a lot of that done is to have them work more effectively together. I say we need to "own" the government, not rail against it. We are the government. That is the powerful legacy and heavy responsibility we've both earned and inherited.

    >>Obama has had 6 years so far to turn this around, with similar situations upon entering office it only took Reagan 3 years

    Ii think yer overstating Mr. Reagan's achievements and understating Mr. Obama's challenges.

  8. #1098
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    I lived through it. I was a junior in college when Mr. Carter was elected. I don't remember things the same way.

    Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP grew at 4.6%, 5.6%, 3.2%, and -0.2%. That last year, 1980, certainly was not a good one. We had been hit by the second oil shock in '79, and the Fed put interest rates through the roof.

    There was indeed a recovery in 1981, but real GDP went up only 2.6%. Then we had a very bad year in 1982, down by 1.9%. The next six years were 4.6%, 7.3%, 4.2%, 3,5%, 3.5%, and 4.2%.

    During that time, per capita national debt increased by 92%. That's quite a stimulus.

    nat_debt_per_capita_Kennedy_Obama.jpg

    The underlying trend can be seen by looking at a ten-year moving average:

    GDP_mov_avg.jpg

    Things were more or less steady although somewhat restrained under Carter, and at first declined sharply and then recovered rapidly under Reagan. You can compare the overall numbers in this chart of annualized GDP growth:

    Annualized_GDP.80143921_std.JPG

    I would argue that the very strong year (1984) was a recovery from a business cycle recession, while the economy Obama inherited had suffered a near-collapse of the financial sector more akin to the Great Depression. The dynamics and psychology are different. Even if things are handled properly, a few years are typically required to unwind, deleverage, and settle people's fears. I'm hoping we're in a good position now and that 2014 and beyond will see substantial growth. There's no doubt that public optimism will be required.

    >>See, this is the Liberal battle cry..."Nothing we can do about it".... I don't buy that, it's defeatist, and IMHO, Not what most American's think.

    You mistook my meaning. I was responding to "Sorry, something stinks in the data." I was being a wise-ass. Happens about once every few minutes. Fwiw, I don't agree that the "data stinks."

    >>Simply not true...The labor force participation rate is the lowest in history, and hasn't seen these type of numbers since 1978...

    LFP has indeed been declining since the turn of the century for a variety of reasons, mostly demographic. (The best way to solve that is through immigration reform.) But the numbers aren't all that significant.

    Here's the question i would ask you: Between 1948 and 1968, LFP never went above 60%. Since then, it's gone up to around 66% and now back down to around 63% as baby boomers have begun to retire and fewer women are working. Between '48 and '68, GDP quadrupled. It went up in every year except 1949. I'd say we could use a strong, stable expansion like that. Will we get it? Difficult t' say.

    If we don't, I don't think it'll be because LFP is 63% instead of 66%. Other factors, like our educational and infrastructure base, and, yes, our fiscal discipline will be more decisive. That does not, imo, mean that we need to shrink the government. It means we need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of both the private and public sectors. One way to get a lot of that done is to have them work more effectively together. I say we need to "own" the government, not rail against it. We are the government. That is the powerful legacy and heavy responsibility we've both earned and inherited.

    >>Obama has had 6 years so far to turn this around, with similar situations upon entering office it only took Reagan 3 years

    Ii think yer overstating Mr. Reagan's achievements and understating Mr. Obama's challenges.
    I would love to beat the hell out of you over the Reagan Record and the miserable Carter economy but all that does is divert from the thread topic and divert from the miserable Obama economic results. I understand your desire to divert from the Obama record but if you want to start a thread on Reagan vs Carter, let me know and I will be there. What I see from you is one sided, partisan opinions not backed by data and facts or you skew the data the way you want. Nothing however refutes the fact that Reagan created 17 million jobs, grew income tax revenue 60% after cutting taxes three years in a row, doubled GDP, still had a debt of about 50% of GDP, and left future Presidents with a peace dividend.

    Your lack of understanding of the private sector economy and role of the govt. is staggering. Never since Carter have we had such an incompetent in the WH, one who is promoting redistribution of wealth, targeting success, growing the size and scope of govt, trying to mold this country into a European socialist economy, and leading people like you to economic disaster. It has been over 25 years since Reagan left office and sill people like you are trying to re-write history all in an attempt to divert from the failed liberal economic policies and disaster we have in the WH right now.

  9. #1099
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    92 million folks not working.

    It would be nice if our government started telling the straight poop, and quit idiocies like baseline budgeting and fudged unemployment numbers. We don't need shell games... straight facts... hard numbers will do just fine.

    Obama is an economic illiterate, he bought into the idiocies of Marx... and it shows.
    My favorite lines from the moron are (paraphrasing)... "now is not the time for profits", and "businesses should take loans to meet payroll". I mean really folks... those are some heavy forehead slapping moments. They're Miss Amerika moments.

    To tell you that things are not just fine... Demokrat pollsters told their party not to use the word "recovery" in their coming election. Why? Because there isn't one.
    Zimmer,

    Just wanted to let you know that this is the April thread. There's a May jobs report thread. It is lacking the hyperpartisan zeal of the April thread, so perhaps you can remedy that.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...ops-6-3-a.html

  10. #1100
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    Zimmer,

    Just wanted to let you know that this is the April thread. There's a May jobs report thread. It is lacking the hyperpartisan zeal of the April thread, so perhaps you can remedy that.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...ops-6-3-a.html
    May's Jobs' numbers will not be out until the first Friday in June thus there are no reported jobs created, lost, or unemployment rate for May yet

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •