Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 289

Thread: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

  1. #111
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,964

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    You read mine first k thanks.
    I did read yours. It did not say anything which showed me to be wrong. Actually read mine and get back to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I posted the actual chart
    And I posted the direct link to the BLS site.
    You better learn how to read the BLS data.
    You need to learn how to address what someone says, not just throw out random **** which is not related.
    Here is what you posted and that is the lie as I showed
    It's not a lie, but yes, I technically (for those who don't bother to comprehend an argument) did use the wrong terminology. However, anyone interested in honest debate would have understood what I was saying in the true sense, and not tried to debate something I clearly was not saying.

    Seriously, just once I'd like for you to be able to stay on topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I don't want to get into the weeds here and I'll accept your comments that there have been 8.8 million jobs created since the financial crisis making up for the 8.7 million jobs lost during the financial crisis. That said, the devil is likely in the details in that the simple numbers do not indicate how many of the initially lost 8.7 million jobs were full time jobs and how many of the 8.8 replacement jobs are part-time.
    Agreed.

    But it also doesn't account for how many jobs are currently available in certain locations, just without the skilled labor needed to work them. It doesn't include how some areas of the country have no jobs, while others are desperate to find enough bodies to work jobs.

    All it shows is exactly what it claims, which is we have now created more jobs than we lost.

    Perhaps the reason for a lot of the discrepancies is that if one person holds 3 part-time jobs
    There really are no discrepancies at all. Just the statistics.

    that would account for a lot of people dropping out of the labor force and the increase in those without jobs and/or no longer looking.
    Again, as I've already said multiple times, there are MORE people in the labor force now than there was in December 2007. I've linked to it multiple times.

    Again, what you're likely referring to is the labor force participation rate, something completely different from the number of people in the labor force (don't worry, votemeout and Conservative don't seem to understand it either, based on their posts). The labor force participation rate IS down, but we knew 30 years ago it would start dropping around this time due to retiring Baby Boomers.

    Does that explain why the labor force participation rate is where it is? I don't know, I've never seen any statistics to explain who dropped out and why. But I DO know we've known this was coming for a long time.

    And let's also not forget that normally, following a recession, job and economic growth is often in the 4 to 5%
    "Often" is such a funny word. How many widespread worldwide financial crashes have we had since 1929?

    When people say growth is "usually" better, I always like to ask how many times we had the EXACT same situation before. The answer is always never.

    rate whereas last quarter the effective rate was negative .01%.
    It saddens me you would even mention that, when we both know WHY it was -.01%. It's been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that the unusually harsh winter had a devastating effect on the economy and hiring. Here's a link so you can see how common it is for the winter to have a lower than average GDP.

    News Release: Gross Domestic Product

    You can sugar coat the statistics all you want
    No one is sugar coating anything. What I am doing is correcting people when they say false things.

    but if you think the US economy is chugging along as it was shortly after 9/11 and the Bush tax cuts to just prior to the financial crisis you're only fooling yourself.
    And you're fooling yourself if you think both the 9/11 wars and the major lack of tax revenue due to the Bush cuts haven't had a serious effect on the current situation. Furthermore, you're simply dumb if you think the economy in the last several years under Bush was a healthy one and not one built on a house of cards because we know FOR A FACT the Bush economy was not a healthy economy and was basically built on a house of cards.

    For what it's worth, I much prefer discussing things with you over those other two, as you at least are willing to listen to facts and I don't feel like you only post because you have an agenda. Just understand that just because I don't think you're right, it doesn't mean I think you're dumb.

  2. #112
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I did read yours. It did not say anything which showed me to be wrong. Actually read mine and get back to me.
    And I posted the direct link to the BLS site.
    You need to learn how to address what someone says, not just throw out random **** which is not related.
    It's not a lie, but yes, I technically (for those who don't bother to comprehend an argument) did use the wrong terminology. However, anyone interested in honest debate would have understood what I was saying in the true sense, and not tried to debate something I clearly was not saying.

    Seriously, just once I'd like for you to be able to stay on topic.
    Agreed.

    But it also doesn't account for how many jobs are currently available in certain locations, just without the skilled labor needed to work them. It doesn't include how some areas of the country have no jobs, while others are desperate to find enough bodies to work jobs.

    All it shows is exactly what it claims, which is we have now created more jobs than we lost.

    There really are no discrepancies at all. Just the statistics.

    Again, as I've already said multiple times, there are MORE people in the labor force now than there was in December 2007. I've linked to it multiple times.

    Again, what you're likely referring to is the labor force participation rate, something completely different from the number of people in the labor force (don't worry, votemeout and Conservative don't seem to understand it either, based on their posts). The labor force participation rate IS down, but we knew 30 years ago it would start dropping around this time due to retiring Baby Boomers.

    Does that explain why the labor force participation rate is where it is? I don't know, I've never seen any statistics to explain who dropped out and why. But I DO know we've known this was coming for a long time.

    "Often" is such a funny word. How many widespread worldwide financial crashes have we had since 1929?

    When people say growth is "usually" better, I always like to ask how many times we had the EXACT same situation before. The answer is always never.

    It saddens me you would even mention that, when we both know WHY it was -.01%. It's been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that the unusually harsh winter had a devastating effect on the economy and hiring. Here's a link so you can see how common it is for the winter to have a lower than average GDP.

    News Release: Gross Domestic Product

    No one is sugar coating anything. What I am doing is correcting people when they say false things.

    And you're fooling yourself if you think both the 9/11 wars and the major lack of tax revenue due to the Bush cuts haven't had a serious effect on the current situation. Furthermore, you're simply dumb if you think the economy in the last several years under Bush was a healthy one and not one built on a house of cards because we know FOR A FACT the Bush economy was not a healthy economy and was basically built on a house of cards.

    For what it's worth, I much prefer discussing things with you over those other two, as you at least are willing to listen to facts and I don't feel like you only post because you have an agenda. Just understand that just because I don't think you're right, it doesn't mean I think you're dumb.
    Honest debate and wrong terminology? LOL, when you say there are more people working now than when the recession began that isn't just using the wrong terminology that is a LIE. How about telling me why when the actual data proves you wrong that you continue to spout the same rhetoric over and over again?

    For some reason people like you have no concept of human behavior. You think that we would have had the same revenue growth and economic activity with people not keeping more of what they earn? There is no proof that we would have had the 17 million new taxpayers under Reagan and the 9 million jobs under Bush were it not for the tax cuts. Without those taxpayers there is no way the revenue would have been what it was. You liberals have no concept as to the four components of GDP and their contribution to GDP or you wouldn't make such partisan poorly informed comments.

    Seems to me that you are the one poorly informed and continue to buy into the liberal rhetoric in spite of the facts and reality

  3. #113
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,175

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I did read yours. It did not say anything which showed me to be wrong. Actually read mine and get back to me.
    And I posted the direct link to the BLS site.
    You need to learn how to address what someone says, not just throw out random **** which is not related.
    It's not a lie, but yes, I technically (for those who don't bother to comprehend an argument) did use the wrong terminology. However, anyone interested in honest debate would have understood what I was saying in the true sense, and not tried to debate something I clearly was not saying.

    Seriously, just once I'd like for you to be able to stay on topic.
    Agreed.

    But it also doesn't account for how many jobs are currently available in certain locations, just without the skilled labor needed to work them. It doesn't include how some areas of the country have no jobs, while others are desperate to find enough bodies to work jobs.

    All it shows is exactly what it claims, which is we have now created more jobs than we lost.

    There really are no discrepancies at all. Just the statistics.

    Again, as I've already said multiple times, there are MORE people in the labor force now than there was in December 2007. I've linked to it multiple times.

    Again, what you're likely referring to is the labor force participation rate, something completely different from the number of people in the labor force (don't worry, votemeout and Conservative don't seem to understand it either, based on their posts). The labor force participation rate IS down, but we knew 30 years ago it would start dropping around this time due to retiring Baby Boomers.

    Does that explain why the labor force participation rate is where it is? I don't know, I've never seen any statistics to explain who dropped out and why. But I DO know we've known this was coming for a long time.

    "Often" is such a funny word. How many widespread worldwide financial crashes have we had since 1929?

    When people say growth is "usually" better, I always like to ask how many times we had the EXACT same situation before. The answer is always never.

    It saddens me you would even mention that, when we both know WHY it was -.01%. It's been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that the unusually harsh winter had a devastating effect on the economy and hiring. Here's a link so you can see how common it is for the winter to have a lower than average GDP.

    News Release: Gross Domestic Product

    No one is sugar coating anything. What I am doing is correcting people when they say false things.

    And you're fooling yourself if you think both the 9/11 wars and the major lack of tax revenue due to the Bush cuts haven't had a serious effect on the current situation. Furthermore, you're simply dumb if you think the economy in the last several years under Bush was a healthy one and not one built on a house of cards because we know FOR A FACT the Bush economy was not a healthy economy and was basically built on a house of cards.

    For what it's worth, I much prefer discussing things with you over those other two, as you at least are willing to listen to facts and I don't feel like you only post because you have an agenda. Just understand that just because I don't think you're right, it doesn't mean I think you're dumb.
    All fair comment, particularly since discussion of such issues is not a black and white exercise nor a right/wrong one either. We can each employ emphasis where we want to. As an example, your comments above discount the reduction in the percentage of people in the labor force by implying it's largely related to retirement, even though you acknowledge there are still more people working or trying to find work - this would require, of course, that large numbers of those leaving the labor force due to retirement were those retiring early since those retiring at the standard retirement age of 65 or there abouts would no longer be included in the numbers used to determine the potential size of the labor force.

    On the other hand, you discount the GDP figures because they are potentially, although not entirely, significantly impacted by the weather this past winter. I could argue the two may be linked in that there are a greater number of people existing without or with lessened disposable/discretionary income and thus weather was simply a convenient coincidence both for those who couldn't or decided not to spend and for those who track economic activity. We'll know, of course, as the year progresses, whether there is lasting impact from either of the two issues.
    Last edited by CanadaJohn; 06-07-14 at 11:14 AM.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #114
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    There are more people working now than when the recession started. It's just a fact.
    But it's not a fact. You can't confuse terminology like that. The Labor Force is higher, the total number of employed is not. Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed.

    Non-farm payroll jobs are higher, but those who insist on focusing on the negative switch around which figures they like. You notice no one is claiming that the drop in the U-6 shows that things are better than the official rate shows.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  5. #115
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Every month of Obama has been higher than any month of Bush and that makes every month a record.
    ummm no. That's not what a record means. A record means higher (or lower) than any before. Someone who now runs a 3:59 mile isn't setting any records.

    Now you can continue to make excuses for the incompetent in the WH
    I've never made any excuses for him. I didn't vote for him.
    but the reality is it is the number of unemployed, number of discouraged workers, number of under employed that matters.
    And they all show improvements from the lows. The question is what point you use for a comparison. The White House started bragging about job gains months ago, using the low point of jobs of February 2010 and only mentioning private sector jobs. Now they'll talk about total non-farm. Obama's detractors first used when Obama took office, but then shifted to pre-recession.

    It's funny....under Bush it was the Liberals arguing about the "real unemployment rate" and using the U-6 to show how bad things were under Bush, while the Conservatives stayed silent about it. Under Obama, things reversed.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    ummm no. That's not what a record means. A record means higher (or lower) than any before. Someone who now runs a 3:59 mile isn't setting any records.

    I've never made any excuses for him. I didn't vote for him.
    And they all show improvements from the lows. The question is what point you use for a comparison. The White House started bragging about job gains months ago, using the low point of jobs of February 2010 and only mentioning private sector jobs. Now they'll talk about total non-farm. Obama's detractors first used when Obama took office, but then shifted to pre-recession.

    It's funny....under Bush it was the Liberals arguing about the "real unemployment rate" and using the U-6 to show how bad things were under Bush, while the Conservatives stayed silent about it. Under Obama, things reversed.
    My point stands, it is all about the numbers not the percentage and the reality is every month of Obama has had higher discouraged workers than Bush and the more discouraged workers the better the official rate which is being trumpeted today as once again percentage trumps actual individuals unemployed/discouraged/under employed. Those are real people and it is real people being hurt by this incompetent in the WH

    Presidents should be judged on real people and actual results not percentage change

  7. #117
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,123

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    My point stands, it is all about the numbers not the percentage and the reality is every month of Obama has had higher discouraged workers than Bush and the more discouraged workers the better the official rate which is being trumpeted today as once again percentage trumps actual individuals unemployed/discouraged/under employed. Those are real people and it is real people being hurt by this incompetent in the WH

    Presidents should be judged on real people and actual results not percentage change
    was going to use data showing social security eligible workers are leaving the work force to receive their benefits as the basis for much of the decline in work force numbers
    my anecdotal view is more are receiving their benefits at age 62-64 before being fully vested at age 65 (because they cannot find employment)
    however, when looking at the data, it shows quite the opposite. alarmingly so. can't figure out what is going on:
    Annual Statistical Supplement, 2011 - Summary of OASDI Benefits in Current-Payment Status (5.A)
    Annual Statistical Supplement, 2013 - Summary of OASDI Awards (6.A)

    in 2012 the number aged 62-64 drawing benefits is shown to be 1,462,012
    in 2010 those aged 62-64 receiving early SS benefits is indicated to be 3,432,082

    that data astounds me and prevents me from making my argument that those seeking early social security benefits is increasing
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  8. #118
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    was going to use data showing social security eligible workers are leaving the work force to receive their benefits as the basis for much of the decline in work force numbers
    my anecdotal view is more are receiving their benefits at age 62-64 before being fully vested at age 65 (because they cannot find employment)
    however, when looking at the data, it shows quite the opposite. alarmingly so. can't figure out what is going on:
    Annual Statistical Supplement, 2011 - Summary of OASDI Benefits in Current-Payment Status (5.A)
    Annual Statistical Supplement, 2013 - Summary of OASDI Awards (6.A)

    in 2012 the number aged 62-64 drawing benefits is shown to be 1,462,012
    in 2010 those aged 62-64 receiving early SS benefits is indicated to be 3,432,082

    that data astounds me and prevents me from making my argument that those seeking early social security benefits is increasing
    What really is going on is Barack Obama and his economic incompetence with the policies he has implemented. Higher taxes, high costs thrust on business, and the uncertainty as to what is coming next is causing businesses to hoard their cash, rely more on part time employees, small businesses to fail as business expenses rise. Obama does not understand the private sector at all and what motivates it and that is positive incentive.

    So many people focus on the large businesses and corporations ignoring how Obama's economic policies affect the small businesses including the mom and pop operations which really are the engine that drive our economy not the major corporations.

    Your charts are interesting and add more fuel to the claim of Obama incompetence or simply willful ignorance on the U.S. economy. I claimed he lacked the experience necessary for the job and the results show that. His vision as to the role of the govt. is in direct conflict with our founders and what made this country great, the private sector, risk taking, and personal responsibility.

  9. #119
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    No, sorry to the progressive believe that is not how unemployment is determined.
    You obviously ignored the link. Try the Handbook of Methods

    You can easily google the formula in which the unemployment data is collected.
    I don't need to google, I worked at BLS and helped teach the methodology. Why haven't you googled? I know you can't have found any reliable source saying it's based on UI benefits because it's just not true.

    You really believe the Obama administration calls 340 million Americans?
    Why would I believe that? [qutoe] because you know what? 60% of us have cell phones and that would be impossible...[/quote] No one is claiming that's how it's done.

    Yes, I'm aware they call about 20,000 land lines and somehow equate that number into 340,000,000 people - just as a general poll.
    No, not at all. It's a scientific sample survey of 60,000 households. Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8 months, back in for 4 months. Intial interviews and re-entry interviews are in person (it's not a phone survey, but a randomly selected sample of addresses). So a hell of a lot more rigorous than a random phone sample. Still large error, which is why the non-farm payroll survey (a survey of business establishments) is used as the official jobs number.

    But their main determination is that of unemployment divided by workforce...
    Right...Unemployed divided by labor force is the UE rate. But the definition of Unemployed makes no mention of unemployment benefits.

    I know it's your goal to crap on Obama no matter what...but the basic methodolgy has been the same since the 1940's and UI benefits have never been part of the UE rate.

    And look at the Unemployment benefits claim data: http://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf on page 4 you'll see "PERSONS CLAIMING UI BENEFITS IN ALL PROGRAMS" which is currently at 2.5 million....a far cry from the BLS unemployment level of 9.5 million.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  10. #120
    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: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    But it's not a fact. You can't confuse terminology like that. The Labor Force is higher, the total number of employed is not. Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed.

    Non-farm payroll jobs are higher, but those who insist on focusing on the negative switch around which figures they like. You notice no one is claiming that the drop in the U-6 shows that things are better than the official rate shows.
    I do...since the U-3 means little to me. The only one I care about is the U-6. And if it goes down, then the unemployment situation is (officially) better, IMO. And since it went down last month...then the unemployment situation in America is (officially) better.

Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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