You need to learn how to address what someone says, not just throw out random **** which is not related.You better learn how to read the BLS data.
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.Here is what you posted and that is the lie as I showed
Seriously, just once I'd like for you to be able to stay on topic.
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.Perhaps the reason for a lot of the discrepancies is that if one person holds 3 part-time jobs
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.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, 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?And let's also not forget that normally, following a recession, job and economic growth is often in the 4 to 5%
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.rate whereas last quarter the effective rate was negative .01%.
News Release: Gross Domestic Product
No one is sugar coating anything. What I am doing is correcting people when they say false things.You can sugar coat the statistics all you want
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.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.
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.