• 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!

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

You're conflating debating points, and I never intimated there was an upper age limit.
So as the population gets older, wouldn't you expect labor force participation to go down? Oh, it's not the sole cause, of course, but the participation rate has been dropping since 2000.

We're talking about different times, the first is where women were becoming a significant part of the workforce, and still are today, as compared to a time when they were not.
Which is why participation is not a good indicator of the labor market. It is subject to non labor market factors.
The only thing today between a person and a job are either skills, economic conditions, or a desire to seek work...
And a large part of the drop in participation is lack of desire to seek work. Participation is a useful statistic, but mostly to put things in context. The UE rate...the percentage of people trying and failing to work...is a better indicator of the economy.
 
being from Chicago the unemployment rate here has to be 10-15% and those are just conservative estimates.

My gut or experience tells me 20+%..

It's not good at all... 6% my ass - yeah maybe in the Twin City's.
 
It'd not lie - its basic fact.....

The basic formula to establish unemployment is workforce divided by unemployment....
No, it's not. Please try to do basic research. Employment Situation Technical Note
The Unemployment rate comes from a survey of households. People are asked what they did last week. If they worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm, they are employed (this is seperate from the jobs numbers). If they did not work, they are asked what they did to look for work in the last 4 weeks. If they placed or answered an ad, filled out an application, had an interview, asked friends or family if they knew of anything, or anything that could possibly result in a job and if they also say they could have started work last week, then they are unemployed. They are not asked about benefits. Employed plus Unemployed is the Labor Force. Anyone who did not work the previous week or looked for work the previous 4 weeks is Not in the Labor Force. The Unemployment rate is Unemployed divided by the Labor Force (NOT the population).
 
Eat somewhere else

Yeah, that's a problem considering the Mexicans have a basic monopoly on fast food round here. At it doesn't even end there...They buy grocery stores, and the only places that actually employ US Citizens charge a premium, but still employ Mexicans.

I don't have a problem with Mexicans but when they monopolize communities businesses I do.

When they only hire "latinos" I do...

Racism is racism.
 
Yeah, that's a problem considering the Mexicans have a basic monopoly on fast food round here. At it doesn't even end there...They buy grocery stores, and the only places that actually employ US Citizens charge a premium, but still employ Mexicans.

I don't have a problem with Mexicans but when they monopolize communities businesses I do.

When they only hire "latinos" I do...

Racism is racism.

Apply for a position then sue for discrimination. you can also bring the discrimination to the ACLU it will continue until they get sued to and yes i know they only hire other latinos.
quite using there services period.
 
No, it's not. Please try to do basic research. Employment Situation Technical Note
The Unemployment rate comes from a survey of households. People are asked what they did last week. If they worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm, they are employed (this is seperate from the jobs numbers). If they did not work, they are asked what they did to look for work in the last 4 weeks. If they placed or answered an ad, filled out an application, had an interview, asked friends or family if they knew of anything, or anything that could possibly result in a job and if they also say they could have started work last week, then they are unemployed. They are not asked about benefits. Employed plus Unemployed is the Labor Force. Anyone who did not work the previous week or looked for work the previous 4 weeks is Not in the Labor Force. The Unemployment rate is Unemployed divided by the Labor Force (NOT the population).

No, sorry to the progressive believe that is not how unemployment is determined.

You can easily google the formula in which the unemployment data is collected. You really believe the Obama administration calls 340 million Americans? because you know what? 60% of us have cell phones and that would be impossible...

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.

But their main determination is that of unemployment divided by workforce...

I know it's your goal to defend Obama's **** but open your eyes and see reality and not just what the press feeds you - the same press that endorsed Obama and continue to back him.

But you're just one of the 340,000,000 so you don't really matter...
 
To cut matters short:
There were 7.6 million unemployed people in the U.S. in January 2008, and the unemployment rate was 4.9%. Today, there are 9.8 million unemployed Americans, well over 2 million more than before the recession, and the unemployment rate is much higher.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02012008.pdf
 
Apply for a position then sue for discrimination. you can also bring the discrimination to the ACLU it will continue until they get sued to and yes i know they only hire other latinos.
quite using there services period.

I don't need a job in fast food and the ACLU wouldn't do **** but back the latino takeover... The ACLU is about empowering minorities not protecting individuals civil liberties. The ACLU is a legal firm made up of progressives who focus mainly on "social justice issues."

Racism is a one-way street with those clowns,
 
To cut matters short:
There were 7.6 million unemployed people in the U.S. in January 2008, and the unemployment rate was 4.9%. Today, there are 9.8 million unemployed Americans, well over 2 million more than before the recession, and the unemployment rate is much higher.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02012008.pdf

And those numbers are just unemployment benefit numbers - that doesn't take into account the numerous individuals who have no job and lost their benefits.
 
My projection given the information I have has unemployment at 9.5-12% and even drastically worse in some major cities where 15% is standard and generally common knowledge in Chicago. Some rural areas have it worse with upwards of 18-20%, and other communities have it way less between 3-5% but those are generally oil manufacturing communities and or farming communities.
 
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.
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.
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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:roll:

Working-age population has grown by nearly 7 million since 2008 and about 6 million since Lehman:

fredgraph.png


In other words, the economy is not even close to having proportionate pre-crisis levels of employment, just numeric pre-crisis levels. What accounts for the relatively low unemployment rate? The labor force participation rate accounts for it, which by no means is limited just to people retiring. Not a single reputable economist would argue that the change in the participation rate over the past few years is not predominantly due to economic conditions. I assure you that these people are not retirement age.
 
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.

Wonder if the 19 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers feel the same way? If you truly care about the U-6 then you would care about the actual people not the percentage change. How about the 11+% African American unemployed or the 19% 16-19 year old unemployed. Obama is an economic disaster either deliberate or out of ignorance. You decide?
 
Wonder if the 19 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers feel the same way? If you truly care about the U-6 then you would care about the actual people not the percentage change. How about the 11+% African American unemployed or the 19% 16-19 year old unemployed. Obama is an economic disaster either deliberate or out of ignorance. You decide?

I said 'officially' for a reason.

I am not saying that the U-6 dropping automatically means the economy is better or anything.

I am saying that of the various unemployment (or underemployment) measurements used by the government, only the U-6 means anything to me.
 
Wonder if the 19 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers feel the same way? If you truly care about the U-6 then you would care about the actual people not the percentage change. How about the 11+% African American unemployed or the 19% 16-19 year old unemployed. Obama is an economic disaster either deliberate or out of ignorance. You decide?

We elect lawyers not economists - how can you be shocked.

Half these clowns in DC have never run a business in their lives and have no concept of economy.

What we need in DC are economists, business owners accountants etc...... Not a bunch of lawyers who are natural liars, who know nothing about economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom