• 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 economy adds 288,000 jobs in June

Slyfox696 said:
From the BLS:

June 2013: 116,087,000 full time employed
June 2014: 118,204,000 full time employed

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
Click to expand...

Hey, congratulations, why did you pick 2013? How does that compare to when the recession began in December 2007? You think that more than 2.2 million people working compared to 2013 is something to be cheered? In December 2007 there were 146.3 million people working, today there are 146.2 million Americans working. Please explain why it took almost 7 years to get back to the pre recession number? Could it be poor leadership and poor economic policy from our Messiah?

I asked where the 10,000 part time employee number came from because I posted the situation summary report that doesn't support that claim?
 
Conservative said:
Hey, congratulations, why did you pick 2013? How does that compare to when the recession began in December 2007? You think that more than 2.2 million people working compared to 2013 is something to be cheered? In December 2007 there were 146.3 million people working, today there are 146.2 million Americans working. Please explain why it took almost 7 years to get back to the pre recession number? Could it be poor leadership and poor economic policy from our Messiah?

I asked where the 10,000 part time employee number came from because I posted the situation summary report that doesn't support that claim?
Click to expand...
Hey rainman, we were discussing trends over the last year. Monthly reports are monthly. There's twelve of them in a year.
 
a351 said:
Hey rainman, we were discussing trends over the last year. Monthly reports are monthly. There's twelve of them in a year.
Click to expand...


Hey, same cast of characters here to defend the indefensible. The new Obama normal, high numbers of part time employees, low economic growth, high debt, greater govt. dependence and people like you rejoice

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2004 to 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 4705 4549 4742 4568 4588 4443 4449 4474 4487 4820 4547 4427
2005 4389 4250 4388 4278 4315 4432 4400 4491 4675 4269 4219 4115
2006 4123 4174 3972 3900 4111 4318 4303 4195 4115 4352 4190 4187
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8500 8904 9216 9181 8833 8607 8547 8829 9199 8870 8880 8941
2011 8440 8403 8635 8664 8583 8486 8342 8820 9068 8675 8457 8177
2012 8228 8133 7780 7913 8138 8154 8163 8045 8572 8231 8164 7929
2013 7983 7991 7663 7929 7917 8194 8180 7898 7914 8016 7723 7771
2014 7257 7186 7411 7465 7269 7544
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Hey, congratulations, why did you pick 2013?
Click to expand...
Because that's what the poster you replied to had said:

a351 said:
Part time positions are up by all of 10,000 in the past year, while full time positions are up by 2 million. Not exactly apocalyptic in nature. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I asked where the 10,000 part time employee number came from because I posted the situation summary report that doesn't support that claim?
Click to expand...
And I showed you where BLS reports both the part time and full time numbers. So now you know where those numbers came from. I suspect you'll ignore the numbers, but they are there for you.
 
Conservative said:
Hey, same cast of characters here to defend the indefensible. The new Obama normal, high numbers of part time employees, low economic growth, high debt, greater govt. dependence and people like you rejoice
Click to expand...
The numbers you cite are part time for only economic reasons, not part time workers as a whole. With that being said, your numbers show a decline in part time workers in the past year. I'm struggling to recall an instance in which you actually knew what the **** you were talking about.
 
a351 said:
The numbers you cite are part time for only economic reasons, not part time workers as a whole. With that being said, your numbers show a decline in part time workers in the past year. I'm struggling to recall an instance in which you actually knew what the **** you were talking about.
Click to expand...

You are so right, 7.5 million part time workers for economic reasons is a great performance because the numbers are down vs. last year. That is liberal logic. The 7.5 MILLION aren't just numbers they are people showing that apparently you really don't care about people.
 
a351 said:
:lol: Wow how insightful. After being proven wrong and insisting that the BLS proves the BLS's numbers to be wrong, you suggest that others learn how to use the data properly. A clinical case of projection.
Click to expand...

Vs. your case of low standards and low economic results being trumpeted. Bet you enjoy the 6.8 trillion added to the debt because it is a low percentage increase?
 
Tettsuo said:
No one on FOX told them it was.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know what Fox News is telling people, seeing as I don't watch it. Even if June's decline in full-time positions is a fluke and it all balances out rather than being the first leg in a massive decline, 100,000 jobs a month is just barely scraping by and is not growth positive.

a351 said:
Part time positions are up by all of 10,000 in the past year, while full time positions are up by 2 million. Not exactly apocalyptic in nature. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yet still nearly 4 million short of where it was in 2007.
 
Demon of Light said:
Yet still nearly 4 million short of where it was in 2007.
Click to expand...
Yes, full time positions still lag behind pre-recession levels, despite them having increased by over 11 million since the recession actually ended.
 
Conservative said:
You are so right, 7.5 million part time workers for economic reasons is a great performance because the numbers are down vs. last year.
Click to expand...

The poster I was responding to before you decided to go full retard claimed the ACA to be driving down the number of full time employees and driving up the part time. I simply pointed out that the effects thus far, have been nominal at best. That they're optimal or satisfactory levels is a strawman built by you and you alone.

That is liberal logic. The 7.5 MILLION aren't just numbers they are people showing that apparently you really don't care about people.
Click to expand...

Oh, they're People? Wow, just more top shelf insight there. Teach me how to economy!
 
It only took until this seventh post to bad-mouth a report that you would be praising Romney for.
KevinKohler said:
3/4 of them are likely temp and retail jobs.
Click to expand...
Linkless and a breath of stale air .
 
NIMBY said:
It only took until this seventh post to bad-mouth a report that you would be praising Romney for.

Linkless and a breath of stale air .
Click to expand...

Just wondering, the U.S. passed an emergency increase in unemployment benefits the end of last year, wonder if the expiration of those benefits had anything to do with a spurt on hiring in June? Hmmmm??
 
a351 said:
Yes, full time positions still lag behind pre-recession levels, despite them having increased by over 11 million since the recession actually ended.
Click to expand...

Full-times jobs have not increased by over 11 million, but more like 8 million. Of course, one has to consider that about 7 million people joined the working-age population in the same time period. When you include part-time jobs the overall increase has been about 11 million, but again, around 7 million people joined the working-age population. Not to mention, people who are retirement age are increasingly continuing in employment due to economic conditions. None of that is growth positive.
 
Fenton said:
You " suspect " ?? Based on what ?

Wishful thinking ?
Click to expand...

An educated guess, mostly based upon the strong job numbers. Companies don't hire when they are contracting.

We will see shortly, either you or I are going to look like an ass.
 
Conservative said:
Just wondering, the U.S. passed an emergency increase in unemployment benefits the end of last year, wonder if the expiration of those benefits had anything to do with a spurt on hiring in June? Hmmmm??
Click to expand...

What does unemployment benefits have to do with how many people companies chose to hire?
 
Grim17 said:
This is the stat that's been bothersome for me... It's the Employment to Population Ratio. It's a measure of the eligable American workforce that is currently employed. Going back 50 years, it always shadows the unemployment rate... until the Obama Administration:

View attachment 67169151
Click to expand...

Interesting graph, I havent seen that one before.

It looks to me that the ratio started dropping a couple of years before the recession, then plummeted during the recession (mostly under Bush's watch), leveled off at a lower level and has recently started increasing.

What's your point? That that Bush policies ruined our economy and that the Obama policies are finally increasing the ratio?
 
DA60 said:
When will the media learn to read beyond the headlines?

According to the household survey...there were 799,000 more people employed part time in June.

But there were 523,000 less people employed full time in June.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


So losing over 1/2 a million full-time jobs in one month is considered good news....okaaaaaay.

The McDonald's/WalMart-type recovery is in full swing.
Click to expand...

This shows that, looking at the right statistic, anything can be made to look bad.
 
imagep said:
Interesting graph, I havent seen that one before.

It looks to me that the ratio started dropping a couple of years before the recession, then plummeted during the recession (mostly under Bush's watch), leveled off at a lower level and has recently started increasing.

What's your point? That that Bush policies ruined our economy and that the Obama policies are finally increasing the ratio?
Click to expand...

Actually, it follows the unemployment rate. When we went into the recession and unemployment began to rise, the EP ratio began to fall. This is the first time since this statistic has existed that the unemployment rate has fallen, and the ratio has remained flat and not risen.

This is the unemployment rate (in red) with the Employment to Population Ratio (blue inverted) overlayed on to it, spanning the last 40 years.

epratio2.jpg

What it means is, that the decline in the unemployment rate for the first time, isn't a genuine indicator of the percentage of Americans that are truly unemployed. It shows that the actual unemployment rate has changed very little since it peaked at 10.0% back in October of 2009.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom