• 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. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%[W:59]

Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

It is hard to explain the concept to people like you who have such low economic standards and understanding of incentive including even your own. It really is hard making you and others understand the value of promoting a pro growth economic policy in a country built on the private sector. Govt. spending will only go so far and last so long. How good Americans can support this incompetence and low economic results is beyond comprehension.

The American leadership is under attack with Obama and it is American leadership that is missing in this so called world economy. You and others want to focus on big business but it is the small local businesses suffering and holding the economy and job creation back.

Oh, I forgot to mention.

In addition to only 610,000 total jobs have been created on the past four months...only 5,000 were created in the prime money making segment of 25-54 age range.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

IMO, there is NO WAY the 'recovery' is sustainable if that trend continues.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Oh, I forgot to mention.

In addition to only 610,000 total jobs have been created on the past four months...only 5,000 were created in the prime money making segment of 25-54 age range.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

IMO, there is NO WAY the 'recovery' is sustainable if that trend continues.

Yet and notice how we have the same people over and over defending this Administration. It appears that nothing including actual facts and data in context is going to change their minds.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Yet and notice how we have the same people over and over defending this Administration. It appears that nothing including actual facts and data in context is going to change their minds.

I fear you are correct.

I have said it many times; IMO, partisan politics is destroying America.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

I could care less how the economy did from a year ago (unless it points to a recent trend)...and so do most respected economists, IMO. Wall Street does not think 'Gee these numbers are not good...but that does not matter, they were good 9-12 months ago'. Of course not...they go on the latest numbers and on recent trends.
Wait....did you just equate "Wall Street" stock brokers with economists?

Let me help you, those on WS that are whining about the latest jobs reports do not care about long term rates of employment increases, they are VERY interested in short term indications. "Respected economists" are VERY interested in long term econ data, and when it comes to increases in employment, we are doing OK, which is much better than other major industrial states that were damaged in the recession, and we are doing this IN SPITE of US conservative hindrance. We have full evidence of what employment gains would be like with austerity, look at either EU employment gains were austerity was put in place...or US state public employment.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Since March, only 610,000 total jobs (full and part time) have been created - or only 152,500 per month...which I am quite sure you know is not even enough to keep up with the population growth.
I don't know that.
Population March 2014: 247,258,000
Population July 2014: 248,023,000
Change: 0.3%

Total Employed March 2014: 145,742,000
Total Employed July 2014: 146,352,000
Change: 0.4%

So employed went up by a higher percent than the population. How is that not keeping up with population growth?

Employed to Population ratio March 2014: 58.9%
Employed to Population ratio July2014: 59%

So how are you figuring it wasn't enough to keep up when it clearly did?

Oh, and PLEASE read up and figure out the difference between jobs and employment. They are not the same and it's painful to see you using them interchangeably. I'd be happy to explain it to you if you would actually listen.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Yet and notice how we have the same people over and over defending this Administration. It appears that nothing including actual facts and data in context is going to change their minds.

Their "motto" defend at all cost. Die on the sword for the almighty
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Oh look...it's that time of the month when pinqy comes out of relative hiding to try and pad his ego by trying to point out minuscule errors people made with his treasured BLS numbers.

Pathetic, IMO.

But sometimes I learn something...so here goes...

I don't know that.
Population March 2014: 247,258,000
Population July 2014: 248,023,000
Change: 0.3%

Total Employed March 2014: 145,742,000
Total Employed July 2014: 146,352,000
Change: 0.4%

So employed went up by a higher percent than the population. How is that not keeping up with population growth?

Employed to Population ratio March 2014: 58.9%
Employed to Population ratio July2014: 59%

So how are you figuring it wasn't enough to keep up when it clearly did?
I was going by the generalized average of what most economists seem to think.

But if the stats say the jobs kept up (even though only 74,000 of them were full time according to the household survey), then technically, they kept up.

Thanks.

Oh, and PLEASE read up and figure out the difference between jobs and employment. They are not the same and it's painful to see you using them interchangeably. I'd be happy to explain it to you if you would actually listen.

'1job noun \ˈjäb\
: the work that a person does regularly in order to earn money

: a duty, task, or function that someone or something has

: something that requires very great effort


Job - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



'Definition of EMPLOYMENT

1
: use, purpose
2
a : activity in which one engages or is employed <seeking gainful employment>
b : an instance of such activity
3
: the act of employing : the state of being employed <employment of a pen in sketching>'


Employment - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


1) if that is not good enough for you, take it up with Merriam-Webster. As for the BLS's definition's...I literally do not give a crap what that pathetic and corrupt organization thinks about that.

2) Lol...and take a wild guess whether I care much if some (supposedly) ex-BLS bureaucrat is 'pained' by some pathetically anal point of linguistic minutia?
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

I don't know that.
Population March 2014: 247,258,000
Population July 2014: 248,023,000
Change: 0.3%

Total Employed March 2014: 145,742,000
Total Employed July 2014: 146,352,000
Change: 0.4%


So employed went up by a higher percent than the population. How is that not keeping up with population growth?

Employed to Population ratio March 2014: 58.9%
Employed to Population ratio July2014: 59%

So how are you figuring it wasn't enough to keep up when it clearly did?

Oh, and PLEASE read up and figure out the difference between jobs and employment. They are not the same and it's painful to see you using them interchangeably. I'd be happy to explain it to you if you would actually listen.

Wait a minute...I just did some quick math.

The population went up 765,000 between March and July.

Yet total employment went up only 610,000 between March and July.

On what planet does 610,000 'keep up' with 765,000?

That means there are 155,000 more people in the civilian noninstitutional population that are not employed now then there were in March.


So I was correct, the numbers of new 'jobs' did not keep up with the population growth...thanks for wasting my time.


Good day.


Note to self...do not automatically assume pinqy is right about BLS stuff.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Moderator's Warning:
Please stick to commenting on the topic and leave the personal comments and bait out of it.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Wait a minute...I just did some quick math.

The population went up 765,000 between March and July.

Yet total employment went up only 610,000 between March and July.

On what planet does 610,000 'keep up' with 765,000?
On planet Earth, and every other planet in the universe, where "keeping up" means having the same rate of growth, not same change in level.

If we went by change in level as you propose, that means the total number of unemployed, retirees, full time students, disabled, and everyone else not working would not change at all despite population growth.

If population goes up 1% and employment goes up 1%, that means they're growing at the same rate and the employment-population ratio stays the same. We do want that a little higher than it is now, but to say we need all increase in population to be an increase in employment? No.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Wait a minute...I just did some quick math.

The population went up 765,000 between March and July.

Yet total employment went up only 610,000 between March and July.

On what planet does 610,000 'keep up' with 765,000?

That means there are 155,000 more people in the civilian noninstitutional population that are not employed now then there were in March.


So I was correct, the numbers of new 'jobs' did not keep up with the population growth...thanks for wasting my time.


Good day.


Note to self...do not automatically assume pinqy is right about BLS stuff.

And yes, I know that percentage-wise the job growth kept up with the population.

But I did not say that...I said kept up with as in literally by the numbers, which it didn't...so I was right.


And I don't care that the BLS measures it in percentages. Until the U-6 comes down drastically, America needs reductions in monthly underemployed...literally (not just percentage-wise) IMO.


We are done here pinqy, for now.

Good day.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

I couldn't care less how the economy did from a year ago (unless it points to a recent trend)...and neither would most respected economists, IMO. Wall Street does not think 'Gee these numbers are not good...but that does not matter, they were good 9-12 months ago'. Of course not...they go on the latest numbers and on recent trends.

If you make it a point to appeal to authority, twice i might add, it might be helpful to source what respected economists and those on Wall Street are saying. Just to save you time, links to the pseudonym Tyler Durden only serve to diminish what little credibility you have on the subject.

And the latest numbers and trends are not good.

You are completely full of ****.

Since March, only 610,000 total jobs (full and part time) have been created - or only 152,500 per month...which I am quite sure you know is not even enough to keep up with the population growth. And that is despite the supposed (as Conservative pointed out) 4% GDP rise from April-June.

Why the sudden need to use current population data in a thread that clearly cites (the thread title should be your first clue) establishment data? Continued bias to the downside (when there really isn't) of course! Since March, more than 1 million jobs have been created, of which 974,000 by way of the private sector.

Secondly, it would be better for everyone if you were simply better informed with respect to the bold.

That is a negative trend.

As stated already, you are full of ****.

Well the two facts don't really add up this month. The BLS household data says only 131,000 jobs were created and yet says that 337,000 full and part time jobs were created...so something does not add up (though last month the two did add up).

Translation: The data doesn't say what i want it to say so i will both ignore it and create a false dilemma for which i lack the ability to explain the discrepancy.

But even if we assume both numbers are somehow accurate...

It could very well be a big conspiracy :roll:

I am not sure how all this adds up to anything but a bad (though not horrible) month to you...must be your apparent political partisanship.

Every month is bad (if not horrible) to you and your sympathizers. One needs to only look at your post history for confirmation. You are bias and you are a hypocrite.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Maybe if you get someone to help you read the charts I posted you will understand that I did address every point you made.

Maybe you should get someone to help explain to you why the charts you posted are a total red herring?.?.?.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

It is hard to explain the concept to people like you who have such low economic standards and understanding of incentive including even your own. It really is hard making you and others understand the value of promoting a pro growth economic policy in a country built on the private sector. Govt. spending will only go so far and last so long. How good Americans can support this incompetence and low economic results is beyond comprehension.

The American leadership is under attack with Obama and it is American leadership that is missing in this so called world economy. You and others want to focus on big business but it is the small local businesses suffering and holding the economy and job creation back.

Your post sums the discrepancy quite well: Your only motivation for posting here is to discredit the current administration every chance you get, which is every post.... and you are not even good at it!
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Maybe you should get someone to help explain to you why the charts you posted are a total red herring?.?.?.

The charts show real job creation not the poor job creation we have today. Reagan inherited a worse recession compounded by a high misery index and through his leadership and private sector economic policies created 17 million jobs but you cannot seem to understand that. Seems that you are nothing more than a big govt. liberal who believes govt. spending in a private sector economy is the answer. All that govt. spending does is create more dependence, destroys incentive, and creates stagnant economic growth.

Unlike you I don't buy rhetoric, only results. You pick and choose which economists you want to believe, all promoting govt. spending. The question is why?
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

You know how far we've come along since tbe Great Recession when an over 200,000 gain in jobs is considered bad. 1.4 million jobs added to the economy in the last six months.

Or is the partisan noise really that die-hard?
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

The charts show real job creation not the poor job creation we have today.

And a completely different demographic makeup surrounding both the U.S. and Global economy.


Is dead.

inherited a worse recession

Only in the minds of those with a political ax to grind.

You pick and choose which economists you want to believe, all promoting govt. spending. The question is why?

Increased government spending in the instance of severe labor market slack is necessary to ensure a sustainable recovery. This is no different in any time since Keynes laid the groundwork for modern macroeconomic thought.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

You know how far we've come along since tbe Great Recession when an over 200,000 gain in jobs is considered bad. 1.4 million jobs added to the economy in the last six months.

Or is the partisan noise really that die-hard?

They are getting desperate now.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

You know how far we've come along since tbe Great Recession when an over 200,000 gain in jobs is considered bad. 1.4 million jobs added to the economy in the last six months.

Or is the partisan noise really that die-hard?

We know how far we have come, 7 trillion added to the debt, low job creation, and stagnant economic growth when you consider the economy grew at 4% projected last quarter. Where is the disconnect? The chart will show you real job creation following the 81-82 recession and why Reagan won 49 of 50 states rather than Obama who lost 4 million votes. It does appear that neither you or Obama understand the private sector economy that we have
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

And a completely different demographic makeup surrounding both the U.S. and Global economy.



Is dead.



Only in the minds of those with a political ax to grind.



Increased government spending in the instance of severe labor market slack is necessary to ensure a sustainable recovery. This is no different in any time since Keynes laid the groundwork for modern macroeconomic thought.

Reagan is indeed dead but his economic principles of pro growth and individual wealth creation live on in the minds of anyone who understands the private sector and personal responsibility.

Govt. stimulus of 844 billion didn't do the job and all govt. stimulus in a private sector economy has to promote incentive and Obama doesn't understand that, nor do you
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

It does appear that neither you or Obama understand the private sector economy that we have

Fun with graphs: Total private payroll employment. Note Obama came into office one year before the data reaches its relative minimum.

fredgraph.png
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Fun with graphs: Total private payroll employment. Note Obama came into office one year before the data reaches its relative minimum.

fredgraph.png

LOL, why don't you compare 2014 to the Depression numbers? Amazing distortion of reality. Obama has added 7 trillion to the debt and we just get back to where the employment was in December 2007. That plus the fact that we have 7.5 million long term part time employees looking for full time jobs. That isn't a pretty picture.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Fun with graphs: Total private payroll employment. Note Obama came into office one year before the data reaches its relative minimum.

fredgraph.png

LOL, why don't you compare 2014 to the Depression numbers? Amazing distortion of reality. Obama has added 7 trillion to the debt and we just get back to where the employment was in December 2007. That plus the fact that we have 7.5 million long term part time employees looking for full time jobs. That isn't a pretty picture.
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

Fun with graphs: Total private payroll employment. Note Obama came into office one year before the data reaches its relative minimum.

fredgraph.png

Do note that Obama's economic policies were passed in February 2009, apparently those shovels are still in route
 
Re: U.S. economy adds 209,000 jobs, unemployment rate rises to 6.2%

We know how far we have come, 7 trillion added to the debt, low job creation, and stagnant economic growth when you consider the economy grew at 4% projected last quarter. Where is the disconnect? The chart will show you real job creation following the 81-82 recession and why Reagan won 49 of 50 states rather than Obama who lost 4 million votes. It does appear that neither you or Obama understand the private sector economy that we have

Clearly you yourself haven't a clue. In spite of Obama's alleged ignorance of the private sector economy, allegations made by you, nearly all the job creation that's taken place under his watch has been in the private sector. Only now have we started to see an uptick in public sector payrolls.

As for "low job creation", no. The records keep telling us we've actually had a lot of job growth during Obama's presidency, nearly 10 million jobs added into the private sector after the recession ended, about 5.5 million if you want to count the recession. We haven't has high job creation from a Republican president since Ronald Reagan, that was about 30 years ago. The last two GOPers had an utterly dismal jobs record, and the only reason good ol' Dubya had any sort of positive growth during his tenure was due to the 2 million public sector (Government) jobs created at his helm. Now his presidency was a real shining time for government growth!

Sorry, but "Hey look we did three decades ago!" just doesn't cut it.
 
Back
Top Bottom