Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 115

Thread: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To 6.1

  1. #101
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,784

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    Why always such attitude from Obamaland?

    I don't believe the graph any more than anything else to come out of this administration.

    And if you don't know what it is I am trying to say, don't expect "someone" to do your work for you.

    Thanks for playing but I am really tired of the attitude.
    Others' attitude... not your own apparently. Now you are dismissing the graph because of an Obama conspiracy. You aren't being very intellectually honest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  2. #102
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,861

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    Why always such attitude from Obamaland?

    I don't believe the graph any more than anything else to come out of this administration.

    And if you don't know what it is I am trying to say, don't expect "someone" to do your work for you.

    Thanks for playing but I am really tired of the attitude.
    It's easy to sing doom and gloom when you insist that all the data that contradicts your position is fake.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  3. #103
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,784

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    I am in north central Tx, and the building industry is booming once again. NOt at the pre-2008 levels, but at a consistent level. There are new business buildings going up pretty regularly.
    Well here in new mexico... we are almost last at everything. Near last in recovery... education... graduation rates. If it weren't for Mississippi we'd all probably hang ourselves. j/k
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    this is the left wrong logic at it's again. wages are based on market value and supply vs demand. there are more people looking for work than jobs which means pay goes down.
    False, pay has not gone down in absolute terms, there exists a property known as "sticky wages", research it.
    if you notice pre-recession wages were through the roof due to worker demand from companies.
    BS:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/between-2000-and-2012-american-wages-grewnot-at-all/

    http://inequality.org/income-inequality/

    Wages are stagnate due to government continiously messing with the economy and the system instead of actually keeping it's nose out of the way.
    the more expensive you make it for businesses to operate it means less money for wages and raises.
    A moment ago wages "went through the roof" (but they didn't), and during the recession " pay goes down".......so I guess your argument is that the recession was caused by regulations on business....?


    Currently, the states that are "expanding" are primarily states that have large amounts of petroleum products, ie oil and gas.

    actually that is false as well. while some states are expanding in mining in general other states are going strong in argiculture etc.
    10 states with the fastest growing economies

    however if you read the article i will go ahead and point out one major detail that they mention.
    Oh, wait, you skipped something in your article, so let me post it for you to read:

    On the other hand, in "five of the top states, [growth] was primarily a result of mining," which includes oil, natural gas and coal production. Among these was Wyoming, the nation's second-fastest growing state, where mining accounted for 6.1 percentage points of the state's 7.6% growth rate. All of the top four states for GDP growth were among the top four nationwide in terms of the mining sector's share of growth. Additionally, three other top states were among the top 10 for GDP growth contributions from the mining sector.

    Gosh, looks like I was correct after all.

    One common trait among a number of the fastest growing states, however, was a resilient government sector. According to Woodruff, "government was the largest detractor — if you will — from growth in most states." While the government sector directly pulled down GDP nationwide, and served as a drag on output in all but 11 states, this was not the case in the fastest growing states. In fact, six of the top 10 growing states did not experience a drop in output from the government sector.

    wait what you said wasn't happening IS HAPPENING. Governments are draining their state GDP's.
    so a complete denial that government impedes not only the economy but jobs as well hmmm sounds familar since i just said and you said that wasn't the case.
    Let me once again help you out on economic concepts. State GDP, as in all GDP, has a component know as "government spending":


    GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).

    Y = C + I + G + (X − M)

    So when they say that "government was the largest detractor" to state GDP, it means those states cut their spending. State spending cutbacks have been the US's unseen austerity, compounded by huge numbers of layoffs (increases in UNEMPLOYMENT. State govt cutbacks have not been a good thing, they have made matters worse for the US economy.

    I'll let that sink in and see where it goes.



    wrong economic growth generates taxes you can't stifle and penalize growth like this government has done since 2008 and expect a full strong economy.obama has presided over one of worst economic recoveries ever and the only thing he can do is laugh that his so called shovel ready jobs weren't ready.solid GDP growth in a healthy economy is 3-5%. obama 1-2% if he was lucky. after recession GDP growth should be 7-10%. obama barely managed 3%.
    continuing to not understand economics since they were invented.
    Oh, I agree that govt has stifled growth, your problem is that you are looking at the wrong House, it is not the White House getting it wrong.

    the lack of demand is mostly due to government more so obama and the so called liberal party looking out for the working guy.
    I agree that the President wants to help working Americans, but we have a House bent on stopping any relief from getting through.

    people have less money in their paychecks,
    True for the lower quintiles, not true for the top quintiles.
    prices on items have gone up due to regulations and other businesses expenses.
    Um, actually, inflation has been very low....due to....lowered demand....and depressed wages.
    money that would be normally spent on merchandise is going toward healthcare.
    Actually, medical cost are rising at lower rates.



    the so called recession has been over for 2+ years that is no longer an excuse to you so the only moronic commentary is yours.
    the recovery we should have seen a huge increase in GDP growth on the order of 7-10%. that failed to materialize because the left wrong kept passing regulation after regulation after regulation.
    I know, in your world there were no declines in household wealth and debt overhangs do not exist......while the massive job losses were due to "regulations" as states laid-off millions.

    your beloved obamacare cost companies 31b dollars in 3 years for compliance.
    Three Years of Obamacare: $31 Billion in Regulation Costs, 71.5 Million Hours in Compliance | National Review Online

    that is 31b dollars that could have been spent on expansion or raises or jobs or other economic growth. instead it went to the government.
    since obama has been president he has passed another 70b dollars in regulations costs.

    you want to complain about wages etc there they are right there. your pay increase went to the government.
    Not that I would ever question Buckley's NR (ha!), lets say it is correct......that would mean jobs in regulator and compliance, after all......the money is spent on someone, somewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  5. #105
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Meant to respond sooner, but a connection issue cost me my original post.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Really? When he took office, the U-3 rate was 4.9% - today it is 6.1%.
    You are either lying or cannot properly process data; in any case you are dead wrong.


    And that does not include the fact that the Labor Force Participation Rate was 66.2%. Today it is only 62.8%.
    In case you didn’t notice, there is a major demographic shift occurring across the developed world, much less the U.S.. In 1980, the U.S. median age was just over 30 years. Although it increased to just over 33 years by 1990, the magnitude of the female participation rate followed a divergent upward trajectory (grew faster in absolute terms), allowing the labor force participation to rise in the face of an aging population. Female participation peaked in 2001 (60.2%) just as the first boomers began entering retirement. Since 2000, the participation rate has trended downward.

    If you counted only 1/2 of those that have left the work force - the U-3 would be 8.5%.
    You are certainly willing to make some interesting assumptions about the data you claim is falsified.

    What about the poor?

    Well, those on Food stamps are up by over 2/3'rds
    Are you just plain bad at arithmetic or are you having trouble processing data? In January of 2009, 32 million Americans were receiving nutritional provisions. As of June 2014, 46.5 million were receiving these provisions; an increase of (46.5 – 32)/32 = 0.453….

    Why do you believe Obama was sworn into office in January 2008?

    So, the unemploymment rate is higher and FAR more people require government assistance to not go hungry.
    The unemployment rate is lower, and about 13 million more people are receiving SNAP.

    And that is your idea of 'the U.S. economy is better of now'?
    If you only consider participation (which has demographic sensitivities) and SNAP recipients, I guess the U.S. economy doesn’t seem better off. What if we were to expand the metrics of the economy, e.g. net worth, bank failures, bankruptcies, credit defaults, real output, etc…? Clearly the U.S. economy is far better off now!

    Yes, there are more people employed. According to the household survey, since January 2008, despite the trillions of dollars of government/Fed stimulation and the 'artificially' low interest rates...the economy has created a grand total of....*drum roll*....120,000 more employed people.
    Yup, that works out to less then 20,000 per year...not per month...per YEAR.
    Another data processing failure! In January of 2009, there were 132,976,000 million people employed in the U.S.. As of the latest employment report, there are 139,118,000 million people employed; or a gain of 6,042,000 jobs. Then again, we are leaving out a great deal of detail: the labor market bottomed out in February of 2010, losing an additional 4.3 million jobs.

    Since February 2010, 10.342 million jobs have been created.

    Since Obama took office, there are now 2.586 MILLION less people that are full time employed but there are 2.7 million more persons employed part time since Obama took office.
    This must be really embarrassing for you…. Total full time employment in January 2009 was 115,818,000 and total full time employment as of August 2014 is 118,616,000; but this still doesn’t tell us the entire story. Full time employment bottomed in December 2009 @ 110,559,000; a positive change of 8,057,000.
    And since Obama took office, there are now 4.55 MILLION less people employed in the prime money making years of 25-54
    More like 1.04 million less.

    Plus, the wealth/income gap has widened since Obama took office.
    As to be expected following a credit crisis, where the majority of Americans have the majority of their wealth tied into their homes.

    BTW - I am neither Dem nor Rep.
    Nor are you informed on matters concerning political economy (much less an expert!). If you screw up with your data processing this bad in the private sector, you lose your job. No need to try and fake it anymore. You are nothing more than an ideological hack.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #106
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    It's easy to sing doom and gloom when you insist that all the data that contradicts your position is fake.
    Only to reunite with such data when there is any sign of doom and gloom!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #107
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,567

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Well here in new mexico... we are almost last at everything. Near last in recovery... education... graduation rates. If it weren't for Mississippi we'd all probably hang ourselves. j/k
    Everyone loves Mississippi.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  8. #108
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,211

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    So are you suggesting that is is more an issue with state and local regulations and taxes than federal regulations and taxes that are preventing companies from expanding?

    No I'm suggesting its more of an issue with economic principles based on ideology.

    State economies validate or dismiss the effectiveness of those principles.

  9. #109
    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: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    Meant to respond sooner, but a connection issue cost me my original post.



    You are either lying or cannot properly process data; in any case you are dead wrong.




    In case you didn’t notice, there is a major demographic shift occurring across the developed world, much less the U.S.. In 1980, the U.S. median age was just over 30 years. Although it increased to just over 33 years by 1990, the magnitude of the female participation rate followed a divergent upward trajectory (grew faster in absolute terms), allowing the labor force participation to rise in the face of an aging population. Female participation peaked in 2001 (60.2%) just as the first boomers began entering retirement. Since 2000, the participation rate has trended downward.



    You are certainly willing to make some interesting assumptions about the data you claim is falsified.



    Are you just plain bad at arithmetic or are you having trouble processing data? In January of 2009, 32 million Americans were receiving nutritional provisions. As of June 2014, 46.5 million were receiving these provisions; an increase of (46.5 – 32)/32 = 0.453….

    Why do you believe Obama was sworn into office in January 2008?



    The unemployment rate is lower, and about 13 million more people are receiving SNAP.



    If you only consider participation (which has demographic sensitivities) and SNAP recipients, I guess the U.S. economy doesn’t seem better off. What if we were to expand the metrics of the economy, e.g. net worth, bank failures, bankruptcies, credit defaults, real output, etc…? Clearly the U.S. economy is far better off now!



    Another data processing failure! In January of 2009, there were 132,976,000 million people employed in the U.S.. As of the latest employment report, there are 139,118,000 million people employed; or a gain of 6,042,000 jobs. Then again, we are leaving out a great deal of detail: the labor market bottomed out in February of 2010, losing an additional 4.3 million jobs.

    Since February 2010, 10.342 million jobs have been created.



    This must be really embarrassing for you…. Total full time employment in January 2009 was 115,818,000 and total full time employment as of August 2014 is 118,616,000; but this still doesn’t tell us the entire story. Full time employment bottomed in December 2009 @ 110,559,000; a positive change of 8,057,000.


    More like 1.04 million less.



    As to be expected following a credit crisis, where the majority of Americans have the majority of their wealth tied into their homes.



    Nor are you informed on matters concerning political economy (much less an expert!). If you screw up with your data processing this bad in the private sector, you lose your job. No need to try and fake it anymore. You are nothing more than an ideological hack.
    Lol...ahhhhh yes.

    A gigantic number of quotes - none of which contained even one link - to no doubt try and spin the proven (with links) facts I presented to make them seem more palatable to the closed-minded world of Obama/Keynes-is-God types.

    That's our Kushinator.

    Btw, I did not read a word you typed, I just scanned to see if their was a link and - finding none as expected - moved on.

    Why on Earth you would believe I would care for one second what you 'think' or 'surmise' or 'estimate' about this subject is beyond me.

    On macroeconomics, you are apparently staggeringly close minded and arrogant...a horrible combination which leads to the other thing you clearly are on this stuff (based on other posts of yours) - ignorant (no offense).




    We are done here.

    Good day.

  10. #110
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Lol...ahhhhh yes.

    A gigantic number of quotes - none of which contained even one link - to no doubt try and spin the proven (with links) facts I presented to make them seem more palatable to the closed-minded world of Obama/Keynes-is-God types.

    That's our Kushinator.
    You provided the links for the data that you failed to process correctly. I simply corrected your most obvious short comings. Now you want to run away from admitting your errors.

    Just for fun:

    DA60 claimed the unemployment rate was 4.9% when Obama took office.

    What was the U-3 rate as of January of 2009? That's right 7.8%.

    The remainder the post is filled with similar errors, and D60 lacks the courage to admit when he made a mistake.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-10-14 at 04:14 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 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
  •