Page 34 of 57 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 565

Thread: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

  1. #331
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Like I said, cherry picking of data. Instead of including the time when he stepped into office during a recession and including the time periods during which we were still losing jobs due to the recession, how about you find the figures since January 1st, 2011? I think that would be a MUCH better indicator of the jobs recovery.
    That would be the definition of cherry picking the data.

  2. #332
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    That would be the definition of cherry picking the data.
    No, it wouldn't. Choosing numbers DURING a recession and then claiming they were part of the recovery is false, dishonest and obviously cherry picked. It's a FAR better indicator to use figures from after the recession and its effects have worn off to see how good the recovery has been.

  3. #333
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
    You want to believe they are fudging numbers because you have Obama derangement syndrome and can't think independently without your irrational hate for the president.

    They can fudge the #'s all they want.

    They're preaching to the choir, just "fooling " the people who are willing to be fooled.

    The fact is that this economy still has to be propped up with Quantitative easing and our Labor participation rate is still falling.

    Its been 6 years.

    Corporations have posted record profits by cutting cost, not because they've responded to a increase in demand that would accompany a REAL Economy recovery.

    Their sitting on massive piles of money or using their profits to buy back their outstanding shares, NOT putting them back into a Obama economy.

  4. #334
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    I gotta admit, even I was shocked.

    I had no idea the 'recovery' was skewing so far towards over 55's and away from almost everyone else.

    Wow, given that statistic, it would seem the FED is also less than objective.

    Wasn't it Yellen ( Fellow Keynesian ) who claimed the falling Labor participation rate was due to demographics ?

  5. #335
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Here is how the various age groups have done during that time (Jan. 2009 to today):

    16-19... -686,000
    20-24... +771,000
    25-54... -1,086,000
    55 and up...+5,417,000


    Since Obama took office, by my calculations, 1,001,000 less Americans under 55 are employed...but 5,417,000 more Americans over 55 are employed!?!

    That is Obama's great recovery?


    Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/arch...t_02062009.pdf
    Page 16
    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Like I said, cherry picking of data. Instead of including the time when he stepped into office during a recession and including the time periods during which we were still losing jobs due to the recession, how about you find the figures since January 1st, 2011? I think that would be a MUCH better indicator of the jobs recovery.
    Never mind, I'll just do it for you, since I find it highly unlikely you'll be willing to do the objective thing:

    16-19: +161,000
    20-24: +880,000
    25-54: +1,849000
    55+: +4,367,000

    Total gains since January 2011: 7,277,000

    Geez, when you don't falsify data (who in the hell thinks a recession is a recovery anyways?), the numbers look so much better, don't they?

  6. #336
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Never mind, I'll just do it for you, since I find it highly unlikely you'll be willing to do the objective thing:

    16-19: +161,000
    20-24: +880,000
    25-54: +1,849000
    55+: +4,367,000

    Total gains since January 2011: 7,277,000

    Geez, when you don't falsify data (who in the hell thinks a recession is a recovery anyways?), the numbers look so much better, don't they?


    Your data STILL contradicts the narrative that the low labor participation rate is due to a mass of retirees.

    So we can add some needed context to your # by posting the 30 year low labor participation rate, right ?

  7. #337
    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: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Like I said, cherry picking of data. Instead of including the time when he stepped into office during a recession and including the time periods during which we were still losing jobs due to the recession, how about you find the figures since January 1st, 2011? I think that would be a MUCH better indicator of the jobs recovery.
    lol...talk about cherry picking!?! The POTUS is responsible for the entire length of his presidency, not just the parts that make him look good (theoretically).

    My data included Obama's entire presidency...there is no cherry picking.

    My final comment about the recovery might have been 'cherry picking', but the statistics are not. And since you accused my data of cherry picking (not my final comment), your statement is erroneous.

    And btw, according to National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession ended in June 2009. That is when the 'recovery' began. You are the one who is trying to Cherry pick statistics.

    Great Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    But, let's use stats from the official beginning of the recovery (July, 2009):

    16-19...-497,000
    20-24...+1,047,000
    25-54...+216,000
    55 and over...+5,488,000

    So, since the 'recovery' has begun (July 2009), 766,000 more Americans under 55 are employed AND 5,488,000 more Americans over 55 are employed.


    Thus, during the 63 months of the 'recovery' from the Great Recession, 12,158 more Americans under 55 have found employment per month AND 87,111 more Americans over 55 have found employment per month.

    Or, during this 'Obama recovery', (by my calculations), for every one person under 55 that has found new employment, over 7 (7.16) over 55 person's found new employment.


    Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/arch...t_07022009.pdf
    Last edited by DA60; 10-06-14 at 11:39 AM.

  8. #338
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Your data STILL contradicts the narrative that the low labor participation rate is due to a mass of retirees.
    How so?

    Let's say there are 5 people in the 25-54 age range and 50 in the 55+ range. If 2 people in the 25-54 range get a job and 10 in the 55+ range get a job and 30 in the 55+ range retire...then the labor force participation would still go down, even though the 55+ range experienced a larger increase in jobs.

    So, no, it doesn't contradict the narrative at all. All it shows is that, since January 2011, the abnormally large demographic of Baby Boomers has gained over 4 million jobs.

    So we can add some needed context to your # by posting the 30 year low labor participation rate, right ?
    You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.

    So...I guess if you want to add context you can, but be sure to include ALL context, not just the ones which fit your obviously biased agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    lol...talk about cherry picking!?! The POTUS is responsible for the entire length of his presidency
    A) A recession is not a recovery and anyone who says otherwise is being silly
    B) A President is not responsible for a recession which started before he even took office. To say otherwise is silly.

    Perhaps you ought to look up the definition of cherry picking data.

    My data included Obama's entire presidency...there is no cherry picking.
    Including job losses in a recession which occurred before Obama took office and including job losses which occurred before a President's policies could possibly begin having an effect IS cherry picking. It's incredibly dishonest, but you know that already.

    And since you accused my data of cherry picking
    It is. Just like you always do.

    And btw, according to National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession Ended in June 2009. That is when the 'recovery' began. You are the one who is trying to Cherry pick statistics.
    Everyone knows the effects of the recession continued, even after the recession technically ended. Saying otherwise is being blatantly dishonest. The economy is not a light switch.

    Could you be any more obvious with regards to your bias? For someone who loves to claim you're neither Dem or Rep, you sure do try awfully hard to falsify and/or manipulate data in a dishonest manner to present a fictional narrative against our current President.

  9. #339
    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: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Your data STILL contradicts the narrative that the low labor participation rate is due to a mass of retirees.

    So we can add some needed context to your # by posting the 30 year low labor participation rate, right ?
    Exactly.

    It's not so much the numbers of jobs created/lost that I find astounding...it's the ratio of over 55 to under 55 (over 7:1) that I find so concerning.


    Maybe this should be called the 'Obama seniors recovery'.
    Last edited by DA60; 10-06-14 at 11:56 AM.

  10. #340
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Their sitting on massive piles of money or using their profits to buy back their outstanding shares, NOT putting them back into a Obama economy.
    This is simply false.
    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 34 of 57 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •