• 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!

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

ocean515 said:
I'm getting it from your posts. You claimed there were more people born in 1946 than at any other time. That would make those people 68 today. Their brothers and sisters have barely hit 65, and many have not hit 60 yet.

Add in the census data that shows more 65+ year old people are continuing to work than before, and the suggestion that anyone 60 or over is retiring is not supported by the available data. Perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation, but it seems your confusing retired, with retirement age.
Click to expand...
let's call it retirement eligible
for social security purposes, i became retirement eligible (62) in august. (for purposes of full disclosure, i have been retired from my employer for 11 plus years)
and many, like me, chose to defer immediate social security retirement upon eligibility because it will enhance our earnings later. we put pencil to paper and realized it is smarter financially - long term - to defer retirement
however, at the height of the notso great recession, a number of my friends and acquaintances, having lost their jobs, or working reduced hours, and having few prospects at finding replacement employment equivalent to that they were forced to relinquish, chose to begin receiving social security benefits as soon as they became eligible. they preferred to defer that choice to realize greater total benefits. but the economy did not cooperate. they accepted the lesser, but immediate, benefit only because they needed the income. then
as the economy has begun improving, that more retirement eligibles are deferring to a later date to commence receiving their benefits is not surprising. an anecdotal observation to be certain, but one which appears to square with the data
 
imagep said:
Who told you that. Is this documented?

And you do realize that people who are self employed are ALL counted as having jobs don't you?

Anyhow, they don't call employers, they call individuals. I highly suspect you just made up that story.
Click to expand...

i guarantee it was fabrication. nothing about it is consistent with how that data is actually collected
 
j-mac said:
Personally, while I think that Obama is highlighting only the good news out of this,...
Click to expand...

Did Obama make a public statement on the unemployment figures released today? I must have missed that.

You do realize that Obama doesn't personally write the reports don't you?
 
Erod said:
It doesn't matter what this "report" says because real people are really feeling what Obama's real economic policy is really about.
Click to expand...

Because facts don't matter to you.

In fact, the August jobs report was revised upweard,
showing the President actually should be blamed for hurting his party low-balling the jobs report .
 
imagep said:
The vast majority of them are already working, but at bargain prices for the rest of us.

Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate food stamps and all other forms of means tested welfare, but if we did that we would need to put in place some mechanism which would create higher wages (ie a higher minimum wage, or more government spending/jobs).
Click to expand...

think of all the money you would cost the walton heirs if you quit subsidizing their workforce
 
ocean515 said:
I'm getting it from your posts. You claimed there were more people born in 1946 than at any other time.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. Look back on my actual worlds.

Add in the census data that shows more 65+ year old people are continuing to work than before, and the suggestion that anyone 60 or over is retiring is not supported by the available data. Perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation, but it seems your confusing retired, with retirement age.
Click to expand...

I never made that claim. I said that we have a higher percentage of people who are retired than ever before. I never claimed that everyone age 60+ is retired, or that their younger siblings are all retired.
 
NIMBY said:
You are asking another poster to prove YOUR negative comment entirely made up by you and which is unprovable.

This is just another wing of the false-equivalency party known as the GOP--though you continue to deny being a GOP though you post like one.

while I am a proud, positive Democrat and don't run from my brand .
Click to expand...

Okaaaaaaaay...so you people honestly do not know the difference between someone saying they believe something and they know something?

:roll:

I will try and remember that.


Btw, I am neither dem nor rep.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
a351 said:
The same suspects every month, crying conspiracy and clutching to anything that resembles negative news. What a sorry bunch.
Click to expand...

An average of 213,000 jobs a month for the past year--and 55 straight months of private sectore job growth.
We can only imagine the further improvement if GOPs were just inert, instead of being an anchor attached to the Obama train holding us back .
 
Yet you don't speak to the fact you have invented a negative born out of false equivalency that can't be proven.
See you next month with another great jobs report you'll say is made up just in time for an election. :lol:
Even though you are not a GOP . :lamo


DA60 said:
Okaaaaaaaay.

And I am neither dem nor rep.


Good day.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
An average of 213,000 jobs a month for the past year--and 55 straight months of private sectore job growth.
We can only imagine the further improvement if GOPs were just inert, instead of being an anchor attached to the Obama train holding us back .
Click to expand...

I'll never hope for the failure of the US economy, like many partisan hacks do, but at this point I am almost hoping for republicans to have huge political victories during the next 26 months, winning full control of both houses of congress and the POTUS.

If that happened, it would be mighty interesting to see if they actually act on their rhetoric. I suspect that if they did, and they did stuff like slashing government spending, eliminating the minimum wage, cut taxes on the rich, eliminated the inheritance tax, eliminated capital gains tax, while jacking up taxes on the poor and middle class as to eliminate the 47%, our economy would falter...to the point of revolution.

But I really don't think they would be so foolish. Republicans like to have a good economy when they are in charge. I would expect that their rhetoric would actually change dramatically and they would pretty much be acting on what the left currently promotes.

Either way, it would prove a point.
 
NIMBY said:
Yet you don't speak to the fact you have invented a negative born out of false equivalency that can't be proven.
See you next month with another great jobs report you'll say is made up just in time for an election. :lol:
Even though you are not a GOP . :lamo
Click to expand...

Okaaaaaaay.

Anyways....

So do you call this report, where 82,000 less Americans in the 20-54 age range are employed and the average hourly wage dropped a good report?

Yes or no, please?
 
DA60 said:
Okaaaaaaay.

Anyways....

So do you call this report, where 82,000 less Americans in the 20-54 age range are employed and the average hourly wage dropped a good report?

Yes or no, please?
Click to expand...

Why do you just pick one demographic?

Again, one of the problems that conservatives often have is that they feel this need for defining everything as good or bad, black or white. Very little is 100% to one extreme or the other.

While it's certainly bad that the data indicates that there were job losses in one demographic, those job losses were more than made up for in other demographics, so when taken it total, it was an overall net positive report.
 
NIMBY said:
An average of 213,000 jobs a month for the past year--and 55 straight months of private sectore job growth.
Click to expand...

So, in 67 months (as of August, 2014) an average of 41,761 more Americans per month (by my calculations) have been employed full time.

Also, since Obama took office, over 1 million (1,076,000) LESS Americans in the all-important 25-54 age range are employed...and that total went up 10,000 last month.

Plus the national debt has gone up by about 60% and about 40% more Americans are on food stamps.

Pretty pathetic, imo, considering there has been near zero interest rates for most of that time AND roughly 12 trillion dollars in government debt/Fed stimuli?
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Why do you just pick one demographic?

Again, one of the problems that conservatives often have is that they feel this need for defining everything as good or bad, black or white. Very little is 100% to one extreme or the other.

While it's certainly bad that the data indicates that there were job losses in one demographic, those job losses were more than made up for in other demographics, so when taken it total, it was an overall net positive report.
Click to expand...

Because, the 25-54 age range is the prime money making group. How many teenagers buy big ticket items? Not many. How many over 55's have dependants? Not many.
Surely you realize that the backbone of any national economy is the 25-54 age range.


But, fine, let's look at the other age groups...

so you call a jobs report where all the extra employed Americans were either teenagers or over 55 (and all other age groups had less employed) AND where the average hourly wage dropped is a good report?

I call it a bad (though not a terrible) report.

And please remember, these numbers are bought with huge deficits, giant QE money 'printing' and near zero interest rates.
If the economy is 'growing' at this rate with all these crutches...what will happen to it when they are removed?
I think it will collapse (how badly, I do not know).

Obama had had over 5 1/2 years of massive deficits, huge government programs and encouraging the Fed to 'go nuts'.
And all America has to show for it is over a million less employed in the all important 25-54 sector...and getting worse?

This is the Mercedes-McDonald's recovery, IMO.
The rich are getting richer, the middle class are shrinking and the poor are growing in number.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
So, in 67 months (as of August, 2014) an average of 41,761 more Americans per month (by my calculations) have been employed full time.

Also, since Obama took office, over 1 million (1,076,000) LESS Americans in the all-important 25-54 age range are employed...and that total went up 10,000 last month.

Plus the national debt has gone up by about 60% and about 40% more Americans are on food stamps.

What a POTUS!

Pretty pathetic considering there has been near zero interest rates for most of that time AND roughly 12 trillion dollars in government debt/Fed stimuli?
Click to expand...

It's all pretty much because we are stuck in political limbo. And it's fair enough to blame it on Obama and his lack of leadership. He should have either done whatever it took to shove his agenda through congress, or he should have just stepped aside and allowed republicans to take the lead on economic matters.

I think that much of the reason he couldn't accomplish more is because he pissed away most of his political capital with Obamacare, and that he grossly underestimated the damage caused to our economy by the Great Recession, to the point that he thought just the spendulous bill would be enough to pull us out of it.

At this point, he's a lame duck, and the best he can do is probably just to float by for the next two years. Of course if we end up with a divided congress and POTUS then, we will likely still be stuck in the same situation. I'm hoping for one party or the other to have huge political gains, and to end the deadlock - regardless of how it happens or what the outcome is.
 
DA60 said:
How many times do I have to tell you, I am not doing the big multi-quote post...I have a life, you know.

Your graph (IMO) sucked...you don't think so...guess how much I care?
Click to expand...
A lot, apparently.


I will ask you one more time, which chart are you referring to (with a link)?
Click to expand...
What are you talking g about?

I am not hunting down the numbers..provide the links or forget it.
Click to expand...
I posted the chart. You wanted a link to it. I gave it to you. You wanted the data, I gave it to you. Now you want a link to the chart again. Do you have a learning disability? There are no other links I can give you....I gave you the links at least 3 times. You don't have to hunt any numbers, I gave you the links.
 
lizzie said:
That sounds good on the surface, until you understand that the labor force participation rate has steadily declined since 2008.
Click to expand...


Well, here's the thing. The labor participation rate is quite low (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...low-record-926-million-americans-not-labor-fo) however, it is currently 62.7, the same as last month and actually down by .1% from this time last year. On top of this:

"The pool of discouraged workers, those who are no longer hunting for a job because they believe none is available, shrank to 698,000 in September from 775,000 the prior month, according to Labor Department figures. The participation rate, which measures the number of Americans employed or looking for a job as a share of the working-age population, decreased to 62.7 percent, the lowest since February 1978." (Drop in U.S. Labor Force Hard to Pin on Discouraged Workers - Bloomberg)

Yet, there is still another problem: The type of jobs created. According to the jobs report, the biggest gains were in retail and food/beverage stores.

"Employment in retail trade rose by 35,000 in September. Food and beverage stores added 20,000 jobs, largely reflecting the return of workers who had been off payrolls in August due to employment disruptions at a grocery store chain in New England. Employment in retail trade has increased by 264,000 over the past 12 months." (Employment Situation Summary)

So while unemployment may be down, the jobs we are creating are generally low-paying.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well, So while unemployment may be down, the jobs we are creating are generally low-paying.
Click to expand...

Yes, and low-paying jobs really don't help the economy much, or at least they don't help sustain our economic viability wrt those who can't or won't work.
 
vesper said:
I'm surprised that no one here connected the dots for a decrease in unemployment. Congress refused to extend unemployment benefits as they have in the past few years. As people's unemployment benefits run out, they start looking for a job and all of sudden aren't so picky at what they will take which coincides with the disappointing wages and an average workweek of 34 hours also stated in the OP article of new jobs.
Click to expand...

To that...

apdst said:
All this means, is that more people stopped looking for a job.
Click to expand...

Towit....

Yeah, because they applied for a job and got hired! :lamo
 
Objective Voice said:
To that...



Towit....

Yeah, because they applied for a job and got hired! :lamo
Click to expand...

A part time job...that pays minimum wage. There's something to brag about! More celebration of mediocrity. ;)
 
imagep said:
The lfpr is still higher than it was at any time before 1978. I don't exactly call that a collapse. Half of the decline from the peak happend prior to Obama being elected, and it's pretty much stablized during the past 10 mths or so.
Click to expand...

hmmmmm

participation rate sept 2014.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom