• 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

'Unemployed
[uhn-em-ploid]
adjective
1.
not employed; without a job; out of work:
an unemployed secretary.'


Unemployed | Define Unemployed at Dictionary.com

Why? Because by definition (I don't care about the BLS definition), they ARE unemployed....

Then maybe we shouldn't even be looking at the lfpr as it doesn't include everyone - not people under 16 or people institutionalized. Those infants need to go get a job - slackers!
 
Obama Beats Romney's Campaign Promise Of 6% Unemployment In Half the Time | The Daily Banter

If Friday’s long-awaited dip in unemployment below 6% sounded a little bit familiar to you, that’s because it was the exact benchmark that Republican presidential candidate and choice of White America Mitt Romney laid down for his own hypothetical presidency. Obama achieved that goal within 21 months of his second term, but as one Twitter user pointed out, Romney promised that pie-in-the-sky dream on an entirely different timetable:
Read more at Obama Beats Romney's Campaign Promise Of 6% Unemployment In Half the Time | The Daily Banter
 
I find this whole LFPR a very perplexing rightwing talking point. The Right is trying way too hard on this one.

The LFPR in the US is in line with that of most advanced economies. If anything it's a tad higher than most of Europe. If you compare it to the world, you find that most poor third world economies have a very high LFPR. The reason is obvious: no social safety net for retiring, and child labor.

So I take it that the conservatives now want our economy to look more like Ethiopia's than Germany's? Those conservatives and their funny ideas!
 
I find this whole LFPR a very perplexing rightwing talking point. The Right is trying way too hard on this one.

The LFPR in the US is in line with that of most advanced economies. If anything it's a tad higher than most of Europe. If you compare it to the world, you find that most poor third world economies have a very high LFPR. The reason is obvious: no social safety net for retiring, and child labor.

So I take it that the conservatives now want our economy to look more like Ethiopia's than Germany's? Those conservatives and their funny ideas!



LOL !!

You thought of that all by yourself, didn't you ?

Made the tenuous connection that Millions not being able to find employment is a positive economic indicator ?

And that the Labor market ia right were we need to be because we don't want to turn into " Ethiopia " ??
 
LOL !!

You thought of that all by yourself, didn't you ?

Made the tenuous connection that Millions not being able to find employment is a positive economic indicator ?

And that the Labor market ia right were we need to be because we don't want to turn into " Ethiopia " ??

There's nothing more amusing than hearing a conservative pretend to care about unemployed people finding work.
 
LOL !!

Yep, he sure did didn't he ? We just have to keep our blinders on and ignore all of the other indicators that give an ACCURATE description of our current economic conditions.

Hey, the FED said they would stop QE if unemployment ever dropped below 6 percent too. So whats the hold up Yellen ?

Face it, Mitt would have been jumping up and down and farting quarters if he had 5.9 half way through his first term.

Try as you might, the number is good news for America.
 
And back in 2008, Obama said the stimulus would ensure unemployment would go no higher than 8%. It went much higher. And it stayed up there for 43 months.

So, I'd say President Obama was several years behind his own prediction.

Gee, that is nice.

But I posted that Romney promised 6% in 4 years. So...... your post is not germane to my post.
 
People don't have jobs because the economy shrank.....

It's nearly a clone of the USSR...... Half have jobs and the other half are relying on government handouts.

In short there are not enough jobs for everyone...

Any economist left or right can see this.....

Obama**** did exactly as he planned to do and his ISIS bombings are just compromise...

Obama manipulated the laws, rules and regulations of a free nation. Of course no one cares because those who get the perks - the free perks- love the man.

The United States has become a caricature of its intended ideas.
 
Gee, that is nice.

But I posted that Romney promised 6% in 4 years. So...... your post is not germane to my post.

Sure it is. Romney said he could lower two points in four years. It took Obama six years.
 
If you think only 2,000 people are going to be effected by the pipeline, you don't know anything about pipelining.

Given that I spent much of the last decade as a officer and board member of a petroleum service business, I think I know a little about pipelines, although I admit our business served the upstream sector of the petroleum industry. Sorry, but you don't get to shoot down my credentials.

Pipelines really do not create a ton of secondary jobs. I still think the hotel creates more. That all said, you are still missing my point (probably because I am indulging you in your tangents)... when it comes to job creation, the Keystone pipeline is much to do about nothing: it just doesn't create that many jobs.
 
LOL !!

Yep, he sure did didn't he ? We just have to keep our blinders on and ignore all of the other indicators that give an ACCURATE description of our current economic conditions.

Hey, the FED said they would stop QE if unemployment ever dropped below 6 percent too. So whats the hold up Yellen ?

Exactly.

But, they will - I assume - just keep moving the goal posts until either the economy finally takes off on it's own (fat chance) or the Fed finally runs out of bullets to shoot.
 
A few other sources that think the 'recovery' started in 2009:

The U.S. Economic Recovery: Long, Slow, but Still Going - Businessweek

The recovery began in 2009 but 2013 will get the credit [UPDATE] - UPI.com


So, UPI, Businessweek and the the Pew Research Center (for starters) saying the recovery began in July, 2009.

Jeez...even Paul Krugman agrees with me (that it started in 2009 anyway).

'And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com put it in recent testimony, “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html


I give up on this.

Anyway, I have made my point...you don't agree, so be it.

I are done here.


Good day.
Is it blatant dishonesty that you are completely missing my point, or do you just simply not get it? Given your reputation, I suspect I know the answer to my question.

I'll say it once more, and if you have a shred of decency, you'll acknowledge the point...Yes, everyone. The fact you found an article which agrees the recession technically ended in summer 2009 (which even I said was true) doesn't change the fact the EFFECTS from the recession continued on long after.

Seriously, just once...do the non-biased thing. You've been proven wrong every step of the way, just admit it.
 
There's nothing more amusing than hearing a conservative pretend to care about unemployed people finding work.



Says the guy who equates a High LFPR to " Ethiopia ".
 
Face it, Mitt would have been jumping up and down and farting quarters if he had 5.9 half way through his first term.

Try as you might, the number is good news for America.


Its Good news for Liberals and Democrats in America.

For those who demand a bit more context to their economic indicators ? Not so much.
 
Given that I spent much of the last decade as a officer and board member of a petroleum service business, I think I know a little about pipelines, although I admit our business served the upstream sector of the petroleum industry. Sorry, but you don't get to shoot down my credentials.

Pipelines really do not create a ton of secondary jobs. I still think the hotel creates more. That all said, you are still missing my point (probably because I am indulging you in your tangents)... when it comes to job creation, the Keystone pipeline is much to do about nothing: it just doesn't create that many jobs.


If that's true, then you should know that someone has to make the pipe, coat the pipe, haul the pipe, clear the right-of-way, rent the equipment to clear the right-of-way, operate the equipment, haul the equipment, fix the equipment, dig the ditch, build the mats, lay the pipe, cut the pipe, bend the pipe, weld the pipe, x-ray the weld, pressure test the line. Coat the joints, backfill, dress, mop-up and I probably missed a half dozen other stages in the process. We're talking about more than two thousand jobs.
 
It's been declining since 2000. But why do you think that's a problem?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vBZSlN8C9NRSEgSKQ&sig2=IaZQuJBrK7kRQ4co7wImgQ

The tax base contains less workers, which is not a good thing. But no matter how you look at it, the most important factor that affected the published change in unemployment has nothing to do with Obama policies. That is, he didn't reduce unemployment. Baby Boomers retiring helped him look good. He's not creating enough jobs to make a dent. We need a larger working population.
 
Face it, Mitt would have been jumping up and down and farting quarters if he had 5.9 half way through his first term.

Try as you might, the number is good news for America.

This is what Obama has done for America since he took office:

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!?!

So, those numbers are good news for Americans? If you're a senior, yes. For almost everyone else, nope.
 
Hmm...then they backed off a bit. It was over 50 percent.

Still a substantial amount and a clear indicator that they're not as confident in these jobs numbers as some of the posters here are.

The economy did not reach pre-recession levels of private investment until last year. There were 2.33 million jobs created from Sept 2013 to Sept 2014.
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vBZSlN8C9NRSEgSKQ&sig2=IaZQuJBrK7kRQ4co7wImgQ

The tax base contains less workers, which is not a good thing. But no matter how you look at it, the most important factor that affected the published change in unemployment has nothing to do with Obama policies. That is, he didn't reduce unemployment. Baby Boomers retiring helped him look good. He's not creating enough jobs to make a dent. We need a larger working population.

Increase rates on the top bracket. Tax problem solved, and job problem solved, as locked up capital gets back into the economy.
 
Increase rates on the top bracket. Tax problem solved, and job problem solved, as locked up capital gets back into the economy.

The rich invest their money, why do you think most of the income is from capital gains? Tax problem not solve, nor deficit , nor debt.
 
Increase rates on the top bracket. Tax problem solved, and job problem solved, as locked up capital gets back into the economy.

It's more complicated than that. The top single tax bracket tops out @ $400,001. Should a person earning $400,001 pay the same rate as a person earning $40 million?
 
Back
Top Bottom