• 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!

Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

Wages were considered the most important issue in the economy, not job growth. This is why many states held referendums in favor of minimum wage increases.

fredgraph.png


Despite the job gains, average hourly wages haven't budged, which gives you an idea of the types of jobs the economy has created within the last 6 years.

Quality, not quantity.

I understand. What you posted falls right in line with what I said. Each individual voter took their own stock in how the economy and financial situation was effecting them and then decide whom to vote for. If they saw no improvement themselves, their friends and familieis and in their neighborhood, all the rosy stats didn't mean a thing.

That chart is most interesting.
 
Wages were considered the most important issue in the economy, not job growth. This is why many states held referendums in favor of minimum wage increases.

fredgraph.png


Despite the job gains, average hourly wages haven't budged, which gives you an idea of the types of jobs the economy has created within the last 6 years.

Quality, not quantity.

So why didn't you bother to mention that WEEKLY wages seem to have gone up by 2.6%, a significant increase?
 
Is it really that amazing to see jobs increase at Christmas time?
 
IIt is impossible to know how accurate a measurement of a number is compared to another measurement of the same number is unless you know what that number you are measuring actually is.
.

Ah. I think I figured out the disconnect. Since for any sample estimation, there is a margin of error, it is possible that the estimate from a smaller sample is closer to the true number than the estimate from a larger sample. So, no, we cannot know 100% for sure which is closer.

However....the majority of the time the estimate from the larger sample will be closer to the true number than that from a smaller sample. That's simple math.

And that's why the larger sample is more accurate: The margin of error is smaller and therefore it is more likely to be closer to the true number. That's the sense of "absolutely more accurate" I meant.
 
Btw, according to the NOT seasonally adjusted household survey, there were actually 270,000 FEWER Americans employed in November compared to October.

Plus a whopping (again NOT seasonally adjusted) 735,000(!) less Americans employed full time in November compared to October.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

This report just gets uglier and uglier.

The highlighted part is what I failed to include in my original post.
 
Is it really that amazing to see jobs increase at Christmas time?

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for seasonally hiring/firing. Therefore the +321,000 represents the increase in jobs AFTER seasonal variation has been filtered out. The Not Seasonally Adjusted change was +497,000.
 
What DA60 is saying about part time jobs may be true, but as long as the average workweek is increasing, I think that we are headed in the right track.

From today's report:



The average workweek has been shrinking for over a hundred years, I see no reason why anyone would expect that this trend would change now. Today's forty hour a week job would have been considered "part time" a hundred years ago, when the average workweek was 70 hours.

Seriously ???

So there's no discernible contributing factors that would explain why we're seeing a increase in part time positions ?

No Regulation ? No policy ? No mandate ? No LAW ????

It's part of trend thats beyond our control ?

Lol......
 
Is it really that amazing to see jobs increase at Christmas time?

No, but the figures are seasonally adjusted, so I would assume that Christmas has already been taken into account.
 
So why didn't you bother to mention that WEEKLY wages seem to have gone up by 2.6%, a significant increase?

Weekly wages is derived from the amount of hours employees are working, which gives you an idea of how long employees are working (along with average hourly earnings estimates). People working longer hours is good.

However, average hourly earnings gives you an idea of what the types of jobs the economy has been creating, which were mostly retail trade, temporary services and leisure & hospitality. This is fine I guess if people don't mind living paycheck to paycheck.
 
Seriously ???

So there's no discernible contributing factors that would explain why we're seeing a increase in part time positions ?

No Regulation ? No policy ? No mandate ? No LAW ????

It's part of trend thats beyond our control ?

Lol......



Sure there are reasons. These reasons go back a hundred years or more. A hundred years ago the average workweek was 70 hours, and the 40 hour work week would have been considered a part time job. Following that trend, by the end of this century, the 10 or 15 hour workweek will be the new full time.

The trend towards more part time workers didn't just start with Obama, if that is what you are implying. It also existed under Bush, and almost every other president in recent history, although I will admit that it jumped to a new level due to the Great Bush Recession (prior to Obama being elected):
Part%20Time%20Workers.png

It peaked around 2009, and it has stayed at this new "norm" every since.
And if you look at the report, you would notices that the number of people who are working part time because they can't find a full time job didn't increase last month, despite the fact that more people are working part time. This means that those people who accepted part time jobs last month did so because they WANTED part time jobs. Also, the average work week actually INCREASED!!!
 
Sure there are reasons. These reasons go back a hundred years or more. A hundred years ago the average workweek was 70 hours, and the 40 hour work week would have been considered a part time job. Following that trend, by the end of this century, the 10 or 15 hour workweek will be the new full time.

The trend towards more part time workers didn't just start with Obama, if that is what you are implying. It also existed under Bush, and almost every other president in recent history, although I will admit that it jumped to a new level due to the Great Bush Recession (prior to Obama being elected):
Part%20Time%20Workers.png

It peaked around 2009, and it has stayed at this new "norm" every since.
And if you look at the report, you would notices that the number of people who are working part time because they can't find a full time job didn't increase last month, despite the fact that more people are working part time. This means that those people who accepted part time jobs last month did so because they WANTED part time jobs. Also, the average work week actually INCREASED!!!


Oh there's one really substantial reason you've seem to have forgotten.

ObamaCare's new Regulations forcing Businesses who hire full time to incur substantial cost increases..

I mean c'mon. You cant be this partisan.

Its one of the reasons why this is the worst post WWII recovery in our Nation's history.

Blaming it on some nebulous trend is bad enough but not admitting that the ACA hasn't substantial impact on the lack of new full time positions is just willful ignorance.
 
Oh there's one really substantial reason you've seem to have forgotten.

ObamaCare's new Regulations forcing Businesses who hire full time to incur substantial cost increases..

I mean c'mon. You cant be this partisan.

Its one of the reasons why this is the worst post WWII recovery in our Nation's history.

Blaming it on some nebulous trend is bad enough but not admitting that the ACA hasn't substantial impact on the lack of new full time positions is just willful ignorance.

I'm not partisan at all, nor did I forget about Obamacare. I'm just not seeing any evidence that connects Obamacare, to shorter working hours. We've been working shorter and shorter working hours for more than a century.

There is no reason to believe that Obamacare is having that effect. Most large employers already paid for insurance, so I don't see how that would have effected them again. Most smaller employers, the types that tended to have part time employees, are exempt from the employer mandate.

Do you have any evidence that indicates Obamacare is having anything to do with more part timers, other than anti-obamacare rhetoric? And can you explain why the percentage of part time employees was increasing BEFORE Obama was even elected? Or why it soared up during the time gap between the start of the Great Bush Recession but prior to Obamacare?

Seriously, if you have any evidence that indicates causation, I'd like to see it. And rhetoric isn't evidence, it's just talk.
 
I'm not partisan at all, nor did I forget about Obamacare. I'm just not seeing any evidence that connects Obamacare, to shorter working hours. We've been working shorter and shorter working hours for more than a century.

There is no reason to believe that Obamacare is having that effect. Most large employers already paid for insurance, so I don't see how that would have effected them again. Most smaller employers, the types that tended to have part time employees, are exempt from the employer mandate.

Do you have any evidence that indicates Obamacare is having anything to do with more part timers, other than anti-obamacare rhetoric? And can you explain why the percentage of part time employees was increasing BEFORE Obama was even elected? Or why it soared up during the time gap between the start of the Great Bush Recession but prior to Obamacare?

Seriously, if you have any evidence that indicates causation, I'd like to see it. And rhetoric isn't evidence, it's just talk.


There's every reason to believe ObamaCare is having that effect.

A recent survey found that a year before the Business mandate goes into effect that nearly 1/3 of franchised Businesses have replaced full time workers with part time workers.

With another 30 percent cutting their workers hours.

That's not indicative of a long winded trend. That's indicative of destructive regulations that exist in the ACA.

The CBO stated that Labor participation rates wouldn't return to pre- recession levels for another decade and they cited the subsidies contained within the ACA as the primary reason.

When Gruber got busted calling the American voter idiots the Democrats passed it off as a one off comment by a guy no one knew. His opinion of the American voter wasn't shared by anyone.

But thats BS..

All Liberals believe that. At least the Elites do.

The BS rhetoric and lies about " affordability " and "access " to quality health care when they were trying to push this abortion of a law down our throats prove it.

This law mandating higher cost and a arbitrary minimum coverage for all Americans regardless of health was going to be economically inconsequential.

No, it was going to be " deficit neutral ".

Seriously ? Did anyone actually believe that ?

It mandates higher cost on Businesses and Corporations and raises taxes as it increases premiums and deductibles for Middle class Americans.

Bussinesses will simply pass their increased cost on to the consumer just as the tax increases contained in the ACA will be passed on to the Consumer.

On top of that it removed the Insurance companies ability to price policies based on actuarial tables which is an additional cost increase for the average Middle class American Family.

Hey, the Government is going to mandate a level of quality when it comes to Health Insurance no matter how healthy or unhealthy we are.

Sounds great ! If people only knew how much thats going to cost them.

Every aspect of that law targets the Middle-class.

It just robs the Consumer on so many different levels and it does it under the pretense of " affordability
 
RighTEAs swarm the best jobs report number yet, as they do once a month.
Wishing they could have the good old days six years ago when we were losing 740,000 jobs a month.
Imagine the joy from rightists if President Romney had a job differential of + 1,061,000 jobs from Nov. 2008 .
 
I'm not partisan at all, nor did I forget about Obamacare. I'm just not seeing any evidence that connects Obamacare, to shorter working hours. We've been working shorter and shorter working hours for more than a century.

There is no reason to believe that Obamacare is having that effect. Most large employers already paid for insurance, so I don't see how that would have effected them again. Most smaller employers, the types that tended to have part time employees, are exempt from the employer mandate.

Do you have any evidence that indicates Obamacare is having anything to do with more part timers, other than anti-obamacare rhetoric? And can you explain why the percentage of part time employees was increasing BEFORE Obama was even elected? Or why it soared up during the time gap between the start of the Great Bush Recession but prior to Obamacare?

Seriously, if you have any evidence that indicates causation, I'd like to see it. And rhetoric isn't evidence, it's just talk.

Businesses cutting back found they could operate with more part-time employees (with fewer benefits) and more technology. That it started before the PPACA does not mean that the PPACA isn't part of the decision-making process. For some it naturally would be, but for others it might not be. There is no single driver in business employment trends so not much can be left out of the mix either.
 
RighTEAs swarm the best jobs report number yet, as they do once a month.
Wishing they could have the good old days six years ago when we were losing 740,000 jobs a month.
Imagine the joy from rightists if President Romney had a job differential of + 1,061,000 jobs from Nov. 2008 .

I'm actually shocked no one attributed the increase to the new GOP controlled Congress.

Maybe Limbaugh and Hannity haven't said that yet.
 



Big colorful graphics made with superficial dats from the Daily Kos might impress you, but not me.

I would rather spend a whole 3 minutes getting to the bottom of what seems like good news for Obama and the Democrats.

You know, just because of the obvious tendencies Obama has to not offering up the whole truth.

Obama's like a really crooked Used Car Salesman.

You just can't take anything he says seriously.
 
I'm actually shocked no one attributed the increase to the new GOP controlled Congress.

Maybe Limbaugh and Hannity haven't said that yet.

Especially since they attributed the 2.2 million jobs lost during Obama's first three months to Obama.
And every month after until the turnaround.
(remembering how 10.4% was all on Obama)

Yet the righTEAs began finding fault with positive monthly reports thereafter .
 
Big colorful graphics made with superficial dats from the Daily Kos might impress you, but not me.

I would rather spend a whole 3 minutes getting to the bottom of what seems like good news for Obama and the Democrats.

You know, just because of the obvious tendencies Obama has to not offering up the whole truth.

Obama's like a really crooked Used Car Salesman.

You just can't take anything he says seriously.

Don't let the facts get in your way.
 
I'm actually shocked no one attributed the increase to the new GOP controlled Congress.

Maybe Limbaugh and Hannity haven't said that yet.

As soon as they say it, their followers will follow.
 
Btw, according to the NOT seasonally adjusted household survey, there were actually 270,000 FEWER Americans employed in November compared to October.

Plus a whopping (again NOT seasonally adjusted) 735,000(!) less Americans employed in November compared to October.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

This report just gets uglier and uglier.
Instead of pointing to monthly swings as indicators per usual, why not look at the actual trends? The number of those working part time has increased by 250k in the last year while over 2.5 million full time positions have been added in the same time period.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
 
Last edited:
Big colorful graphics made with superficial dats from the Daily Kos might impress you, but not me.

I would rather spend a whole 3 minutes getting to the bottom of what seems like good news for Obama and the Democrats.

You know, just because of the obvious tendencies Obama has to not offering up the whole truth.

Obama's like a really crooked Used Car Salesman.

You just can't take anything he says seriously.


It's not the pretty graphs that are interesting, it's the facts that they are based on. Pretty shocking when you see something like that isn't it?

Go ahead, dismiss the truth because it doesn't fit your failed rhetoric. We all knew you would anyway.
 
If we divide a Trillion dollars by all of the jobs that this Administration claims that they have created with that stimulus... Then how much did each of these jobs actually end up costing the taxpayers per job? How effective was the government with that redistribution?

Is it fair for the Administration to brag that these job number increases are a result of fundamentals enhanced by their superior economic policy decisions?
Or should they just admit that these numbers were bought and paid for by the taxpayers?

And how come no one is talking about how far these [inflated] job numbers are below the Administration's original projections?
What about that accountability?


Since most of these jobs are low level entry jobs... Think of how much money we could have saved if the government just paid these workers directly and cut out all of the politicians in the middle. Especially, when you take into account the fact that we were already paying most of them unemployment to start with.


By the way...

Are the wonderful job numbers touted by the Administration the result of fundamental growth or are they marginalized by the expanding population growth and the resultant natural expansion of the jobs market?


I was also wondering...

When this Administration brags about all of these low level jobs being created, do they mention that most of them are going to those individuals that Obama is inviting across the open boarder?


Does anyone care that -- For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce?
 
Last edited:
If we divide a Trillion dollars by all of the jobs that this Administration claims that they have created with that stimulus...

We simply don't know how many were created or saved, and will never know.

I am not a supporter of the spendulous bill, it was horribly misdirected and misimplimented. It was designed to give us a soft landing, when what we really needed was a jump start. It was way too small, way to indirect, padded the pockets of the already rich, and was mostly a payback for political support.

But do you really believe that if we had elected a different president, that any other president would have failed to attempt some sort of economic stimulous? I don't.

Are the wonderful job numbers touted by the Administration the result of fundamental growth or are they marginalized by the expanding population growth and the resultant natural expansion of the jobs market?

Our lfpr has stopped declining. So I can only assume that the increasing jobs numbers is a result of economic growth. I guess you can try to rationalize and marginalize all the good economic news that you desire to, when it proves your ideology wrong, but maybe it would be wiser to modify your ideology.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom