Page 14 of 50 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 499

Thread: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

  1. #131
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    Similar to the policies that got him a Nobel Peace Prize perhaps.......
    Which was entirely Obama's fault.
    As Obama should have turned it down and disrespected the entire World, as Bush/Cheney routinely did .
    Physics is Phun

  2. #132
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    The same applies to you as well.
    Who started the bartering for giving credit to Presidents, Dayton3?
    At least you were honest enough to admit that's what GOP posters do, though I'm not sure you meant to.

    Kind of like McConnell taking credit for the most jobs in a year, 2014, than in 15 years--with Americans knowing who'd be coming to power--the GOP.
    Why would McConnell take credit for something you GOP posters continue to slam and damn ?
    Physics is Phun

  3. #133
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    That depends on who you ask.

    Government can create private jobs via stimulus programs. E.g. dedicate $10 billion to infrastructure jobs, then hire private firms to build roads.

    It is the job of government to do this during a recession, since the failure to do so can deepen the recession. And of course, when we need the work to be done.
    IKE created private sector jobs with his Interstate Highway System that continue to be enduring--but he was a GOP so he gets credit.

    Yet we are now in danger of not getting another Infrastructure Bill since the GOP is in charge of the Senate and House.
    That would be Obama's fault.
    As would the ensuing jobs lost due to it .
    Physics is Phun

  4. #134
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    A rarely used one it seems.
    The current GOP with its AAN versus the Freedom Caucus split is lost without the master of false-equivalency, Eric Cantor .
    Physics is Phun

  5. #135
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Most of the stimulus dollars were gone before 2013.
    Proof?
    They aren't creating private sector jobs today and haven't created any measurable number of private sector jobs for a few years.
    Proof?
    That isn't contributing to the recent drop in unemployment numbers,
    Once again, no proof from the one who demands proof from lefties.
    and as Obama found so amusing,
    which he didn't so you've moved on to the blatant lie level.
    those shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as he assumed.
    Have you seen the pictures of GOP politicians digging in their shovels?
    The projects that stimulus funded are mostly all over.
    Again, no proof as our economy has moved on--try to catch up.
    In 2010 I couldn't drive on a road here in NH without seeing a stimulus sign. Those jobs are long completed.
    Repetitious and without proof--GOPs only care about NH every 4 years--how's that Christie doing defending a fellow cheater Brady?
    Keep in mind too that not all of the $800+ billion didn't do to projects.
    Especially those used by governors like Perry of Texas to balance his budget.
    Tell me those dollars didn't create private sector jobs--and prove it .
    Physics is Phun

  6. #136
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I think the Republicans who control Congress are responsible for the unemployment rate drop.
    McConnell feels the same way.
    Saying the GOPs in the Senate are responsible for 2014 being the best year in job growth in the last 15 years--since the last DEM President.

    Since people knew they were voting Mitch in--grandfathering his claim of responsibility.
    Why would McConnell be so giddy about Obama's economy when you GOP posters are damning it so ?
    Physics is Phun

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    only 192,000 more people were employed AND March was revised downwards to just 34,000!?!
    Wrong. Employment went up by 223K in April. The number for March was indeed revised, but to 85K, not 34K.

    The 192K figure is from the Household survey, which is used to measure unemployment; the Establishment survey, with its increase of 223K, measures employment.

    Doesn't this dialogue strike you as familiar? A year ago, as I recall, you didn't know that there are two surveys. Then when you were provided with that information, you started selecting whichever numbers placed the labour market in the worst light. I'm not sure if yer still doing that, or if yer just confused.

    Here's a response you offered to pingy back then:

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The BLS is a joke. … They claim on one hand that 288,000 jobs were created...and then on the other that 73,000 jobs were lost.

    Please keep your (supposed) ex-bureaucratic, trained minion opinions to yourself (as far as telling me is concerned)...I have no interest in them until you open your mind. You only pop your head up around here to spew forth your bureaucratic Mumbo jumbo to (I assume) pad your own ego. 'Oh look, a commoner who I can make look silly by showing them my vast knowledge of government trained-minion double-speak and technical blather...how fun.'
    One thing is obvious: you continue to have a greatly exaggerated opinion of yer ability to interpret this data.

  8. #138
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    None of that explains why the unemployment rate is dropping today.

    Can you please post a link that shows what policies Obama has implemented that have lowered the unemployment rate over the time of his Presidency?

    By the way, you should read the first link a little more carefully. "Savings jobs" doesn't lower the unemployment rate. Savings jobs prevents the unemployment rate from increasing.
    His proof is enduring.
    Your obtuseness is also enduring.
    There's nothing he can show you at this point you will accept.
    See you on a similar type thread next month with the rest of you GOP economy deniers .
    Physics is Phun

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    the 16-19 AND the 25-54 age ranges (the latter the backbone of the economy) both had less people employed in April.
    Why not tell people how many … fewer … 25 to 54? (Because human beings are discrete units, you should use fewer, rather than less, to describe them.) Do you know how many fewer? Nineteen thousand, from 96,501,000 to 95,482,000 — a drop of less than two one-hundredths of one percent.

    What has the trend for this group been over the past year? Not too bad:

    employed_25_to_54_2014_2015.jpg

    >>there were 252,000 less Americans employed full time in April.

    Hey, ya got one right. But again, the trend over the past year or so is fairly acceptable:

    emp_ft_2014_2015.jpg

    >>since January, there are only 61,000 more Americans employed full time

    True. But over the past two years, 4.8 million more Americans have become employed full-time. You may have noticed that there was a slowdown in the economy over the winter. And the dollar has been climbing, which hurts hiring in export-sensitive industries. And of course there is yer touching concern for those being laid off in the energy sector.

    >>192,000 more who are part time.

    Correct. And many of those 192K are happy to have a job. And some of them would like to work full-time. Did you bother to look into that?

    The number employed PT for economic reasons, i.e., wanted to work FT but didn't get the hours, FELL by 230K.

    >>since January, there are less people employed in the important 35-54 age group

    I'm guessing this cohort follows the pattern found in the others discussed already — a slowdown in the past three months, and a generally acceptable trend over the past, say, five years.

    >>(as usual since the 'recovery' began' - the over 55's get FAR AND AWAY most of the new employed).

    Over the past five years, employment among those age fifty-five and older has grown from 27.8 million to 33.4 million, an increase of 5.6 million. During that same period, total employment has gone from 139.3 million to 148.5 million, an increase of 9.2 million. So 61% of the expansion has been in the 55+ group. Is that "FAR AND AWAY most"? I'd probably go with just "most."

    Let's consider why this has occurred. I admit it doesn't sound too good. I'm 58 and I'd like to retire before too long. (Sadly, I'll probably need to work for another fifteen years. ) There's a term ya hear thrown around a lot — the aging baby boomer population. Could it be that that group is one growing in numbers at a rate that would explain why so many of them are employed?

    Over the past five years, the civilian labor force has grown from 154.6 million to 157.1 million, an increase of 2.5 million, or 1.6%. During that same period, the 55+ segment of that number has grown from 29.9 million to 34.8 million, an increase of 4.9 million, or 16.4 percent. In other words, the pool of potential workers aged 55 and older has grown TEN TIMES FASTER than the civilian labor force as a whole.

    I'm gonna guess that the mistake you've made is in using the language we often use in these discussions — jobs created. It's better to just call it "employment." A whole lot of people have moved into the 55+ group over the past five years, and a lot of them were working five years ago and are still working now.

    I would politely suggest that the way to avoid mistakes like this is to STAY AWAY from sites like ZeroHedge. All they do is lie, lie, lie, 24/7/365.

    >>Always look past the headlines.

    Always remember that US labor market data is highly complex. I've been studying it for forty years and getting paid to put together data on it for the BLS for the past ten. I'd say I know a little bit about it. I'm sure pinqy knows more. It pays to be humble — ya learn more that way.
    Last edited by mmi; 05-09-15 at 03:29 AM.

  10. #140
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,561

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    You know,

    I had to double check the record, but my memory was right - for the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency the GOP completely controlled both branches of government, including both the house & senate. There was majority control of both chambers for 6 out of 8 of those years, and a two year period where the house was in majority GOP control and the senate floor was evenly split - but the senate still stayed in GOP control due the the GOP VP tie-breaking vote.

    Source: Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855–2017

    To blame the Bush recession on a minority party seems ... a bit of ... a reach.

    So now the GOP recession is due to (as you state) their having 'a liberal mindset'?

    You gotta' be kidding!
    yes the senate was split and chris dodd and barney frank sat on two important boards that prevented any kind of banking change from getting through committee.
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...ancial_fiasco/

    Dodd was in Charge of the Senate banking committee and Frank was in charge of the house finance committee neither one would allow any reform to Freddie or fannie through
    their committee's.

    Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - US News

    when that minority party refuses to act and keep their head in the sand then yes they are to blame.
    a large part do to the campaign contributions that democrats were getting from Freddie and fannie.

    Chris dodd was the top donor from Freddie an fannie
    barney frank was 16th.

    Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.): “Through nearly a dozen hearings, where frankly we are trying to fix something that wasn’t broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”

    Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): “The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.”

    Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): “I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time.”

    Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”

    Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae: “These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.
    LOL yet they were leveraged 40:1.

    the only one kidding here is you and your history revisionism which fails.

Page 14 of 50 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •