• 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!

Payrolls in U.S. Rise More Than Projected, Jobless Rate at 5%

AWESOME jobs report today Obama, the economy added 282K jobs!!!!!!!! Your economy is so peachy!!!!! (1/8/16) Of course in the same report period the hourly wage was DOWN very slightly. And in harmony with other Fed Regions that recently reported guidance, the Atlanta Fed revised their GDP guidance DOWN to a paltry low 0.8% growth........that doesn't even keep up with population growth.

Obama is my new hero!!!
 
Why? Because the truth hurts?

No, because the same lies over and over get tedious. See yer posts, e.g.

the economy added 282K jobs

292K. And the previous two months were revised upwards a total of another 50K. An average gain of 284K per month in Q4.

>>the hourly wage was DOWN very slightly.

Yeah, a penny. But 2015 was a pretty good year for wages.

avg_hourly_earnings_2010_2015.jpg

>>the Atlanta Fed revised their GDP guidance DOWN to a paltry low 0.8% growth

We'll see.
 
Last edited:
No, 292,000 more people were not employed in December.

Only 11,000 more people were employed in December.


The not seasonally adjusted number is 11,000

The seasonally adjusted number - the number the BLS 'adjusts' using 'statistical techniques' - was 292,000.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table B-1 page 31


'What is seasonal adjustment?
Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.'


What is seasonal adjustment?
 
Last edited:
No, 292,000 more people were not employed in December.

Only 11,000 more people were employed in December.


The not seasonally adjusted number is 11,000

The seasonally adjusted number - the number the BLS 'adjusts' using 'statistical techniques' - was 292,000.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table B-1 page 31


'What is seasonal adjustment?
Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.'


What is seasonal adjustment?

Funny how you never claim the unadjusted number is better when it's bigger. And you're not mentioning that the unadjusted unemployment rate is 4.8.

The not seasonally adjusted number is best for comparing the same month in different years and for annual averages. The seasonally adjusted number is best for comparing different months.
 
Thank you Obama.

The Dems caused the recession by forcing the banks to lend to unqualified homebuyers who couldn’t afford to buy homes. I’m not sure what you think Obama did to fix anything but it should be an interesting discussion.

The good news is that the US economy has found a way to survive the Obama administration.
 
Funny how you never claim the unadjusted number is better when it's bigger. And you're not mentioning that the unadjusted unemployment rate is 4.8.

The not seasonally adjusted number is best for comparing the same month in different years and for annual averages. The seasonally adjusted number is best for comparing different months.

Umm....all I did was state facts.

In December, 292,000 more people were NOT actually employed according to the BLS's Establishment number....only 11,000 more were (supposedly) actually employed.


For a guy that comes on here to correct people and supposedly has no agenda otherwise, funny that you criticize/question someone for posting nothing but accurate information.

And since the information I posted is 100% accurate, I see no need for further discussion with you on this.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Umm....all I did was state facts.

In December, 292,000 more people were NOT actually employed according to the BLS's Establishment number....only 11,000 more were (supposedly) actually employed.


For a guy that comes on here to correct people and supposedly has no agenda otherwise, funny that you criticize/question someone for posting nothing but accurate information.

And since the information I posted is 100% accurate, I see no need for further discussion with you on this.


Have a nice day.
So you would agree that for September, it was really 542,000 new jobs, 1,160,000 in October, and 416,000 in November?

It's not a question of facts, it's a question of which facts. Every month you look through to find facts that appear more negative. Sometimes it's seasonal adjustment, sometimes which survey, sometimes full time vs part time etc. you only point out things that appear more negative.
 
Given flat growth last year and disappointing earnings, that is good news - and seems to run contra to what we're seeing out of the markets now. I remain bearish on China, but hopefully US Companies will take solid steps to limit their exposure.


I would agree but it is unlikely. American companies operate in a mature economy with little to invest in. Investing oversseas is their only option. They are now exposing themselves to all the vagaries of some seriously effed up countries, much worse than ours.
 
No, 292,000 more people were not employed in December.

Only 11,000 more people were employed in December.

Where's yer response to pinqy's question in #32? 2.1 million jobs added in ninety days. That's quite the economic miracle.

Yer not fooling anyone. And yer not even pretending to Ignore pinqy. So I suppose it's time to move on to yer next misrepresentation/lie/distortion.
 
The Dems caused the recession by forcing the banks to lend to unqualified homebuyers who couldn’t afford to buy homes. I’m not sure what you think Obama did to fix anything but it should be an interesting discussion. The good news is that the US economy has found a way to survive the Obama administration.

Amazing people still make that claim considering the fact that 85% of subprime mortgages were issued by institutions exempt from the CRA. So, no, the recession was not caused by the CRA. It was caused by a rank financial industry culture of predatory lending and the scorched earth practices of investment firms which deliberately financially ruined their own clients to mitigate their own loses.
 
Last edited:
Amazing people still make that claim considering the fact that 85% of subprime mortgages were issued by institutions exempt from the CRA.

Those loans were still insured leaving the lenders fairly well protected. That was what allowed the fiction that these subprime mortgages were still "good paper". There were plenty of chairs until the music stopped. ;)

It was said that the banks (lenders) were bailed out when, in fact, it was ultimately to protect the government owned/backed mortgage insurance companies. The government was basically portecting fannie mae and freddie mac which are government owned/backed "private" entities.

Who Owns Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac? : Planet Money : NPR

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac
 
Last edited:
Thank you Obama.

For what? What the **** are you thanking that idiot for? This COULD have been happening in 2010, 2012 at the latest. We've gone a long way down the pathetic ladder to feel gratitude towards a man whose actions have only impeded economic success. This is IN SPITE of Obama, not due to him.
 
For what? What the **** are you thanking that idiot for? This COULD have been happening in 2010, 2012 at the latest. We've gone a long way down the pathetic ladder to feel gratitude towards a man whose actions have only impeded economic success.
This is IN SPITE of Obama, not due to him.



If you want to blame Obama for all of the bad things that he's not responsible for then you have to give him at least a little credit for the good things that happen during his time in office.

:lol:
 
If you want to blame Obama for all of the bad things that he's not responsible for then you have to give him at least a little credit for the good things that happen during his time in office.

:lol:

I'll give credit when it's due. What you're doing is as silly as thanking him for low gas and oil prices. Ignoring of course his own desire for higher oil and gas prices, much much higher costs at that.
 
Given flat growth last year and disappointing earnings, that is good news - and seems to run contra to what we're seeing out of the markets now. I remain bearish on China, but hopefully US Companies will take solid steps to limit their exposure.

I agree with you on China. China seems to be having great difficulty shifting toward a more consumer-oriented economy. There's a big lack of transparency in some of its markets, high debt among regional governments and some major companies, etc.
 
I agree with you on China. China seems to be having great difficulty shifting toward a more consumer-oriented economy. There's a big lack of transparency in some of its markets, high debt among regional governments and some major companies, etc.
China has been lying about their numbers for a long time - their bubble in equities was a deliberate creation to try to hide other losses. There is a huge gap between Chinese nominal and actual value that is going to have to be closed at some point.
 
Why ? Because the truth hurts ?

Or because you need to uphold the left wing tradition of ignoring the tens of millions of Americans who continue to struggle under the worst economic " recovery " in our Nations History ?

I'm betting a little of both.

You really need to leave your depressing alternative reality. There are NOT tens of millions of Americans struggling with the worst economic recovery in American History. That is about the most absurd thing that I have seen posted on DP in quite sometime. If you want to debate, it helps to work from a platform of reality.

At any point in time, we do have millions of unemployed and we do have millions of underemployed. A full employment economy considers an unemployment rate of 3.5-5%, so we always have the unemployed. We have a full employment economy at the moment. That does not mean EVERYONE is enjoying economic fortune. But, the number that have been shut out of the recovery is measured in millions NOT tens of millions.

Study up on the facts and get back to us when you have something to contribute.
 
Strange: during Dubyas time in office they said we had to add somewhere around 380,000 per month just to keep up with the new people entering the work force to break even and now 290,000 exceeds expectations and that was during the holiday hiring phase. So do that or better for the next 12 months or the Party is going to wait. Anyone paying the least bit attention knows this Nation is doing anything but improving at a dramatic rate or much of any rate one can apply to it..
 
Why ? Because the truth hurts ?

Or because you need to uphold the left wing tradition of ignoring the tens of millions of Americans who continue to struggle under the worst economic " recovery " in our Nations History ?

I'm betting a little of both.

Seems you forgot who created this mess with his half-@$$ed economic policies leading to 700,000 jobs lost PER MONTH......and let's not forget the conspiracy the GOP engaged in to bring down President Obama by any and/or all means possible..........without any concern for the pain it caused millions of folks they were sworn to represent.............

The GOP and the RW media did all within their power to bring down the one elected President who didn't know where his place was................

And then having the balls to blame it all on President Obama..............


Go fly a kite sonny..........

if these problems are to be solved it requires the efforts of serious hard working and grounded adults.................
 
The Dems caused the recession by forcing the banks to lend to unqualified homebuyers who couldn’t afford to buy homes. I’m not sure what you think Obama did to fix anything but it should be an interesting discussion.

The good news is that the US economy has found a way to survive the Obama administration.

That is a pretty unsophisticated view of the 2008 financial meltdown... It was NOT caused by banks being "forced" to do anything, much less lend to unqualified homebuyers. 85% of the sub-prime loans were originated from private funds, not from banks in the Fed system.

No, the financial meltdown of 2008-09 was rooted in very complicated things, the can be traced to very simple things: unfettered greed and the greater fool....

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class
Crash course | The Economist
Thomas, Hennessey and Holtz-Eakin: What Caused the Financial Crisis? - WSJ
25 Major Factors That Caused or Contributed to the Financial Crisis -- The Motley Fool
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/#2715e4857a0b553af7815b56

Study up and get back to us once you understand what actually happened...
 
Last edited:
A problem Republicans have is trying to explain away the clear economic successes of the last seven years. GDP is way up, deficits are way down, job growth is the best since the 1990s, unemployment cut from 10% to 5%, inflation, if anything, is too low. Had Mitt Romney enjoyed such numbers the GOP would be trumpeting his success to the heavens.

The result is sad. Here's Speaker Paul Ryan (possibly the stupidest Speaker in our history, and that's saying a lot) after President Obama's State of the Union Address:
“I think the Federal Reserve has done more,” he said. “What’s happening is people at the high end are doing pretty darn well because of loose money from the Fed. And all these regulations, all this uncertainty, all these taxes are giving us weak economic growth.”

This is amazing. He's basically saying that the Fed's policies, which he claimed were inflationary because they would "debase the currency" are responsible for the recovery. So Obama should be credited for keeping idiots like Ryan off Bernanke's back, not criticized by those same idiots.

And I thought EVERYTHING Obama did for the last seven years was "job-killing."
110115krugman1-tmagArticle.png
 
That is a pretty unsophisticated view of the 2008 financial meltdown... It was NOT caused by banks being "forced" to do anything, much less lend to unqualified homebuyers. 85% of the sub-prime loans were originated from private funds, not from banks in the Fed system.

No, the financial meltdown of 2008-09 was rooted in very complicated things, the can be traced to very simple things: unfettered greed and the greater fool....

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class
Crash course | The Economist
Thomas, Hennessey and Holtz-Eakin: What Caused the Financial Crisis? - WSJ
25 Major Factors That Caused or Contributed to the Financial Crisis -- The Motley Fool
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/#2715e4857a0b553af7815b56

Study up and get back to us once you understand what actually happened...
While there are many factors that contributed, the global financial crisis was undeniably caused by the bursting of the US housing bubble which was caused by Democrat revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This is the result you can expect when the government demands institutionalized racism or demands other unnatural outcomes from the market.
 
While there are many factors that contributed, the global financial crisis was undeniably caused by the bursting of the US housing bubble which was caused by Democrat revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This is the result you can expect when the government demands institutionalized racism or demands other unnatural outcomes from the market.

You know, I produced several authoritative pieces that say otherwise. You simply choose to double down on your ignorance and naivete. Grow up, develop an argument and get a source to back it up. I am not interested in engaging with the lazy and ignorant.

First off, I lived this first hand consulting to a boiler-room mortgage operation that operated a boiler room pushing out loans. I saw this house of cards in 2005. The mortgage company I was dealing with was operating off private funds that we pushed down on it by Countrywide and Lehman. As the previous article well articulates, this money had nothing to do with the CRA. In fact, 85% of the money involved the bad mortgages was from institutional investors. This idea that the CRA collapsed the world markets is completely nonsensical (not to mention, it was fundamentally a toothless piece of legislation.)

So, do some reading, educate yourself and try again. I gave you six cites; you can at least produce a couple to back up your story.
 
Strange: during Dubyas time in office they said we had to add somewhere around 380,000 per month just to keep up with the new people entering the work force to break even
Nobody said that. That would have been utterly ridiculous. I won't even ask for a cite because we both know there are none.


and now 290,000 exceeds expectations and that was during the holiday hiring phase.
First, the data are seasonally adjusted to smooth out periodic effects, and second, employment and hiring go DOWN in December, not up. Total Nonfarm Employment
December change:

CEU0000000001_528895_1452955426321.gif


Total Hires
Change in December:

JTU00000000HIL_529034_1452955671758.gif
 
Last edited:
Nobody said that. That would have been utterly ridiculous. I won't even ask for a cite because we both know there are none.



First, the data are seasonally adjusted to smooth out periodic effects, and second, employment and hiring go DOWN in December, not up. Total Nonfarm Employment
December change:

CEU0000000001_528895_1452955426321.gif


Total Hires
Change in December:

JTU00000000HIL_529034_1452955671758.gif

So sorry but I was involved in debates on exactly that topic, maybe you were not paying attention those days.
Here are a few, some older some newer.: (Enjoy)
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist
How Many New Jobs Are Really Needed Each Month? | TheBlaze.com

Those are just two, and yes I before you scream, I am no fan of The Blaze but the article is accurate.
 
Back
Top Bottom