• 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!

U.S. Economy Jobs Report: U.S. adds 255k jobs; Stock Market hits all-time High

yes, trends matter including spending and debt which obviously should be compared to when the Recession began and what Obama was hired to do. Seems the left and you in particular want to ignore the stimulus which I don't blame you but the worst recovery on record should compare today's results with what the numbers were when the recession began

You just changed the subject. I wonder why that is?
 
You just changed the subject. I wonder why that is?

Apparently when you talk about context it is on your terms not the reality and appropriate time frame, wonder why?
 
Apparently when you talk about context it is on your terms not the reality and appropriate time frame, wonder why?

You CHANGED the context. the topic was the employment situation report, and more specifically, part time for economic reasons. When I point out that what you tried to paint as negative was not statistically significant and not part of the trend, you switch to talking about spending, the debt, and the stimulus, none of which are relevant. It seems your only context is "Obama sucks" and everything that you can possibly point to that you think supports that is connected.
 
Here is what seems to be missing from the leftwing talking points

Population 2007 when the recession began 312 million, today 323 million

Employed 146 million, today, 151 million

Part time for economic reasons 4.5 million, today 6.0 million

Discouraged workers 300k, today 600k

US Debt, 9.1 trillion, today 19.4 trillion

So the left can take victory laps for data out of context

and your data is from... where again?
 
You CHANGED the context. the topic was the employment situation report, and more specifically, part time for economic reasons. When I point out that what you tried to paint as negative was not statistically significant and not part of the trend, you switch to talking about spending, the debt, and the stimulus, none of which are relevant. It seems your only context is "Obama sucks" and everything that you can possibly point to that you think supports that is connected.

So your chart didn't paint a positive picture by picking the time frame and ignoring the current state compared to the start of the recession? We aren't better off by any standards. And yes, I don't have to claim Obama sucks, the data proves it
 
So your chart didn't paint a positive picture by picking the time frame and ignoring the current state compared to the start of the recession? We aren't better off by any standards. And yes, I don't have to claim Obama sucks, the data proves it

No...I was going by the current trend. You posted the July to August change as being relevant and negative. My chart showed that that is not the current trend. The beginning of the recession wasn't part of the context. So you switched context from current activity to comparison of two static points. You CHANGED to compare to pre-recession. I "ignored" it just like I didn't mention local unemployment for Fresno. But if you want the larger time period.....

fredgraph.png

But you have to pick your argument. Are things getting worse currently, as you first were claiming, or are things getting better but not as good in all respects as pre-recession. Choose.
 
No...I was going by the current trend. You posted the July to August change as being relevant and negative. My chart showed that that is not the current trend. The beginning of the recession wasn't part of the context. So you switched context from current activity to comparison of two static points. You CHANGED to compare to pre-recession. I "ignored" it just like I didn't mention local unemployment for Fresno. But if you want the larger time period.....

fredgraph.png

But you have to pick your argument. Are things getting worse currently, as you first were claiming, or are things getting better but not as good in all respects as pre-recession. Choose.

Yes, that chart isn't accurate as BLS shows 6 million part time employees for economic reasons and that trend isn't even close to what the numbers where when the recession began. I love how trends that still have worse results than when the recession began or when that worse President in US History, Bush, was in office are touted as a success. Context is something you will never grasp with a liberal in the WH
 
Yes, that chart isn't accurate as BLS shows 6 million part time employees for economic reasons
Ummm that chart IS the BLS numbers. Those are the two main components of part time for economic reasons, and I thought the context of the difference in the two was relevant. Not included are those 270,000 who worked part time because it's the off-season for their industry (most normally work full time in-season) nor are the 187,000 who worked part time because they started or ended a job that week.


and that trend isn't even close to what the numbers where when the recession began. I love how trends that still have worse results than when the recession began or when that worse President in US History, Bush, was in office are touted as a success. Context is something you will never grasp with a liberal in the WH
No? Let's look at the full one then, as an index where we set it at 100 for December 2007:
fredgraph.png

So it is now 31% higher than when the recession started, down from 98% higher.

Is it going up or down?
 
Ummm that chart IS the BLS numbers. Those are the two main components of part time for economic reasons, and I thought the context of the difference in the two was relevant. Not included are those 270,000 who worked part time because it's the off-season for their industry (most normally work full time in-season) nor are the 187,000 who worked part time because they started or ended a job that week.



No? Let's look at the full one then, as an index where we set it at 100 for December 2007:
fredgraph.png

So it is now 31% higher than when the recession started, down from 98% higher.

Is it going up or down?

So, tell me how many part time employees for economic reasons were there the last two months and where is that reflected in that chart?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2006 to 2016

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 4123 4174 3972 3900 4111 4318 4303 4195 4115 4352 4190 4187
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8530 8936 9233 9178 8845 8577 8500 8800 9246 8837 8873 8935
2011 8470 8464 8645 8652 8576 8427 8281 8788 9166 8657 8447 8171
2012 8267 8214 7793 7907 8123 8081 8092 7998 8667 8229 8150 7922
2013 8030 8089 7682 7924 7901 8104 8093 7837 8008 8028 7708 7763
2014 7250 7230 7428 7452 7219 7473 7440 7213 7124 7065 6844 6786
2015 6784 6630 6673 6549 6600 6465 6300 6481 6034 5761 6085 6022
2016 5988 5988 6123 5962 6430 5843 5940 6053
 
The jobs report looks good on the surface, not so good underneath it.

A) The jobs were mostly lousy. Look at the unemployment rates by educational attainment. The rate for people with no high school went WAY down. Yet the rate for those with high school or greater either all stayed the same or went up.

Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment


B) the U-3 rate stayed the same but the U-6 (a much more - IMO - accurate measure of unemployment) went up slightly.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

C) according to the household survey, July was a great month - 420,000 more employed. But that is just this last month and will be adjusted later (up or probably down).
But overall since March, only 197,000 more people are employed - less then 50,000 per month. And between March and June, 223,000 LESS people were employed.
That is a less-then-healthy trend and goes along with the lousy GDP numbers for that period.

And, once again, of those 420,000 more employed, the jobs went mostly to seniors (255K) and the very young (97K for 16-19's). Surely not the best paying jobs out there.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Always look past the headlines.

july a big month for tourism.....and part time jobs and we can see this with the jobs going to the very young and seniors.. the fuel costs got low and helped but now the fuel costs have risen
 
Ummm that chart IS the BLS numbers. Those are the two main components of part time for economic reasons, and I thought the context of the difference in the two was relevant. Not included are those 270,000 who worked part time because it's the off-season for their industry (most normally work full time in-season) nor are the 187,000 who worked part time because they started or ended a job that week.



No? Let's look at the full one then, as an index where we set it at 100 for December 2007:
fredgraph.png

So it is now 31% higher than when the recession started, down from 98% higher.

Is it going up or down?

Normally it seems you follow me all over the forum but when confronted with actual data you seem to run. Is Post 60 actual data and where is that reflected on what you call a BLS chart? When the recession began there were 4 plus million part time employees for economic reasons with a total employment of 146 million and now there are over 6 million part time employees for economic reasons on a labor force of 151 million with 10 million more Americans than in 2007. How is that positive improvement?
 
The New York times piece is not as rosie as the street."The Bureau of Labor Statistics showing only 151, 000 job gains in August – well below the gains in June and July. Unemployment held steady at 4.9 %". We still have a way to go,and Middle class wages are still below par. That is one reason the economy is still lagging; in past recession Middle class consumer spending lifted the economy out of recession. Until we see decant wage increase across the middle class, we are going to see a lagging recovery. Obama has done well, but we are not out of the woods yet.

Nearly eight years of refusal to pass an infrastructure jobs bill by the Tea Party is proving to be a major reason as well for a slow recovery. This election is important, If we don't elect new and brighter members of the House and Senate this time around, we will have a slow recovery. In short, far Right Tea Party types like Ted Cruz need to be handed their Pink Slips, if not we are going to have an even slower recovery with less middle class purchasing power.
 
Is Post 60 actual data and where is that reflected on what you call a BLS chart?
Sometimes it is more useful and easier to look at the change in a data series. The best way to do that is to normalize the series with the starting date number being set to 100 and everything else expressed in those terms.
So for the index chart, The number of people part time for economic reasons is arbitrarily set to 100 for December 2007. In other words, in my chart, 4,618,000 = 100 In September 2011, the real number was 9,109,000 and so appears on the chart as 100*(9,109,000/4,618,000) = 198.5
And for August 2016, the real number is 6,053,000 so 100*(6,053,000/4,618,000) = 131.1
This is an easier way to look at the change as everything is in relation to December 2007. So the height, 198.5 is 98.5% higher than the start of the recession. And the current 131.1 is 31.1% higher.

Indexes are the way to go when looking at change from a fixed point.


When the recession began there were 4 plus million part time employees for economic reasons with a total employment of 146 million and now there are over 6 million part time employees for economic reasons on a labor force of 151 million with 10 million more Americans than in 2007. How is that positive improvement?
Because it did NOT go from 4 million up to 6 million. It went from 4 million to 9 million and has come down from there.

You are trying to portray it as though part time for economic reasons is going UP from 4 million, when it's coming DOWN from 9 million.

Direction is more important than level. Is 7% a good or bad unemployment rate? it's bad if it's coming up from 5% and good if it's coming down from 9%.
 
The New York times piece is not as rosie as the street."The Bureau of Labor Statistics showing only 151, 000 job gains in August – well below the gains in June and July. Unemployment held steady at 4.9 %". We still have a way to go,and Middle class wages are still below par. That is one reason the economy is still lagging; in past recession Middle class consumer spending lifted the economy out of recession. Until we see decant wage increase across the middle class, we are going to see a lagging recovery. Obama has done well, but we are not out of the woods yet.

Nearly eight years of refusal to pass an infrastructure jobs bill by the Tea Party is proving to be a major reason as well for a slow recovery. This election is important, If we don't elect new and brighter members of the House and Senate this time around, we will have a slow recovery. In short, far Right Tea Party types like Ted Cruz need to be handed their Pink Slips, if not we are going to have an even slower recovery with less middle class purchasing power.

Really? What was the Obama stimulus bill if not for shovel ready jobs? What happened with that bill, 142 million employed in 2009 to 139 million employed in January 2011. Seems you have a very selective memory and the left leadership loves you
 
Sometimes it is more useful and easier to look at the change in a data series. The best way to do that is to normalize the series with the starting date number being set to 100 and everything else expressed in those terms.
So for the index chart, The number of people part time for economic reasons is arbitrarily set to 100 for December 2007. In other words, in my chart, 4,618,000 = 100 In September 2011, the real number was 9,109,000 and so appears on the chart as 100*(9,109,000/4,618,000) = 198.5
And for August 2016, the real number is 6,053,000 so 100*(6,053,000/4,618,000) = 131.1
This is an easier way to look at the change as everything is in relation to December 2007. So the height, 198.5 is 98.5% higher than the start of the recession. And the current 131.1 is 31.1% higher.

Indexes are the way to go when looking at change from a fixed point.


Because it did NOT go from 4 million up to 6 million. It went from 4 million to 9 million and has come down from there.

You are trying to portray it as though part time for economic reasons is going UP from 4 million, when it's coming DOWN from 9 million.

Direction is more important than level. Is 7% a good or bad unemployment rate? it's bad if it's coming up from 5% and good if it's coming down from 9%.

Yes it did at a cost of 8.8 trillion dollars. So in the liberal world taking the number from 4 million up to 9 million then down to 6 million is a 3 million improvement? Wonder if it were a Republican if you would be so complimentary? I see it as 2 million worse regardless of who is in the WH. Seems the left cannot admit when there is failure and always has selective use of numbers
 
census bureau, BLS, Treasury all of course rightwing sites, right?

Just wondering, since you threw the data out there. Let's see..

Discouraged workers August 2015: 624,000 August 2016 576,000

From the BLS site here

Couldn't find any data from 2007. 2008 would be a better choice anyway, after the recession began. Looks like the figures are going the right direction.

Do you really think the Republican controlled Congress is doing such a poor job that the economy is going downhill?
 
Just wondering, since you threw the data out there. Let's see..

Discouraged workers August 2015: 624,000 August 2016 576,000

From the BLS site here

Couldn't find any data from 2007. 2008 would be a better choice anyway, after the recession began. Looks like the figures are going the right direction.

Do you really think the Republican controlled Congress is doing such a poor job that the economy is going downhill?

I have posted the data but it goes right over your head, it was 400+ and today we are still almost 200,000 more, and then there are 6 million part time for economic reasons(Post 60) so much for the booming Obama economy. I think the Republican Congress is doing a piss poor job but that isn't surprising which is why I am voting for Trump, time for some real change.
 
Yes it did at a cost of 8.8 trillion dollars.
Show me where 8.8 trillion dollars was spent specifically to lower the number of people working part time for economic reasons.


So in the liberal world taking the number from 4 million up to 9 million then down to 6 million is a 3 million improvement?
you don't think going from 9 million to 6 million is an improvement???? Or are you claiming the downward trend has stopped?


Wonder if it were a Republican if you would be so complimentary?
I'm not being complimentary, I'm stating facts. And of course I'd say the same thing for a Republican president: I've never voted for a democrat presidential candidate.


I see it as 2 million worse regardless of who is in the WH.
ok, you can look at it that way, but you have to acknowledge that it was 5 million worse and now only 2 million worse. It's dishonest to represent it as if it has been only going up.

Basically, reading just your posts, it sounds as if the number of part time for Econ reasons is going up.
 
Last edited:
Show me where 8.8 trillion dollars was spent specifically to lower the number of people working part time for economic reasons.


you don't think going from 9 million to 6 million is an improvement???? Or are you claiming the downward trend has stopped?



I'm not being complimentary, I'm stating facts. And of course I'd say the same thing for a Republican president: I've never voted for a democrat presidential candidate.


ok, you can look at it that way, but you have to acknowledge that it was 5 million worse and now only 2 million worse. It's dishonest to represent it as if it has been only going up.

Basically, reading just your posts, it sounds as if the number of part time for Econ reasons is going up.

8.8 trillion dollars is the amount the debt has grown since Obama took office, why if not to grow the economy and create jobs?

Of course 9 to 6 is an improvement but not compared to what it was when the recession started. The deficit going from 1.3 trillion to 1.1 trillion is an improvement too but still adds to the debt

Part time for economic reasons, discouraged workers, the unemployed show why Obama's performance isn't being recognized the way the left wants it to be
 
outrageous how the media allows the corrupt govt to LIE ... why does the media do this... yep becausse they also are just as corrupt and they work together

with the media and democrats push for MORE MONEY with bigger markets they now are pushing the one billion muslims that will enslave women and take the blacks jobs... just maybe some of these will wake up to elect trump and then trump hammers the crooked media

here s how the blacks have been used and abused by the democrats

//////////////////////////

The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey gathered data on the jobless rate of non-institutionalized men, 20 to 34 years old, averaged over the period, 2010-2014, for 34 major US cities. The data paint a grim picture for black men, particularly in the Midwestern industrial and the Mid-Atlantic cities. Like Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. all had black jobless rates above 45 percent. In these cities, more young black men were either jobless or imprisoned than employed.

Black joblessness in southern and western cities was modestly lower — as low as 31.7 and 23.3 percent, respectively, in Dallas and Seattle.
 
...not a bad comeback? The Great Recession started almost a decade ago. Recovery now? It's not a comeback, per say, we just sat around twiddling our thumbs waiting for it to come back. it couldn't stay broken forever.

And who gives a **** about the stock market? They don't produce anything, they just make money shuffling numbers around. A ditch digger is worth more to society than wall street.

Maybe you don't keep up with things, but the economy has been roaring since 2014, and was well on the way to recovery a few years after the Great Recession began in 2007. It hit its high in 2009, and took several years, as was predicted by experts. The economy improved every year after it hit its zenith in 2009.

Imagine how much more quickly our country would have gotten back on track, if the Republicans had worked with the Dems, instead of obstructing to try to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I wonder how that worked out for them?:roll:
 
Maybe you don't keep up with things, but the economy has been roaring since 2014, and was well on the way to recovery a few years after the Great Recession began in 2007. It hit its high in 2009, and took several years, as was predicted by experts. The economy improved every year after it hit its zenith in 2009.

Imagine how much more quickly our country would have gotten back on track, if the Republicans had worked with the Dems, instead of obstructing to try to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I wonder how that worked out for them?:roll:

Let'see who is "keeping up." How many "First Time Jobless Claims" have been made since January 1, 2014? What is a "First time Jobless Claim?" How much can a newly unemployed person draw? How long can he or she draw? What effect does long term joblessness have on our economy.
 
Maybe you don't keep up with things, but the economy has been roaring since 2014, and was well on the way to recovery a few years after the Great Recession began in 2007. It hit its high in 2009, and took several years, as was predicted by experts. The economy improved every year after it hit its zenith in 2009.

Imagine how much more quickly our country would have gotten back on track, if the Republicans had worked with the Dems, instead of obstructing to try to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I wonder how that worked out for them?:roll:

Do you understand leadership? Stop buying the leftwing spin and tell me exactly what Obama wanted that the GOP rejected. He got his stimulus and when that failed rather than working with the GOP he implemented ACA and poisoned the well. Telling McCain, "I won, you lost" isn't leadership and it is the President's responsibility to set the tone but Obama has zero leadership skills and operates like a college professor with the other equal branch of the federal govt. This country would have come out of the recession much fast with a pro growth economic policy, not subsidizing his base
 
I have posted the data but it goes right over your head, it was 400+ and today we are still almost 200,000 more, and then there are 6 million part time for economic reasons(Post 60) so much for the booming Obama economy. I think the Republican Congress is doing a piss poor job but that isn't surprising which is why I am voting for Trump, time for some real change.

Trump represents some real change, no doubt. It's like a change from a sore toe to a broken leg, but definitely a change.

We'd be better off to vote out the incumbents who are running for another term in Congress. There are enough of them to make a real difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom