• 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 tops 10 pct. for first time since '83

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983. Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs and employers cut a net total of 190,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department says.
Click to expand...
Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83 - Yahoo! Finance

I heard this morning that the unemployment rate was not expected to go above 10% in today's report and that it should be about 9.7%. Guess someone was wrong again. I read yesterday that unemployment is predicted to remain above 9% through next year's elections. If that turns out to be the case, a lot of Democrat Congress critters are going to be very nervous.
 
Mr. V beat me by a minute. Mods, can you please merge the two threads.
 
MrVicchio said:
Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83 - Yahoo! Finance

But I thought the Obama plan would prevent unemployment from breaching 8%...
Click to expand...

Obama never said that. In fact, in June he predicted unemployment would reach 10%

Jake Tapper and Karen Travers report: In an interview with Bloomberg News’ Al Hunt today, President Obama says he thinks unemployment will hit 10% this year.

Will unemployment reach 10%? asks Hunt.

“Yes,” says the president.

Before the end of this year? asks Hunt.

“Yes,” says the president
Click to expand...
President Obama Predicts Unemployment Will Hit 10% This Year - Political Punch
 
WillRockwell said:
Obama never said that. In fact, in June he predicted unemployment would reach 10%


President Obama Predicts Unemployment Will Hit 10% This Year - Political Punch
Click to expand...

Sadly for you, even Time Magazine knows you're lying.

Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983.
(See 10 ways your job will change.)
The two advisers who wrote the paper, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, went on to land key jobs in the Obama Administration. Romer is the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, and Bernstein is the chief economist and economic-policy adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. And the stimulus bill that both economists championed became law in mid-February. What has not come to pass, however, is the boom in job creation that Romer and Bernstein predicted. A little over a month ago, the Administration said the stimulus bill had created or saved 150,000 jobs. That's a far cry from the 3 million to 4 million jobs that Romer and Bernstein foresaw back in January.


Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
Click to expand...
Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME
 
WillRockwell said:
Obama never said that. In fact, in June he predicted unemployment would reach 10%


President Obama Predicts Unemployment Will Hit 10% This Year - Political Punch
Click to expand...

The Obama Advisers did say that - they were taking into account the stimulus and were in fact, over optimistic about the effects of the stimulus -- and Obama's advisers said that with the stimulus, unemployment would peak at 8%. Obama's advisers are an extention of Obama himself, or are you now disassociating individuals within the White House with only things Obama himself actually does and says? Because the buck stops at the President as the responsible and accountable person for his entire Administration --- just like every other President.

Obama's advisors were obviously mistaken and the estimates were clearly off... as Biden said...


Joe Biden said:
"The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before," Biden said.
Click to expand...


Joe Biden said:
"No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought -- and everyone else thought -- the unemployment rate would be," Biden said.
Click to expand...

Joe Biden said:
"At the time our forecast seemed reasonable. Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic," he told reporters last Monday.
Click to expand...

LINK


So is Obama not the decider? If not, who is?
 
winston53660 said:
Shrug so conditions change
Click to expand...

It's called responsibility and accountability. When mistakes are made, someone has to learn from those mistakes. It's not clear that the Obama Administration has taken accountability or responsibility. All they do is claim it will get worse as a damage control measure to insulate themselves from more political fallout.

They obviously have not learned anything as they continue down the path of economic ruin for this country with ill conceived and complex policy's.

What hasn't changed is Obama's agenda. How very entertaining... :popcorn2:
 
MrVicchio said:
Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83 - Yahoo! Finance

But I thought the Obama plan would prevent unemployment from breaching 8%...
Click to expand...

The tendency to be over-optimistic in defining the benefits of one's policies (and overly negative in warning of the consequences of positions one opposes) is a human characteristic. It is not a partisan thing.

One saw the same dynamic at play when it came to pre-war assessments in Iraq, as well as the early arguments made in favor of the stimulus package.

Now, going to the details of the report, it should be noted that every group except those with college educations saw their unemployment rate increase in October.

Less than high school: 15.5% +0.5%
High school only: 11.2% +0.4%
Some college/Associate Degree: 9.0% +0.5%
Bachelor's Degree or higher: 4.7% -0.2%

National: 10.2% +0.4%
Mean duration of unemployment: 26.9 weeks +0.7 weeks
Median duration of unemployment: 18.7 weeks +1.4 weeks

The duration data continues to hint at a larger structural component. That those with higher education may--and this is still early--be the first ones to benefit from the emerging economic recovery could reaffirm the importance of giving greater priority to investments in education while making other spending with no future benefits a focus for later deficit reduction. Of course, there is no fiscal consolidation plan being discussed at present.
 
Oftencold said:
Yes they do, and in extremely predictable ways when people embrace Leftist Economic policies that attempt to trump simple Capitalism.

On to health care! Obviously the Dems will fix this too.
Click to expand...

So in regards to unemployment what alternitives would you propose?
 
Much of the reason that % unemployment jumped was a statistical one. The over all worker pool in the statistical model shrank yet again while the number of unemployed raised a tad. This means that the % would rise relative more, which it did.

Basically it means, that people dropped out of the worker pool because they gave up looking for work according to the statistical model. Does not mean they are not unemployed any more, just that they are not counted as such.
 
winston53660 said:
Shrug so conditions change
Click to expand...

Not that simple when you rape tax payers for $1 trillion, then threaten to rape them for another $1.3 trillion to overhaul their healthcare.

When you obviously have no idea what you're doing, perhaps you should be less involved, not more.
 
PeteEU said:
Much of the reason that % unemployment jumped was a statistical one. The over all worker pool in the statistical model shrank yet again while the number of unemployed raised a tad. This means that the % would rise relative more, which it did.

Basically it means, that people dropped out of the worker pool because they gave up looking for work according to the statistical model. Does not mean they are not unemployed any more, just that they are not counted as such.
Click to expand...

By your measure, which is correct, the actual unemployment rate is likely more like 13 percent if you count those workers.

Also, the administration keeps trying to count "saved jobs" as created jobs. Not sure how they justify that exactly, or how they can even know if a job is "saved".

In heavy blue states like Michigan, New Jersey, etc, the unemployment rates are creeping close to 20 percent.
 
Erod said:
Not that simple when you rape tax payers for $1 trillion, then threaten to rape them for another $1.3 trillion to overhaul their healthcare.

When you obviously have no idea what you're doing, perhaps you should be less involved, not more.
Click to expand...

So I'll ask you what I asked oftencold. In regards to unemployment what alternatives would you propose?
 
Erod said:
By your measure, which is correct, the actual unemployment rate is likely more like 13 percent if you count those workers.

Also, the administration keeps trying to count "saved jobs" as created jobs. Not sure how they justify that exactly, or how they can even know if a job is "saved".

In heavy blue states like Michigan, New Jersey, etc, the unemployment rates are creeping close to 20 percent.
Click to expand...

Yes and if you add the "under employed" aka those in part time work who want full time work, then it is near 18% nationally.

But my point is that the only "spike" was mostly a statistical spike and the actual number of unemployed did not rise by such a relative large portion.

The sad thing is that the % number is the one that will be talked about and that will promote even more doom and gloom. While it aint rosy it is also not the end of the world so to say. Things have improved relatively and if people get more gloomy and do not spend and companies do not hire, then the unemployment will start to feed off it self and increase and increase and that is a nightmare scenario.
 
Erod said:
Not that simple when you rape tax payers for $1 trillion, then threaten to rape them for another $1.3 trillion to overhaul their healthcare.

When you obviously have no idea what you're doing, perhaps you should be less involved, not more.
Click to expand...

And that has pretty much nothing to do with the unemployment issue. Blaming government for what the private sector did is just pathetic. That is like blaming a raped woman for getting raped.
 
winston53660 said:
So in regards to unemployment what alternitives would you propose?
Click to expand...

Simple.

Lower taxes on businesses, which reduces their risk dramatically, and makes it more feasible for them to EXPAND their businesses, which results in lots and lots of new hires.

When you threaten to raise their taxes, it makes them lay off more people and operate ultra-lean in order to make a profit.

That's why so many companies are showing profits. They've reduced their workforce by 25 percent and decided to "tread water". The risks are too great with what Obama is trying to do to hire people and expand into new markets.

That's what we did last year at my company. We "streamlined" our workforce to prepare for the extra burdens we may face from the tax increases on businesses, and the capital gains rate changes that might result in a negative volume shift in our stock (people selling their stock before it hits).
 
PeteEU said:
But my point is that the only "spike" was mostly a statistical spike and the actual number of unemployed did not rise by such a relative large portion.
Click to expand...

You're wrong there. Companies are laying off people in droves, particularly in the real estate and ancillary healthcare industries.

And almost nobody is hiring in any meaningful measure.
 
That Stimulus package id doing a helluva job of fixing the economy.
 
Erod said:
Simple.

Lower taxes on businesses, which reduces their risk dramatically, and makes it more feasible for them to EXPAND their businesses, which results in lots and lots of new hires.

When you threaten to raise their taxes, it makes them lay off more people and operate ultra-lean in order to make a profit.

That's why so many companies are showing profits. They've reduced their workforce by 25 percent and decided to "tread water". The risks are too great with what Obama is trying to do to hire people and expand into new markets.

That's what we did last year at my company. We "streamlined" our workforce to prepare for the extra burdens we may face from the tax increases on businesses, and the capital gains rate changes that might result in a negative volume shift in our stock (people selling their stock before it hits).
Click to expand...

Why does the American right always go for the "lower taxes" crap? It is so funny, that on one hand you are complaining about the budget deficit (only when you are not in power of course) and then you are willing to INCREASE that deficit by cutting taxes....

The problem from the offset for small business and any business was the credit crunch. While the credit crunch is not as bad as it was a year ago, it is still around for especially smaller business. And without credit, no business can expand and in many cases even provide day to day capital for things like wages.

And you company cut jobs to "prepare for extra tax burdens"? LOL yea right. A company cuts jobs for two reasons. Either the orders have dried up and they dont need the workers, or they want to improve the balance sheet for the shareholders and a quick and easy way of doing that is cutting the work force, the biggest (usually) cost of them all. But cutting jobs to prepare for a mythical right wing inspired tax hike? give me a freaking break.
 
1. and ms p is to put her prodigious piece on the carpet tomorrow

2. such incompetent political leadership this nation has ever seen

3. the prez promised with his stimulus we'd top at 8%

4. he bailed out the top and left the bottom to fend for itself

5. he (actually, ms p did it, she's the one who wrote the "stimulus") socialized the losses of the too-bigs-to-fail and privatized their gains

6. ask msnbc's dylan rattigan, he's outraged

7. it's still as clear as stanley mcchrystal---had the stimulus devoted even a portion of its 787B to payroll tax cuts, we'd be out of this mess by now

8. econ 101 says jobs growth comes from new biz STARTS, not expansions

9. the all-inclusive climate of taxes, fines and mandates contained in cap and trade and obamacare creates a depressive psychosis of effectual freeze relative to biz start-ups

10. counting the underemployed and those who've given up, we're at 17.5%

11. with the highest concentration very notably in our bluest states

List of U.S. states by unemployment rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

12. 5.6 million have been out of work 6 months or more, 36.5% of our unhappy neighbors and friends, another rueful record

13. the last time we were here, 1982, saw the following year 8% gdp growth in 1983

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83 - Yahoo! Finance

14. the stimulus is a disaster, it's all about tunnels for turtles, snow machines for wisconsin, studies of radioactive rabbit droppings

OVN

15. ie, the worst of business as usual pork, all earmarked up

16. what else would you expect when you let ms p and her partisan pals in lower parliament pen the piece
 
Erod said:
Simple.

Lower taxes on businesses, which reduces their risk dramatically, and makes it more feasible for them to EXPAND their businesses, which results in lots and lots of new hires.
Click to expand...

I agree and it seems to happening:

The National Retail Federation welcomed today`s passage of legislation that will
bring recession-plagued retailers and other businesses more than $10 billion in
badly needed cash by lengthening the period during which they can "carry back"
current losses to claim a tax refund from previous years when they made a
profit.

"This legislation will provide retailers with an important source of capital to
finance their operations and keep employees on the payroll," NRF Vice President
and Tax Counsel Rachelle Bernstein said. "Because retail sales have fallen so
dramatically over the past year and access to capital has been so limited,
retailers are experiencing severe challenges in finding the cash they need to
operate their businesses as the economy moves toward recovery."
NRF Says $10 Billion Business Tax Refund in Unemployment Bill Will Help Save Retail Jobs | Reuters
Click to expand...

I also think it is extremely important to get the credit markets working again. I am eagerly awaiting for the report on consumer credit at 2:00pm today. W/O people spending money there will be no bounce back for employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom