• 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!

Unemployment Rate Rises to 9.2 Percent in June as Hiring Stalls

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a serious, God-honest answer as to why the ADP and BLS numbers are always so far apart, and why their roles seem to have been reversed in recent months. Does this call into question just how accurate such reports are, and if it is even possible for us to get a clear, unadulterated picture of the actual "jobs added" number.

Did you look at how the generate their numbers? Maybe they have different methods of data collection or only focus on specific segments? I dunno...
 
Did you look at how the generate their numbers? Maybe they have different methods of data collection or only focus on specific segments? I dunno...

I've been googling, but many of the results i'm getting are from like last year when ADP had low numbers and BLS had high numbers, and the difference was apparently due to the fact that ADP doesn't take into account new business creation, while BLS seemed to overstate it. Now the roles are reversed and that explanation no longer makes sense. I will have to dig deeper.

In simple terms, BLS uses a household survey, while ADP gets payroll reports from firms. Another difference is ADP only takes into account private job growth, disregarding the public-sector jobs that are being lost every month due to budget cuts.
 
Last edited:
Given the size of stim funding, it should be blatantly clear (for someone who understands fiscal policy) that this administration underestimated the sheer downward velocity of this recession.

Obama never ran so much as a lemonade stand.....the majority of his administration never ran so much as a candy store........

.........it wasnt so much "underestimated" as it was "complete and utter cluelessness".......and then the administration wrote a stimulus bill without having a clue on how to stimulate an economy.

There are still people on this very forum that believe "things were worse in the 1980's", so why are you using it as a premise for your argument?

Because there are those that believe....

---Without Obama/FDR it would have been worse.....and when its worse......it would have been worser------
.
.
.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a serious, God-honest answer as to why the ADP and BLS numbers are always so far apart, and why their roles seem to have been reversed in recent months. Does this call into question just how accurate such reports are, and if it is even possible for us to get a clear, unadulterated picture of the actual "jobs added" number.

Basically, it is an employer survey vs a household survey.

Which means that employers were far more upbeat on their labor market prospects than those who actually labor.

From ADP:
It (their survey) is a measure of employment derived from an anonymous subset of roughly 500,000 U.S. business clients.
 
June jobs report: Hiring slows, unemployment rises - Jul. 8, 2011

"You look at the charts for private sector growth and you could see, we were building a nice, steady crescendo," Brusca said. "All of a sudden the bottom fell out!"

The main culprit economists are point to: uncertainty.

Businesses are hesitant to hire given uncertainty surrounding federal spending cuts and tax policy, as Congress still has yet to reach an agreement on the debt ceiling and long-term measures for trimming the nation's deficit.
"I think a lot of this is the backlash to the impasse in Washington," Brusca said. "If you're a small business man, you sit back and say I'm not doing anything, I'm not hiring -- until I see what happens in Washington."

But a variety of other factors also could have contributed to the recent weakness.
"There isn't a single silver bullet -- there are a number of factors coming together," said John Silvia, chief economist for Wells Fargo. "The tsunami, floods, higher gas prices, and the stalemate in Washington all create a lot of uncertainty."

Makes you realize just how many exigent factors there are that contribute to the economy besides just Presidential economic policy.
 
Obama never ran so much as a lemonade stand.....the majority of his administration never ran so much as a candy store........

Irrelevant fallacy that has zero economic merit.

.........it wasnt so much "underestimated" as it was "complete and utter cluelessness".......and then the administration wrote a stimulus bill without having a clue on how to stimulate an economy.

Undoubtedly!

In the bill, there are and i quote:
$288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses

Because there are those that believe....

---Without Obama/FDR it would have been worse.....and when its worse......it would have been worser------

Same as the first comment....
 
Basically, it is an employer survey vs a household survey.

Which means that employers were far more upbeat on their labor market prospects than those who actually labor.

From ADP:

I guess the next question would be, why the huge discrepancy between the outlooks of employers versus laborers?
 
I think this is going to help remove Obama from office because he is the one who has do nothing worth a damn to create jobs that didn't cost more than they are worth.
 
I guess the next question would be, why the huge discrepancy between the outlooks of employers versus laborers?

That is the $64,000 question. More information is needed to make even an educated guess.
 
I think this is going to help remove Obama from office because he is the one who has do nothing worth a damn to create jobs that didn't cost more than they are worth.

I feel your frustration.

Before he took office...

President-elect Barack Obama promised Saturday to create the largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system a half century ago as he seeks to put together a plan to resuscitate the reeling economy.

What the hell went wrong? LOL, i don't think that many people want to hear the answer.
 
Last edited:
There's an interactive map on CNNMoney.com that illustrations the unemployment rates in various job industries. The biggest industries hit are in construction, production/manufactering, transportation and fishery/forrestry/wildlife. What are the negative forces behind these industries?

Construction jobs = housing and infrastructor

Production/manufactering = consumer spending/credit

Transportation (whether public or air travel) = high fuel prices

Fisery/forrestry/wildlife = lack of disposable income by consumers + lack of disposable income + reduction in force (layoffs of federal/public employees) + park closures
 
President-elect Barack Obama promised Saturday to create the largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system a half century ago as he seeks to put together a plan to resuscitate the reeling economy.
What the hell went wrong? LOL, i don't think that many people want to hear the answer.

I'd interested in knowing what you believe the answer is.
 
You know this is getting really irritating. Where have we come to as a country when we take pleasure in bad unemployment numbers because it makes the other side look bad? Where have we come to when it is a "good" thing to not compromise to get things done. Both parties are treating american citizens as monopoly board game pieces just to prove a political point.

You know what I don't blame Washington, I blame us. This partisan crap has to end or this country will fail. Republicans...everyone does not share your values. Democrats...Everyone does not share your values. We have to co-exist if we are to remain a great country. How patriotic are you if we are hoping for the president demise in order to put your candidate in the white house no matter what the cost is? Hell even Reagan compromise with the democrats.

And by the way, both parties share responsibility for these numbers. Please name one job bill or ideal that the republicans have place on the table that would put Americans to work right now. All I seen is jobs being loss due to spending cuts . Just look at all the public job being loss. Boehner himself said that if jobs are lost due to spending cuts then so be it.
 
Where have we come to as a country when we take pleasure in bad unemployment numbers because it makes the other side look bad?
You DO mean on both sides, right?

Where have we come to when it is a "good" thing to not compromise to get things done.
That depends entirely on what those "things" are and the means to achieve them.
I have absolutely NO issue with absolutely refusing to compromise on certain things.

You know what I don't blame Washington, I blame us. This partisan crap has to end or this country will fail.
Bad news. Unless there is dramatic, even draconan, cuts in spending, especially entitlement spenidng - this country will fail.
 
I'd interested in knowing what you believe the answer is.

Search my post history during the first month of the Obama presidency, and you will see a clear resemblance to that of the bold aspect of that quote.

What we need(ed) is:largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system
 
I guess the next question would be, why the huge discrepancy between the outlooks of employers versus laborers?

My guess is that the subset of firms ADP uses in its survey is increasingly not representative of the overall labor market. Over the past year, the report has become far more useless noise than insightful substance.
 
You know this is getting really irritating. Where have we come to as a country when we take pleasure in bad unemployment numbers because it makes the other side look bad? Where have we come to when it is a "good" thing to not compromise to get things done. Both parties are treating american citizens as monopoly board game pieces just to prove a political point.

You know what I don't blame Washington, I blame us. This partisan crap has to end or this country will fail. Republicans...everyone does not share your values. Democrats...Everyone does not share your values. We have to co-exist if we are to remain a great country. How patriotic are you if we are hoping for the president demise in order to put your candidate in the white house no matter what the cost is? Hell even Reagan compromise with the democrats.

And by the way, both parties share responsibility for these numbers. Please name one job bill or ideal that the republicans have place on the table that would put Americans to work right now. All I seen is jobs being loss due to spending cuts . Just look at all the public job being loss. Boehner himself said that if jobs are lost due to spending cuts then so be it.

Few things.

1. "How patriotic are you if we are hoping for the president demise in order to put your candidate in the white house"
Okay, here's the deal. If you feel like a president's policies will have a negative effect, you are hoping for those policies to fail. That would mean that the negative effect never comes. That's a good thing. Hoping that a president fails to IMPLEMENT those policies, thereby destroying those negative effects....also a good thing. There are very few people who want the president to fail "no matter the cost". Those who do are hacks, and not representative of the whole.

2. Public sector job loss = less government spending. Less on salary, benefits, work-space, etc. Less government spending = less debt. Private sector jobs are a net gain for the government in terms of revenue. Tax revenue via income tax, employer taxes, and economic contribution (corporate taxes on profits, etc). Loosing public sector jobs hurts inititally, but if the economy is bolstered in other ways it is a temporary hit and we'll be better for it in the long term.
 
This is an example of the problems created when the government begins to have massive cuts during a recession, particularly when those cuts mean job losses.

The more jobs the government cuts, the more consumers are taken out of the equation. The less consumers we have, the less we produce. The less we produce, the less likely we are to generate jobs. The less jobs we have the lower the revenue the government can collection from taxes. And the vicious cycle repeats.

What we need is to stop shedding government jobs, raise taxes and pump out jobs through rebuilding American infrastructure.
 
This is an example of the problems created when the government begins to have massive cuts during a recession, particularly when those cuts mean job losses.


WHAT RECENT SPENDING CUTS caused these job losses?
.
.
.
........thanks for playing......
.
.
.
 
Search my post history during the first month of the Obama presidency, and you will see a clear resemblance to that of the bold aspect of that quote.

What we need(ed) is:largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system

Such a stimulus plan would likely have delivered the greatest proverbial bang for the buck. Unfortunately, political considerations made it necessary for the program to be structured with low multiplier activities i.e., one-time payments to retirees, extension of the first-time homebuyer credit, etc. In addition, such a program would have improved U.S. infrastructure, which has been aging, and is falling behind the newer infrastructure in numerous rising economies. In the long-run, the infrastructure gap will also undermine U.S. competitiveness.
 
Last edited:
This is an example of the problems created when the government begins to have massive cuts during a recession
Cuts? As in SPENDING cuts?
You know that there's been no such thing, right?
 
This is an example of the problems created when the government begins to have massive cuts during a recession, particularly when those cuts mean job losses.

The more jobs the government cuts, the more consumers are taken out of the equation. The less consumers we have, the less we produce. The less we produce, the less likely we are to generate jobs. The less jobs we have the lower the revenue the government can collection from taxes. And the vicious cycle repeats.

What we need is to stop shedding government jobs, raise taxes and pump out jobs through rebuilding American infrastructure.

The FDR policy won't work with the modern structure. Using govt. jobs to bolster employment under FDR involved low-paying work designed to be temporary. Anything done today would most likely be permanent. Couple that with the fact that government workers average 1.5x the total salary & benefits of their private sector counter part and we have a program built to spill. Also, let's not forget that we have massive (1.49 estimated) budget deficits ahead of us (and recently behind us). The US govt. wasn't as far in debt or hemmoraging money as quickly inder FDR, either. We also already employ people in many of the positions originally utilized under the FDR program due to the expansions we made during economic booms. Or...we issue government grants in those areas where we didn't before. It's a completely different system. Aribitrarily creating millions of government jobs isn't the best solution, short term or long term.
 
You DO mean on both sides, right?

YES BOTH SIDES !!!! Even in bush years.

That depends entirely on what those "things" are and the means to achieve them.
I have absolutely NO issue with absolutely refusing to compromise on certain things.

So it is okay to sacrifice the debt ceiling for Big Oil subsidies???? Really??? How does that benefit you or why would you fight for Big Oil?

Bad news. Unless there is dramatic, even draconan, cuts in spending, especially entitlement spenidng - this country will fail.

Long term that is true. But the way you guys are trying to do it is nuts. You demonize lower income people and treat the wealthy like they are innocent angels who does not cheat the government.
 
I think what the Democrats will try to do is to ask for another stimulus under the banner of "Investment". It crystal clear that the president is in deep trouble. History does prove that no president has ever reelected with unemployment rate in 8% since 1936. The president has a lot of work to do to get this problem solved as soon as possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom