• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
What are discouraged workers? Are they unemployed or employed?
Click to expand...

iirc, they have chosen welfare on an at least semi-permanent basis. They're discouraged because, apparently, they aren't worth as much as they thought. These are the Americans who refuse to do some jobs.

If I don't get to share an office like last time, I'll just collect food at churches and keep on the welfare dole. I'm not going back to the fryer! I'd rather be a bum!


j-mac said:
I am coming to one conclusion after browsing back through the 176 plus pages of posts on this thread.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with you, 10 posts per page? 40 posts per page totally pwns.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
and that fact is that employers added NO NET JOBS in the month of August.
Click to expand...
Whoaaaa ... so it's a "fact" again? 'Cause when you responded to me pointing out that there had to be a net gan of jobs just to keep the unemployment rate level, you said you were "questioning" those very numbs you now call "fact."


Well, I don't know about you, but I am starting to question all these numbers from different sources. They seem way too easily manipulated to fit arguments. You know what British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in the 1800s said right? "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I don't think any of us have been told the real truth for quite a while now.

j-mac​
 
j-mac said:
I am coming to one conclusion after browsing back through the 176 plus pages of posts on this thread. It is, that the opening posting laid out a fact. and that fact is that employers added NO NET JOBS in the month of August. Also as of late this supposed 'summer of recovery' is a huge flop. Nothing has recovered, and I am thinking that we never left the recession.

In all that, Demo's blame repubs, and repubs blame demo's. and on, and on, and on.....pfft!!!

But, if we never left the recession, one has to ask why is that? We have been in a Keynesian experiment since January of 2009. It has clearly failed, and no increase of the Keynes model is going to magically work.

2012 is going to be a referendum on this no matter what demo's say....For it not to be would be dishonest, and go against every 2nd term election this country has ever held. Obama is failing in an epic fashion, and one year and three months from now should he not address his failures and actually start adopting proven policies that work, he will lose.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Thank you for returning some sanity to the thread. I have no idea why I allow the left to get me off track like they do but I really get tired of the diversion from the facts. Please keep me on track if you can with posts like this one.
 
Quote j-mac


But, if we never left the recession, one has to ask why is that? We have been in a Keynesian experiment since January of 2009. It has clearly failed, and no increase of the Keynes model is going to magically work.
Click to expand...


The stimulus should have been twice what it was. The stimulus should have been more on infrastructure, rebuilding bridges upgrading schools. I could go on but I’m sure you get the message. I eagerly await you talking points in rebuttal.:2wave:
 
Conservative said:
Thank you for returning some sanity to the thread. I have no idea why I allow the left to get me off track like they do but I really get tired of the diversion from the facts. Please keep me on track if you can with posts like this one.
Click to expand...
If you think that was sane, then hopefully you will answer how the U3 unemployment rate remained the same if there were no jobs gained last month, given we need to have a net gain of at least 150,000 jobs just to keep the unemployment rate level?
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Let me google that for you




...............
Click to expand...

thanks, no problem, discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed and thus makes the unemployment rate look better than what it actually is. The current U-6 is 16.2% with 25 million plus unemployed and under employed Americans, up 3 million over the number he inherited.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If you think that was sane, then hopefully you will answer how the U3 unemployment rt remained the same if there were no jobs gained last month, given we need to have a net gain of at least 150,000 jobs just to keep the unemployment rate level?
Click to expand...

Very simple the labor force increased because discouraged workers jumped back in for the job hunt so the labor force increased and the unemployment number didn't decrease enough to change the rate. Labor force up, unemployment numbers down a little but not enough to make a change. the real rate is 16.2%
 
Conservative said:
Very simple the labor force increased because discouraged workers jumped back in for the job hunt so the labor force increased and the unemployment number didn't decrease enough to change the rate. Labor force up, unemployment numbers down a little but not enough to make a change. the real rate is 16.2%
Click to expand...
You're not making sense, Con ... there were 142,000 fewer discouraged workers last month but the labor force increased by 366,000 ... so how do you account for that additional 224,000 thousand who bumped up the labor force?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're not making sense, Con ... there were 142,000 fewer discouraged workers last month but the labor force increased by 366,000 ... so how do you account for that additional 224,000 thousand who bumped up the labor force?
Click to expand...

Yes, those 142,000 then were added back to the labor force taking that number up. In addition more people joined the labor force from other sources as well. The fact remains, BLS shows a 16.2% U-6 Rate and that is a better picture of the economy.
 
Here is an interactive jobs chart that will be helpful to this discussion.
 
Conservative said:
I have no idea why I allow the left to get me off track like they do but I really get tired of the diversion from the facts.
Click to expand...




The ole Geraldine defense eh?The devil made me do it.:mrgreen:
 
j-mac said:
I am coming to one conclusion after browsing back through the 176 plus pages of posts on this thread. It is, that the opening posting laid out a fact. and that fact is that employers added NO NET JOBS in the month of August. Also as of late this supposed 'summer of recovery' is a huge flop. Nothing has recovered, and I am thinking that we never left the recession.

In all that, Demo's blame repubs, and repubs blame demo's. and on, and on, and on.....pfft!!!

But, if we never left the recession, one has to ask why is that? We have been in a Keynesian experiment since January of 2009. It has clearly failed, and no increase of the Keynes model is going to magically work.

2012 is going to be a referendum on this no matter what demo's say....For it not to be would be dishonest, and go against every 2nd term election this country has ever held. Obama is failing in an epic fashion, and one year and three months from now should he not address his failures and actually start adopting proven policies that work, he will lose.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I asked you early on and you didn't answer, but you believe government is the answer, right? The only way you can blame government is if you see government as having control. If it bothers you that government hasn't fixed this, you have to be arguing that government should do more. The only thing government can do about jobs is to hire people. Otherwise, the problem lies with private sector employers who, despite many making good profit, have yet to hire. And no, tax cuts don't lead to hiring (antisipating your response). We know that because people have looked at that specifically and found no evidence tax cuts lead to hiring. ;)
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Whoaaaa ... so it's a "fact" again? 'Cause when you responded to me pointing out that there had to be a net gan of jobs just to keep the unemployment rate level, you said you were "questioning" those very numbs you now call "fact."


Well, I don't know about you, but I am starting to question all these numbers from different sources. They seem way too easily manipulated to fit arguments. You know what British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in the 1800s said right? "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I don't think any of us have been told the real truth for quite a while now.

j-mac​
Click to expand...

I stand by my postings.

j-mac
 
donc said:
The stimulus should have been twice what it was. The stimulus should have been more on infrastructure, rebuilding bridges upgrading schools. I could go on but I’m sure you get the message. I eagerly await you talking points in rebuttal.:2wave:
Click to expand...

No talking points friend. Just common sense. And that dictates that when something fails you don't try and double what failed, that would be the definition of insanity.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No talking points friend. Just common sense. And that dictates that when something fails you don't try and double what failed, that would be the definition of insanity.

j-mac
Click to expand...

So, it is never possible to do too little? taht is done in a larger amount the effect would be better? This is not possible?
 
Boo Radley said:
As lies? Damned lies? or statisitics?

;) Just asking. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Boo, it is what it is, live with it! The Obama record and poll numbers are there for all to see. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away nor will it get better. Consumer and business confidence in this Administration has been lost and that doesn't bode well for the future for Obama and his supporters.
 
pbrauer: "Aren't you the one that claims that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton?"

Conservative: "He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?"

Sheik Yerbuti: "WTF?? Are you saying the 2001 recession began while Democrats controlled the Senate? Face reality, Con .... the 2001 recession began while Republicans controlled the Senate, the House, and the executive branch."

Conservative: "Really? So Daschle stole the title of Senate Majority Leader in 2001? Wow, your ignorance has no bounds."
Click to expand...
Ok, since you flat out refuse to look up the dates to prove which of us is the "ignorant" one here, I'll do it for you ...
  • 2001 Recession: The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001
  • 107th Congress (2001-2003): Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats); Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)


The 2001 recession began in March while Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats didn't take control of the Senate until June, three months later.

Don't you ever get tired of being schooled by a Liberal? I'm embarrassed for you. :whothere:

Now let's see if you're man enough to apologize for calling others ignorant when you're the one who was wrong.
 
j-mac said:
I stand by my postings.

j-mac
Click to expand...
Hmm, lesee ... On one hand you say "we haven't been told the truth" in regard to those numbers; but on the other hand, you call those numbers, "factual."

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how both of your positions can be true?

Which one do you stand by?
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The 2001 recession began in March while Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats didn't take control of the Senate until June, three months later.
Click to expand...


Could you lay out for us what it was in that three month window, that Repubs rammed through that tanked the economy some 8 years later?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No talking points friend. Just common sense. And that dictates that when something fails you don't try and double what failed, that would be the definition of insanity.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Nothing you have posted signifies "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. It is your analysis of the situation that leads you to believe such notions. Why do you believe unemployment would be lower if the government stood back and did nothing?
 
j-mac said:
Could you lay out for us what it was in that three month window, that Repubs rammed through that tanked the economy some 8 years later?

j-mac
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with Conservative's bogus claim (the one for which he called me ignorant)?

Conservative: "He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?"​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom