• 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. Payrolls Gain More-Than-Expected 200,000; Jobless Rate Falls to 8.5%

If they have a job, they aren't going to go anywhere while they can still get paid.

The IT department here is dominated by people in their 60s and 70s, mainly because you can't find a good mainframe programmer these days.

Of course...but if faced with pay cuts or extra hours or potential layoffs people are opting for retirement.

At my office I'm seeing a lot of boomers making that decision. We have a lot of planned retirements coming up in the next couple of years.
 
The misery index is a combination of inflation and unemployment. Obama inherited a recession that was ending and a misery index under 8. The 81-81 recession had a misery index of over 19 so which one affected the American people the most?

The unemployment rate is not a measurement of how one is affected, it's a measurement of of employment. When you look at unemployment rates now is comparable to the 1980s. We're not seeing people squeezed by inflation and high unemployment I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that when you have long term unemployment you'll see the numbers skewed which has nothing to do with purchasing power of individuals.
 
The unemployment rate is not a measurement of how one is affected, it's a measurement of of employment. When you look at unemployment rates now is comparable to the 1980s. We're not seeing people squeezed by inflation and high unemployment I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that when you have long term unemployment you'll see the numbers skewed which has nothing to do with purchasing power of individuals.

Are discouraged workers unemployed? Prior to 1994 they were counted in the official unemployment number, why not now? The unemployment rate in the 81-82 recession were worse than this recession.
 
Are discouraged workers unemployed? Prior to 1994 they were counted in the official unemployment number, why not now? The unemployment rate in the 81-82 recession were worse than this recession.

Well....if you count discouraged workers then no, it's not worse than now right?
 
Well....if you count discouraged workers then no, it's not worse than now right?

Yes, it was worse than right now as the misery index is how the economy affects individuals. High inflation, high unemployment were a bigger drag on the economy than low almost no inflation and high unemployment. People were paying 17.5% interest rates on their home mortgages on 1981 and losing their jobs left and right. How does that compare to today?
 
Yes, it was worse than right now as the misery index is how the economy affects individuals. High inflation, high unemployment were a bigger drag on the economy than low almost no inflation and high unemployment. People were paying 17.5% interest rates on their home mortgages on 1981 and losing their jobs left and right. How does that compare to today?

You're right...under Reagan's first term the economy was worse than it is under Obama's first term...happy?
 
Last edited:
Sorry but how old were you in 1981-82 when there was a 20 misery index? How is this economy worse than that one?
his age is relevant to the discussion at hand
 
From Bloomberg.com:



U.S. Unemployment Falls to 8.5% as Jobs Gain - Bloomberg

The complete report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01062012.pdf

This report is the latest evidence that the economy is gaining a little strength. Should these trends persist, they will have implications for the 2012 Presidential election, increasing prospects for the President's re-election.

Only if Obama can point to his specific policies that encouraged this job creation. So far, this increase in employment has nothing to do with anything Obama has done.

Not to mention, I think it's a fantasy to believe that campainging on, "I dropped the unemployment rate 1%", is going to have a positive effect.
 
Last edited:
Real Jobless Rate Is 11.4% With Realistic Labor Force Participation Rate | ZeroHedge

The real issue is the moving of the goal posts. We should be shooting for 5-6%, not 8%. This filling of an Obama campaign promise is total horse****, since he promised to maintain it at that rate or lower. Achieving it on Election Day is not maintaining anything, except a scam.

The real issue is there is no "real" unemployment rate. There are just a number of ways of looking at the problem, and they are all legitimate in their own way. But it's convenient if we generally use a single metric, which makes it easier to track and to compare to other periods. As it happens, we've settled on the U-3 number as that benchmark.
 
The decrease in LFPR has been decreasing for awhile now. It's no suprise. Boomers are nearing retirement age and it's been something discussed for a long time.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Those that are are nearing retirement age are making the decision to get out of a bad labor market. It's just accelerating long term trends.

Frankly, this is rubbish. The dramatic decrease in the LFPR is either folks just giving up looking out of desperation, or the government fudging the books.
 
You're right...under Reagan's first term the economy was worse than it is under Obama's first term...happy?

For what it is worth, I am one Conservative who feels that Obama inherited a worse mess than Reagan. They were different messes, to be sure, and not the same thing happening twice, 30 years apart. Trust folks that I know all about interest rates, inflation, etc. I voted for Reagan in 1980. I have argued this inside and out on many occasions.

However, the biggest difference is that Reagan pursued an effective solution to the problem that he faced. Obama has only made his situation worse. Obama needs to be thrown out of office, and as far as possible, before this year is out.
 
For what it is worth, I am one Conservative who feels that Obama inherited a worse mess than Reagan. They were different messes, to be sure, and not the same thing happening twice, 30 years apart. Trust folks that I know all about interest rates, inflation, etc. I voted for Reagan in 1980. I have argued this inside and out on many occasions.

However, the biggest difference is that Reagan pursued an effective solution to the problem that he faced. Obama has only made his situation worse. Obama needs to be thrown out of office, and as far as possible, before this year is out.

Obama doesn't have the tools available to him that Reagan had, even if he mistakenly thought that this was a supply-side recession. Reagan instituted large tax cuts, and in fact taxes were too high at the time. Taxes aren't too high now. They are lower than they were under Reagan. Reagan's cut-taxes-but-not-spending policies created huge deficits, and debt, as those policies were followed up by both Bushes. That has also hamstrung Obama's response. He's done more or less what he should have done under the circumstances and as a result things are starting to turn around. There's very little he can do about the depressed real estate market and the economy won't be completely healthy until that sector recovers. Unfortunately that will probably take at least three or four years.
 
So, 500K people retired or enrolled in collage in the last two months? Bull!


j-mac

Thgose are the White House talking points, adam is quick to spew that silliness.
 
Obama doesn't have the tools available to him that Reagan had, even if he mistakenly thought that this was a supply-side recession. Reagan instituted large tax cuts, and in fact taxes were too high at the time. Taxes aren't too high now. They are lower than they were under Reagan. Reagan's cut-taxes-but-not-spending policies created huge deficits, and debt, as those policies were followed up by both Bushes. That has also hamstrung Obama's response. He's done more or less what he should have done under the circumstances and as a result things are starting to turn around. There's very little he can do about the depressed real estate market and the economy won't be completely healthy until that sector recovers. Unfortunately that will probably take at least three or four years.

I had already noted that Obama inherited a different set of problems. However, you are quite wrong about the effects of Reagan's tax cuts. Revenues to the government increased by about 70% during Reagan's two terms. The dirty secret is that while Reagan lowered some rates, he closed more loopholes, such that he increased revenues not only by improving the economy, but by actually changing the tax codes to produce more revenue. 1980 revenues were 517 B. 1988 revenues were 909 B. They only dipped in 1983, and that was his Recession year. Further, until the dot-com bubble kicked in, Clinton was doing no better with his budgets than anyone else.

All here: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Reagan essentially raised taxes.
 
Last edited:
I had already noted that Obama inherited a different set of problems. However, you are quite wrong about the effects of Reagan's tax cuts. Revenues to the government increased by about 70% during Reagan's two terms. The dirty secret is that while Reagan lowered some rates, he closed more loopholes, such that he increased revenues not only by improving the economy, but by actually changing the tax codes to produce more revenue. 1980 revenues were 517 B. 1988 revenues were 909 B. They only dipped in 1983, and that was his Recession year. Further, until the dot-com bubble kicked in, Clinton was doing no better with his budgets than anyone else.

All here: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Reagan essentially raised taxes.

A simplified tax code would increase the tax base, which is the easiest way to increase revenues without the shock of rate increases.
 
Yes, since 1994, but discouraged workers have never been at this level since being dropped from the labor force

Please answer the following questions

We have a growing population and a declining labor force, how is that positive?
We have people dropping off the unemployment roles because theya re discouraged, how is that positive?
We have almost 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans, how is that positive?
We have more unemployed today than when Obama took office by over a million, how is that positive when the debt has increased by 4.5 trillion dollars?

It all depends on what your objective is. If you want to see the US collapse than this is good news. If you want to see the US prosper and grow and become financially stable, this is bad news. The work force participation rate sucks......we have people entering the beggar class in droves ....... we have unsustainable medicare and social security ponzi schemes that require a healthy increase in new workers......BO's use of debt financing to pay for his socialist BS is going to crush the future generations under a mountain of debt. Yeah, I can see why all the liberals love this data ...... we are one step closer to the economic collapse they hope to use to transform the US into a complete welfare state.
 
A simplified tax code would increase the tax base, which is the easiest way to increase revenues without the shock of rate increases.

Agreed. And I would submit Reagan's performance as an example, although he certainly left more simplification to be done. Worth noting that Obama's own Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended same. And Obama ignored them.
 
A simplified tax code would increase the tax base, which is the easiest way to increase revenues without the shock of rate increases.


I hope you mean increasing the number of millionaires that pay taxes, not by raising taxes on the low brackets by eliminating the mortgage deduction. A consumer economy needs to tax income not spent or risk weakening the economy by further reducing spending by the middle class. Taking money from those that would spend it in the economy is self defeating.
 
Sorry but how old were you in 1981-82 when there was a 20 misery index? How is this economy worse than that one?

In 1981-1982, household net wealth steadily increased year-over-year.

fredgraph.png


Between 2007 and 2011, this was not the case (as citizens net wealth was decreasing).

fredgraph.png


Which is why citing the misery index is naive.
 
The real issue is there is no "real" unemployment rate. There are just a number of ways of looking at the problem, and they are all legitimate in their own way. But it's convenient if we generally use a single metric, which makes it easier to track and to compare to other periods. As it happens, we've settled on the U-3 number as that benchmark.


Who is this amorphous "we"? If you are talking about 'we the people' I'd ask when that vote was, cause I missed it. If you are talking 'we' as in the congress, well, they do a lot of **** that when the people get tired of it they get booted.

And if you are saying, as I suspect you are, 'we', as in liberal Obama supporters, in the attempt to shell game the public like you have been trying to do ever since this disaster of a President was sworn in, then I would say that at best you are being disingenuous to yourself, and at worst just flat out lying.

j-mac
 
Agreed. And I would submit Reagan's performance as an example, although he certainly left more simplification to be done. Worth noting that Obama's own Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended same. And Obama ignored them.

What Reagan did to increase revenues was increase SSI payments leading to the 2 trillion SS surplus which his GOP sucessors promptly spent. That act alone caused the economy to languish until Clinton. Taking money from those that would spend it in th economy is self defeating. Taxing money not spent boost the economy when the Govt. spends what the individual cannot. In a consumer economy spending=growth.
 
Last edited:
What Reagan did to increase revenues was increase SSI payments leading to the 2 trillion SS surplus which his GOP sucessors promptly spent. That act alone caused the economy to languish until Clinton. Taking money from those that would spend it in th economy is self defeating. Taxing money not spent boost the economy when the Govt. spends what the individual cannot. In a consumer economy spending=growth.


Consumer based economy is what progressives have been moving this country toward since the 70s as a way to destroy capitalism.


j-mac
 
I always prefer payroll survey over household surveys for obvious reasons. The first being that home telephone surveys (which accounts for a great deal of the data collection) are insufficient in this day in age when 25% of all households do not have land line telephones.

Payroll data tells a different story:

ADP today reported that employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by
325,000 from November to December on a seasonally adjusted basis. The estimated advance in
employment from October to November was revised down slightly to 204,000 from the initially
reported 206,000.
The increase in December was the largest monthly gain since last December 2010 and nearly
twice the average monthly gain since May when employment decelerated sharply.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector rose 273,000 in December, which is up from
an increase of 176,000 in November. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector
increased 52,000 in December, while manufacturing employment increased 22,000.
 
Back
Top Bottom