• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karl said:
My distillation of right wing posts on the subject is twofold:

a) If more jobs make Obama look good, then they are bad.

b) If the unemployment rate goes down while Obama is president, then it's really 15%
Click to expand...

Do you think I didn't get you? Looks like you didn't follow me.
 
245,000 jobs is a good thing. 3 years and 4 trillion in deficit spending kind of takes the luster off. Unfortunately the basic problems that face this country and economy haven't changed.
 
danarhea said:
When the stock market crashed in 1929, it was not until 1953 that it attained the same level it had before it crashed.
Click to expand...


He's not talking about the stock market. He's talking about raw job numbers.

We are at currently 450k total employeed persons less than we were 36 months ago. So, to return to that employment rate and participate rate we had then, we need 250k jobs a month, for about 5 years( due to increased workforce population of about 3 million, and another 100-150k a month ).
 
ThePlayDrive said:
BBC:

Good news for the country, good news for the Democrats, bad news for the Republicans. What do you think? Is the rise temporary? Does it even matter politically? What is causing it?
Click to expand...

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Certainly gives President Obama a little breathing room.

Any way you slice it, that's good news for the Dems
 
Samhain said:
He's not talking about the stock market. He's talking about raw job numbers.

We are at currently 450k total employeed persons less than we were 36 months ago. So, to return to that employment rate and participate rate we had then, we need 250k jobs a month, for about 5 years( due to increased workforce population of about 3 million, and another 100-150k a month ).
Click to expand...

You shouldn't expect a return to pre-recession employment numbers because those numbers were inflated by the real estate/financial bubble. That employment level was never sustainable. Unfortunately it accounted for almost all of the jobs growth during the Bush administration. As a result, the economy lost close to two million jobs from the construction and financial sectors alone, and those jobs aren't coming back any time soon.
 
AdamT said:
You shouldn't expect a return to pre-recession employment numbers because those numbers were inflated by the real estate/financial bubble. That employment level was never sustainable. Unfortunately it accounted for almost all of the jobs growth during the Bush administration. As a result, the economy lost close to two million jobs from the construction and financial sectors alone, and those jobs aren't coming back any time soon.
Click to expand...

You must be referring to the pre-1981 recession rates then, since the particiaption rate hasn't been this low since august of 1981.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Why at this point does any one care about that?
Click to expand...

American workers care...

Go beyond the partisan bull**** and be glad more Americans are working
 
AdamT said:
The participation rate is also going to decrease as the baby boomers move into retirement. But I was talking about the unemployment rate. Some economists think that the new "normal" will be around 7%, whereas for a time it was considered to be 5%.

Is high unemployment the 'new normal' even in a recovery? | McClatchy
Click to expand...

If the participation rate is going to drop back to the level in the 60s and 70s, which was ~61-62%, then the base "unemployment" rate should creep up as well. Hopefully the participation rate doesn't drop like that, because our entitlement bomb will come faster and harder.
 
I hate to seem cynical, but skewed is a kind term to use for the data I've read.
 
AdamT said:
The participation rate is also going to decrease as the baby boomers move into retirement. But I was talking about the unemployment rate. Some economists think that the new "normal" will be around 7%, whereas for a time it was considered to be 5%.

Is high unemployment the 'new normal' even in a recovery? | McClatchy
Click to expand...

From the CBO's January 2012 Report:

Participation in the Labor Force. The unemployment rate would be even higher than it is now had participation in the labor force not declined as much as it has over the past few years. The rate of participation in the labor force fell from 66 percent in 2007 to an average of 64 percent in the second half of 2011, an unusually large decline over so short a time. About a third of that decline reflects factors other than the downturn, such as the aging of the baby-boom generation. But even with those factors removed, the estimated decline in that rate during the past four years is larger than has been typical of past downturns, even after accounting for the greater severity of this downturn. Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent.

By CBO’s estimates, the rate of labor force participation will fall to slightly above 63 percent by 2017. The dampening effects of the increase in tax rates in 2013 scheduled under current law and additional retirements by baby boomers are projected to more than offset the strengthening effects of growing demand for labor as the economy recovers further.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/01-31-2012_Outlook.pdf

Basically admitting a real unemployment rate of 10%
 
AdamT said:
You shouldn't expect a return to pre-recession employment numbers because those numbers were inflated by the real estate/financial bubble. That employment level was never sustainable. Unfortunately it accounted for almost all of the jobs growth during the Bush administration. As a result, the economy lost close to two million jobs from the construction and financial sectors alone, and those jobs aren't coming back any time soon.
Click to expand...
That's not the only reason ...

Explaining the decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate
by Daniel Aaronson, vice president and director of microeconomic research, Jonathan Davis, associate economist, and
Luojia Hu, senior economist

The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns, such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting LFPR improvements due to economic recovery.​
 
Samhain said:
He's not talking about the stock market. He's talking about raw job numbers.

We are at currently 450k total employeed persons less than we were 36 months ago. So, to return to that employment rate and participate rate we had then, we need 250k jobs a month, for about 5 years( due to increased workforce population of about 3 million, and another 100-150k a month ).
Click to expand...
492K, to be precise. However, the current (January) number is
3,135K total employed persons more than we were 24 months ago, and
2,345K total employed persons more than we were 12 months ago.

EmployedLast10Yrs.jpg


Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
​
 
apdst said:
That's sarcasm. Right? :rofl
Click to expand...

More good news!

Nasdaq at 11-year high as jobless rate falls to 8.3%- MSN Money

Way to go Obama! Now get out there and get some more terrorists! Wooohooo!!!

I know this has GOT to be killin' you. :mrgreen:

I mean, if fair is fair. Hell, you guys blame him for everything from the economy to gout. So, if he gets the heat, he gets the kudos. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to think of us a hypocrites now, would we?

I know I'm pouring salt in your wound. I do so apologize in advance for that. I'm just having a little fun rubbing it in I suppose. Please forgive my folly. At my age, you take your pleasure when and where you can. :peace

I truly mean to be lighthearted and humorous. Perhaps I should not quit my day job. :3oops:
 
Captain America said:
More good news!

Nasdaq at 11-year high as jobless rate falls to 8.3%- MSN Money

Way to go Obama! Now get out there and get some more terrorists! Wooohooo!!!

I know this has GOT to be killin' you. :mrgreen:

I mean, if fair is fair. Hell, you guys blame him for everything from the economy to gout. So, if he gets the heat, he gets the kudos. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to think of us a hypocrites now, would we?

I know I'm pouring salt in your wound. I do so apologize in advance for that. I'm just having a little fun rubbing it in I suppose. Please forgive my folly. At my age, you take your pleasure when and where you can. :peace

I truly mean to be lighthearted and humorous. Perhaps I should not quit my day job. :3oops:
Click to expand...

It's not bothering me, my man. I know that this isn't happening because of Obama's policies. It's happening in spite of Obama's policies.
 
apdst said:
It's not bothering me, my man. I know that this isn't happening because of Obama's policies. It's happening in spite of Obama's policies.
Click to expand...

Right on pardner.

I hear ya.

Don't mess with Texas.

Keep Austin Weird.

Yee-hawww!

Lone Star Beer.
 
Captain America said:
Right on pardner.

I hear ya.

Don't mess with Texas.

Keep Austin Weird.

Yee-hawww!

Lone Star Beer.
Click to expand...

I don't live in Austin. I live in San Antonio. And, I don't really like Lone Star Beer. I'm a Bud Light man.
 
You seem to be feeling pretty good tonight!
 
Lone Star beer does kinda suck. But I just figured you would like it. :3oops:

My bad.

I'm a Fat Tire kinda guy these days. Give it a try!

View attachment 67122014
 
liblady said:
That is just sad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is sad that I had to move all the way to San Antonio, because Obama killed my ability to make a living in Louisiana.

But hey! I'm not one of those folks that's going to sit back and bitch. I'm going get up off my ass and make something happen.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom