• 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!

Jobs recovery suffers setback in March

Cherry pick much ... ROFLMFAO ....

Hey. From his first full month in office, which includes 11 months you skipped cherry-picker, Obama has overseen the creation of less than 250K private sector jobs. Whoopty ****ing doo.

Meanwhile, if you factor out the housing bubble burst, which was a joint creation by Repubs and Dems, Bush created over 6 million private sector jobs. By your liberal-progressive analysis system, we include all the bad with Bush, and take out all the bad with Obama. That's one uber-retarded turd you got going there. :doh

Its also what we expect from the Left ... and Obama math. :roll:



According to the liberals everything is coming up roses...:mrgreen:
 
Because people who have given up on finding work do not count against the unemployed.............Bottom line the unemployment rate is 8.2% higher then it ever was under GWB and there are 1.2 million more unemployed then there were when Hussein Obama took office................
I think some supporting data to back up those claims would be in order.
 
Where did the problem go haywire at? Bush...
Its called historical analysis to see how and where we are at now...




Oh, wait...never mind... Im not a liberal.. :roll:

It doesn't matter one whit where anything went haywire. What matters is what is being done to correct things...and Obama is the one doing the correcting. Except he isn't correcting much at all.

Now, you can deflect all you want to what Bush may or may not have done but it doesn't do a thing to address the problem we now have: High unemployment and Obama's pathetic attempts at doing something about it.

Whether or not you are a liberal, you are still employing a liberal tactic: Deflection. Instead of addressing Obama's pathetic attempts...instead of defending him...you only want to "Blame Bush". That tactic failed two years ago when Obama used it to excuse his inaction.
 
Last edited:
I asked for data to support his claim that unemployment is 8.2 percent higher then it was under any point during the Bush administration. Your link not only doesn't support that claim it also conveniently ignores the fact that the 1.2 million "correction" in the work force was apparently due largely to a census adjustment.


Sorry, misunderstood what you wanted.
 
Sorry, misunderstood what you wanted.

Sure you did. :lol:

The fact is that the unemployment rate now is almost exactly what it was when Shrub left office.

Yes, the labor force participation rate has declined, and some of that is due to the economy. But a lot of it is due to the baby boomers hitting retirement age ... something I don't think the President has much control over.
In 2011 The Baby Boomers Start To Turn 65: 16 Statistics About The Coming Retirement Crisis That Will Drop Your Jaw
 
Sure you did. :lol:

The fact is that the unemployment rate now is almost exactly what it was when Shrub left office.

Yes, the labor force participation rate has declined, and some of that is due to the economy. But a lot of it is due to the baby boomers hitting retirement age ... something I don't think the President has much control over.
In 2011 The Baby Boomers Start To Turn 65: 16 Statistics About The Coming Retirement Crisis That Will Drop Your Jaw


There are not enough boomers to account for what you said above. Numbers are something like 20K per week get to retirement age while population growth adds about 150K per month. Also with savings depleted it is reasonable to suspect that many boomers are not willingly retiring at age 65.

Why can't folks on this site be a but honest. People fall of the employment rolls when their unemployment benefits expire. Also there are many who work in construction and related industries that fall in to the discouraged worker category as there are no jobs to be had for people with their skills.
 
There are not enough boomers to account for what you said above. Numbers are something like 20K per week get to retirement age while population growth adds about 150K per month. Also with savings depleted it is reasonable to suspect that many boomers are not willingly retiring at age 65.

Why can't folks on this site be a but honest. People fall of the employment rolls when their unemployment benefits expire. Also there are many who work in construction and related industries that fall in to the discouraged worker category as there are no jobs to be had for people with their skills.

Wow, talk about honesty problems! :lol:

I just cited an article stating that, beginning last year, about 10,000 baby boomers retire per DAY, and you fire off, "[n]umbers are something like 20K per week get to retirement age...." Further, I didn't say that the decline was ALL due to baby boomers. I said that some of it was due to the economy. Honesty....

Is it *mostly* the slow recovery?

Not so, says the macro-economic team at Barclays. They ran models showing that demographics, and especially retirement amongst baby boomers, has played a larger role in pushing the labor participation rate down than other factors have. “Only about a third of the drop in the labor force participation rate is accounted for by those who say they want a job, and only about 15% by those who want a job and are also of prime working age – i.e., between 25-54,” says the report issued Thursday. What’s more, historically, re-entrants into the labor force haven’t really played much of a role in changing the unemployment numbers.

Read more: A Barclays report suggests that the recent decline in the labor participation rate has more to do with demographics than discouraged workers | Business | TIME.com

Baby Boomers And The Declining Labor Force Participation Rate - Seeking Alpha

Baby Boomers and the Labor Force : CJR

Aging Baby Boomers Reduce Jobless Rate: Matus - Bloomberg

Baby Boomers responsible for lower employment participation rate - National baby boomer | Examiner.com
 
I asked for data to support his claim that unemployment is 8.2 percent higher then it was under any point during the Bush administration. Your link not only doesn't support that claim it also conveniently ignores the fact that the 1.2 million "correction" in the work force was apparently due largely to a census adjustment.

what I sais was when Hussein Obama took over unemployment was at 7%...It never got higher under GWB...In fact during his time as prez it was closr to 4%
 
Anyone want to explain the difference between a financial/liquidity recession and a simple demand recession?

*cricket*

*cricket*

That's what I thought.
 
A bit disappointing, but 6 digit job growth is still moving in a positive direction. Last month's report was revised upward to 240,000+ (from 227,000), and i have little doubt this current survey will be revised upward as well. To put it into perspective, roughly 1.9 million jobs were created from March, 2011 to March, 2012.

Job creation is good, net job gain is the real measure though. About all we can say at this point is that we are keeping our heads above water.
 
Yeah, that damned liberal media and their made-up baby boom thingy! :lol:

Interesting, though, that the labor force participation rate was actually lower in Reagan's first term. Guess that was a conservative conspiracy?

It was lower before than too. The big nudge through that era were women entering the work force. Working Mom's. That is the structure of our current workforce.

Fact remains that we still need to add about 140K jobs per month just to hold steady, as we still have an increasing population. About 1.7 million per calendar year just to stay even. Actual unemployment is close to 11%.
 
If I pay someone to fix my car when it breaks and they fail to fix it, do I blame the mechanic or do I blame Ford?

You tell me.

Depends on the problem. If it's a design flaw that can't be fixed....blame ford.
 
The jobs issue has been a problem since 2008 and it will continue to be a problem. I'm tired of hearing the msm and others say how the economy is making a rebound...really? How can you have a jobless recovery? Have they ever tried looking for a new job? I'm an engineer and I look once in a while, there aren't many engineering jobs out there. I read a great article a couple of days ago that highlights this and especially the problem among teenage unemployment which is almost 50%. Why doesn't anyone in the msm talk about this? We have so many problems with this country but yet we talk about meaningless things such as the Trayvon Martin case...the judicial system will work itself out for that. It's not up to use to speculate about what happened until all of the facts are revealed. This article hit the nail on the head for where we currently stand: Distractions from the Real Issues « Political G-Force

I wish the msm would discuss the importance of unemployment more instead of just reporting the bogus unemployment numbers which don't include long-term discouraged unemployed people or people who have taken a reduction in pay, less than full-time hours, or less-equivalent job. Many people have just taken a job because it's...well... a job and they're meanwhile making 20 - 30% less or working less hours because all they can get is a part-time job.
 
It was lower before than too. The big nudge through that era were women entering the work force. Working Mom's. That is the structure of our current workforce.

Fact remains that we still need to add about 140K jobs per month just to hold steady, as we still have an increasing population. About 1.7 million per calendar year just to stay even. Actual unemployment is close to 11%.

Right, and we averaged over 200k new jobs/month in the first quarter.
 
Back
Top Bottom