• 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

Eighty Deuce said:
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%.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. Baby Boomers may be retiring but that does not change the fact that job creation is still not even sustaining population growth. Not only that but the financial, housing and even back to the dot com bubble bursting have made it impossible for a lot of baby boomers to retire.

Personally, I have seen so many people past retirement age have to return to the labor market to make ends meet.

We need 250,000 jobs a month just to break even.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
No, statistics (reliable ones at least) are made up of data streams that have been proven to be viable and time tested, not "gut feelings and hunches."
Click to expand...

Statistics are based on opinion and are subjective. Those "tests" cannot account for everyone in the specific scenarios and environments of which they conduct them.
 
I don't get it... it's like Republicans are cheering for the economy to go down even though it's bouncing back up. I mean it's struggling on it's way up but there is little question we're improving. I mean if the economy was slowly getting worse and they were harping about it I'd understand - ****, I'd join them - but it's not. What's the deal yo? Do you guys want the economy to fail? Or is it because it's bouncing back up under Obama that you guys are angry?
 
Rapunzel52 said:
But how could we stay even with all those baby boomers retiring???...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

By handing out work visa's to the Mexicans rather than trying to jail and deport them all. Then they are working legally and being taxed appropriately to accommodate instead of working illegally and under the table the way our corporate masters prefer.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I heard Saddam Hussein (whoops I Mean Hussein Obama:) I get them mixed up) bragging about this today.............Boy is he clueless.


Jobs recovery suffers setback in March - Yahoo! Finance

By Lucia Mutikani
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers hired far fewer workers in March than in previous months, keeping the door open for the Federal Reserve to provide more monetary support for a still sluggish economy.
Click to expand...

That sucks. Hopefully we can turn things around.

I don't care who the President is... I want Americans working and earning their livelihood rather than sucking up to the state for hand-outs.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't get it... it's like Republicans are cheering for the economy to go down even though it's bouncing back up. I mean it's struggling on it's way up but there is little question we're improving. I mean if the economy was slowly getting worse and they were harping about it I'd understand - ****, I'd join them - but it's not. What's the deal yo? Do you guys want the economy to fail? Or is it because it's bouncing back up under Obama that you guys are angry?
Click to expand...

Its the sad truth about extreme politics..... people WANT bad **** to happen when "the enemy" is in office.

Its disgusting.
 
The true unemployment rate is much higher than the official one. Unemployment numbers do not include people who have given up on looking for work. Nor do they include short-term temporary workers, such as those who were hired by the Obama administration to take the Census (artificially and duplicitously suppressing unemployment figures in the process).
 
Last edited:
Zen said:
The true unemployment rate is much higher than the official one. Unemployment numbers do not include people who have given up on looking for work. Nor do they include short-term temporary workers, such as those who were hired by the Obama administration to take the Census (artificially and duplicitously suppressing unemployment figures in the process).
Click to expand...

So..... a task such as the census........ Should large section of the government stop doing their regular duties in order to go out and do the work to compile the census? Or is there a problem with hiring extra temporary help?

Why bring it up at all? Thats kind of a stupid point in my opinion.
 
Zen said:
The true unemployment rate is much higher than the official one. Unemployment numbers do not include people who have given up on looking for work. Nor do they include short-term temporary workers, such as those who were hired by the Obama administration to take the Census (artificially and duplicitously suppressing unemployment figures in the process).
Click to expand...
Granted the "true unemployment rate" is higher than the publicly adopted figures, (I'll assume you're referring to the U-6), but this is hardly a new occurrence it's been in practice for both of our previous two president's administrations. As for your claims of "artificial and duplicitous unemployment figure suppression" that severe a charge usually merits some supporting evidence in order to be taken seriously.
 
Hare said:
Granted the "true unemployment rate" is higher than the publicly adopted figures, (I'll assume you're referring to the U-6), but this is hardly a new occurrence it's been in practice for both of our previous two president's administrations. As for your claims of "artificial and duplicitous unemployment figure suppression" that severe a charge usually merits some supporting evidence in order to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Who cares if a bad practice has been going on for a long time. Let's get it fixed!
 
Hare said:
I'd be content if the U-6 was the standard number reported, but it's not as if the numbers are concealed from the public, the U-6 rate is readily available to those who care enough to look them up. Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Click to expand...


Never said the numbers were hidden. Not blaming anyone or claiming some left wing conspiracy, just would like the U-6 number to be the one folks focus on.
 
I don't have a problem with hiring temporary help. I do have a problem with manipulating the numbers to create a picture of relative economic health that doesn't accurately reflect reality. Unemployment numbers shouldn't exclude those who are knowingly employed for short-term temporary duration, nor should they exclude workers whose prospects for employment are so dire, they stop actively looking for work. Unemployment should be defined as anyone 18 or over without a permanent job, minus full-time students, housewives/househusbands, the disabled, and retirees. That would provide a more realistic assessment of the overall employment situation. Otherwise the government can simply hire everyone for a one month job and claim 0% unemployment.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Statistics are based on opinion and are subjective. Those "tests" cannot account for everyone in the specific scenarios and environments of which they conduct them.
Click to expand...

You don't know much about the science of statistics then

Zen said:
The true unemployment rate is much higher than the official one. Unemployment numbers do not include people who have given up on looking for work. Nor do they include short-term temporary workers, such as those who were hired by the Obama administration to take the Census (artificially and duplicitously suppressing unemployment figures in the process).
Click to expand...

Why even being it up when third people are no longer affecting the positive job growth numbers any more?

Here are a couple of problems with the unemployment numbers that also skew the number negatively when it shouldn't. People who work seasonally and collect unemployment after their working season ends are counted as unemployed. People who get a job every few months to recharge unemployment benefits are unemployed.

The number, good or bad, is never accurate. What it does show and shows well is trends, and the current tend from various sources is that unemployment is getting lower

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
Hatuey said:
I don't get it... it's like Republicans are cheering for the economy to go down even though it's bouncing back up. I mean it's struggling on it's way up but there is little question we're improving. I mean if the economy was slowly getting worse and they were harping about it I'd understand - ****, I'd join them - but it's not. What's the deal yo? Do you guys want the economy to fail? Or is it because it's bouncing back up under Obama that you guys are angry?
Click to expand...

I'm not a Republican...only a conservative...but I don't see it as an issue of anyone "cheering for the economy to go down". At least, I haven't heard anyone publicly cheering. Have you?

Rather, at least in respect to this issue, I see it as opposition to Obama's method of using some data and ignoring other data to give a false impression that the economy is actually improving. With so many people simply dropping out of the workforce, I don't see that as an indication that our economy is in very good shape. And I don't see this as something to cheer about...or ignore.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, a bit disappointing after three previous months of 200,000+ jobs growth. On the other hand, it's a lot better than losing almost three quarters of a milion jobs a month, like your boy Shrub was doing when he beat feet out of Washington.
Click to expand...

He's at a net loss I believe.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
Historic Number of People Have Left the Labor Market | The Lonely Conservative
Click to expand...

The Lonly conservative? Are you kidding? This is your supporting data?

This is from the "About" section of your link.

About
September 10, 2010
By Lonely Conservative

My name is Karen. I’m a working wife and mother of two boys. We live in Upstate, New York.

While I try to follow the news of the day, there may be times I go off on a tangent.

The views I express on this blog are my own. The beliefs expressed by the other contributors here are their own.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Johnson said:
You don't even know your own subject you claim to be proficient in. Statistics can be made up by anyone. Educate yourself to reading comprehension before shouting out anything.
Click to expand...
1) I never claimed to be proficient in statistics. I wish I was, or at least remembered what I was taught in college
2) "statistics" can be made up by anyone, but good statistics aren't and try to control for most variables. Gallop is a prime example of good stats,in the realm of politics and survey. Most journals that deal with historical stats are very good as well

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
xpiher said:
but good statistics aren't and try to control for most variables.
Click to expand...

Hence why I said statistics are flawed, and made up of opinions. Statistics cannot account for every variable and alternatives. If that were the case, this country would be so much better economically and health wise.
 
Zen said:
The true unemployment rate is much higher than the official one. Unemployment numbers do not include people who have given up on looking for work. Nor do they include short-term temporary workers, such as those who were hired by the Obama administration to take the Census (artificially and duplicitously suppressing unemployment figures in the process).
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "true" unemployment rate. BLS provides six different ways of looking at the problem and for consistencies' sake they've settled on U-3 as the official statistic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom