• 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!

Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

Oh no, another tea partier from the "dollars are sentient and know who spends them" school.

Spending almost always creates jobs. The issue is what you spend on. If you spend on the military you produce few jobs. If you spend on education, infrastructure, health care, you produce a lot. Join the modern world and modern economy!

Where to begin with this nonsensical gibberish

Just yesterday you Marxists were telling us that the Economy shrank because there was a reduction in defense spending. Now you're claiming defense spending doesn't create many jobs, and we need to spend more on education. Or we need to build and/or repair ore bridges or something. (Broken Window Fallacy) Obama's Stimulus spending primarily went to existing jobs in education. It didn't create jobs. It has a fiscal multiplier of 1 (meaning it didn't create any wealth. It only created more debt/waste we can never recover) The 6 trillion he has borrowed/spent in 4 years hasn't created a single net job. It only added to the deficit. We are still in negative job growth since the day he took office.

Look it's not my problem Obamanomics has been an absolute disaster. There is nothing "modern" about Obama's economic policies. They've been tried many times, and they always fail. We need to go back to the economic policies of Reagan, which created unprecedented economic growth and a net gain of 20 million jobs within 8 years. It also ushered in the peace dividend, which both Clinton and Bush SR took advantage of for even more record job growth.

Yea we get it, everyone who isn't deluded by Obama worship is a "tea partier" or something. /yawn
 
What on Earth are you talking about? The reference week in December was the week of December 9-15 and the reference week in January was the week of January 6-12. November has nothing to do with it. The reference week is almost always the week that contains the 12th (November 2012 used the week of 4-10 because otherwise the interviewers would have been trying to get hold of people Thanksgiving week.
No .. you're mistaken .. .. but so are a lot of people, apparently including many news reporters, either that or their editors are blocking the truth for some reason.

I've interviewed a BLS economist, and he revealed how the process has been done like forever.

He told me that the information used to create the reports presented to the public at the beginning of every month are not obtained from government offices reporting in about this or that actual occurrence during the named month of the particular report.

Instead, the information for the report so-named "January" is collected during the second week of January by an interview process performed by the U.S. Census Department as contracted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Census Department interviews roughly 60,000 pre-selected households (which change periodically) (amounting to roughly 120,000 working-qualified people) and roughly 150,000 businesses.

Yes, that many interviews happen each and every month .. and in those interviews the interviewees are asked questions about what happened in the second week of the previous month through the first week of the current month.

That's right, for the information for that approximately 4-week period is always from the second week of the previous month through the first week of the current month, or, in this case, from the second week of December thru the first week of January.

The interview process occurrs during the second week of, in this case, January, and then the remainder of January is spent tabulating the results and producing the reports ..

.. Which are released to the public at the beginning of the next month, in this case, February.

That's how it's done.

Now I don't expect many average citizens to be aware of this, even though I've been telling this truth for some time now ..

.. But I do expect news reporters/editors to be aware of this .. which is why I think news reporters/editors who don't tell the whole truth about the unemployment scenario are doing the public a great disservice.


Please show your math on that. Even if you include everyone not in the labor force who says they want a job, regardless of ability to accept or if they've ever looked for work, that rate would only be 11.7%* Untrue. Hell, more people were added to the population due to revisions to Census population controls. So more people were counted than last month. No idea where you're getting the idea that anyone "dropped off" unless you're looking at the increase in Not in the Labor Force and think that means people leaving the labor force.
Something else the BLS economist told me was that estimates of those who drop off the radar of their interview process are way off, as they simply assume that the people in a household that's unreachable for the interview in a given month are all in the same status they were previously but they're simply dropped from the reports.

Audits on the matter have revealed that they are often, especially in such down times as the recession and now, around 60% of the actual figure of "discouraged workers", as those many households that are unreachable are later discovered to have contained unemployed people.

So, when you factor in that correction, to create the true unemployment rate, you're around 14% for the period of the second week in December thru the first week of January.
 
Or we need to build and/or repair ore bridges or something. (Broken Window Fallacy) Obama's Stimulus spending primarily went to existing jobs in education. It didn't create jobs.

Infrastructure investment is the best type of stimulus when overnight interest rates are effectively pushed against the zero-bound.

It has a fiscal multiplier of 1 (meaning it didn't create any wealth. It only created more debt/waste we can never recover) The 6 trillion he has borrowed/spent in 4 years hasn't created a single net job. It only added to the deficit. We are still in negative job growth since the day he took office.

You have nothing to cling to except for low brow editorials that attempt to define the ARRA multipliers (there is a composition pertaining to the type, e.g. tax cuts, state aid, etc...). Try something of value for once.

There is nothing "modern" about Obama's economic policies. They've been tried many times, and they always fail. We need to go back to the economic policies of Reagan, which created unprecedented economic growth and a net gain of 20 million jobs within 8 years. It also ushered in the peace dividend, which both Clinton and Bush SR took advantage of for even more record job growth.

Fiscal stimulus when overnight interest rates are zero has never occurred in the U.S. This is simply a matter of fact. Reagan presided over an economy that was facing high inflation/high unemployment, and therefore increased deficit spending in the form of tax cuts and spending increases (military-Keynesianism) that were beneficial to helping the monetary policy objectives of the time "break the back" of inflation. There was never an instance of wealth loss (much less in the tune of 100% of GDP) during the height of the 1980's recession. Your attempt to compare the 1980's economic reality to the current economic reality is not as naive as it is uniformed.

I have no expectation of a valid response. But if you want to talk about multipliers and such, maybe you should have a basic understanding of exactly what it is you wish to debate.

Start here
 
According to current revisions of job growth for the year; there are 2.17 million more jobs in our current economy than there were a year ago, or an average monthly job creation of 180,833.
 
Encouraging to see construction continue to make strides in a positive direction. Curious as to how much of said progress could be attributed to Hurricane Sandy..
 
According to current revisions of job growth for the year; there are 2.17
million more jobs in our current economy than there were a year ago, or an average monthly job creation of 180,833.

Lol...mass hysteria event. Its happening now.

8,500,000 people have dropped out of the work force, given up and they're not counted.

You lack of objectivity, your apparent pathalogical death grip on a bankrupt agenda, your cherry picking of data just so you can convince yourself ( your'e not making an impression on any one with a brain ) that you haven't wasted countless hours parroting tallking points is a testament to the desperation the left is feeling now.
 
Lol...mass hysteria event. Its happening now.

8,500,000 people have dropped out of the work force, given up and they're not counted.

You lack of objectivity, your apparent pathalogical death grip on a bankrupt agenda, your cherry picking of data just so you can convince yourself ( your'e not making an impression on any one with a brain ) that you haven't wasted countless hours parroting tallking points is a testament to the desperation the left is feeling now.

Can you dispute my comment? The U.S. created more than 2 million jobs in the past year. I understand such a fact is completely inconvenient given the nature of your partisanship.
 
How can unemployment "jump" to 7.9 while adding jobs in the process? Oh yeah it can't.

Of course progressives will somehow try to portray that it can...

I love how they never talk about how many jobs were lost. Sorry but 1 + -3 is -2.. but hip-hop hurray for the +1.

Perhaps you need to rethink your ability to use math to explain a point regarding macro economic phenomena.
 
Fractions.

What?

That is one of the dumbest answers I have ever heard.

The formula that illustrates the problem has nothing to do with fractions.

If you were being humorous my apologies...
 
Perhaps you need to rethink your ability to use math to explain a point regarding macro economic phenomena.

I never brought up macroeconomics, as a matter of fact I brought up microeconomics and clearly stated the government needs to adhere to those ideas.

One cannot spend more than what they take in... Apparently that is a difficult concept to understand for some.
 
I never brought up macroeconomics, as a matter of fact I brought up microeconomics and clearly stated the government needs to adhere to those ideas.

One cannot spend more than what they take in... Apparently that is a difficult concept to understand for some.

Comparing the government to a household makes no sense. I continue to find your comments hilarious; we are discussing unemployment which IS a macro topic. :lamo
 
Comparing the government to a household makes no sense. I continue to find your comments hilarious; we are discussing unemployment which IS a macro topic. :lamo

Please, present your understanding of how the economy works...
 
Maybe this will help people who are having trouble understanding how unemployment increases when jobs increase.

U3 rate = number of people unemployed/number of people in the labor force

January 2013: 12332000/155654000 = 0.079227

December 2013: 12206000/155511000 = 0.07849

As we can see, the number of people who entered the labor force increased by a lesser rate than the number of people who are unemployed.
 
Please, present your understanding of how the economy works...

That is a strange request. I will ask you this: does a household have the ability to issue debt in a perpetual manner? Does a households income depend (in a linear fashion) on the income level of the aggregate economy?
 
That is a strange request. I will ask you this: does a household have the ability to issue debt in a perpetual manner? Does a households income depend (in a linear fashion) on the income level of the aggregate economy?

I'll answer anything you want, after you have answered the question asked...
 
I'll answer anything you want, after you have answered the question asked...

You asked a rather broad question. My questions were rhetorical ;-)
 
Comparing the government to a household makes no sense. I continue to find your comments hilarious; we are discussing unemployment which IS a macro topic. :lamo

Yet you find our debt and present economy logical?

WTF...
 
You asked a rather broad question. My questions were rhetorical ;-)

Got it, but I need an indication of your understanding of economics. The question wasn't really that broad given what you were asking...
 
You asked a rather broad question. My questions were rhetorical ;-)

Oh so now it's rhetoric?

Good to know.

It's amazing how this country still exists.
 
Got it, but I need an indication of your understanding of economics. The question wasn't really that broad given what you were asking...

Take a peek of my post history if you want an insight on my perspective.
 
Your question doesn't interest me.

I didn't think it would. It's not wise to attempt to smack around others if you're not prepared to answer simple questions...
 
Back
Top Bottom