• 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. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
Bush presided over the greatest decrease in net wealth this country has witnessed since the Great Depression. In constant dollar terms (factoring for inflation), households still have not recovered. Any idea how much this damages confidence?
Click to expand...

All paper losses, perpetuated by greed from individuals including many in Congress. To blame the loss on Bush is typical but let's say it is all Bush's fault, where is the blame on Obama for the poor recovery and economic policies that have done nothing but add to the debt?

How did the recession of 07-09 affect you and your family? You survived it, I survived it so are we that much smarter than anyone else? The fact is the low interest rates, low inflation saved a lot of people who didn't have that luxury in the 81-82 recession that affected everyone.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Fenton said:
Wait, you're serious ?

Your'e after 4 years blaming Bush on Obama's continued incompetence ? First off no economist was prediciting a depression after the " Democrat Mandated Sub-Prime Bubble "
Click to expand...
That's simply not true. Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Daniel O’Connor, Robert Parks; among the those who predicted we could have slipped into a depression.

As far as it being a "Democrat Mandated Sub-Prime Bubble," that even more ludicrous than your fallacious claim that no economist predicted a depression.

:roll:

Fenton said:
Second if it's the Sub-Prime bubble that was the "DEPRESSION !!!" Obama inherited you should know it was actually the collapsing of a sub-prime bubble mandated by Democrat policies and funded by the GSE's who happened to be staffed with Clinton's corrupt appointees.
Click to expand...
While Clinton gets the blame for signing a key piece of legislation which led to the collapse, the sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were Conservative Republicans. Even worse, Republicans had years while they controlled the Congress to pass oversight of the GSEs and they failed miserably to do so. The lion's share of the blame falls on their shoulders.

Fenton said:
Next, since you mentioned 9/11, one of the corrupt appointees was a women by the name of Jamie Gorelick. I would, if I were you, look into the infamous " Gorelick Wall" for a better understanding of the events that led up to 9/11.
Click to expand...
Not according to your fellow rightie yahoo, who claims that the president is responsible for everything on his watch. Take it up with him.

Fenton said:
But then again, you actually think 4 years into Obama's mistake...I mean his Presidency that his current failures are Bush's fault so I wouldn't expect you to be informed of ...well really anything.
Click to expand...
Most people still believe that, according to polls. You may think you're better informed than most people, but I have yet to see evidence of that.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
All paper losses, perpetuated by greed from individuals including many in Congress. To blame the loss on Bush is typical but let's say it is all Bush's fault, where is the blame on Obama for the poor recovery and economic policies that have done nothing but add to the debt?

How did the recession of 07-09 affect you and your family? You survived it, I survived it so are we that much smarter than anyone else? The fact is the low interest rates, low inflation saved a lot of people who didn't have that luxury in the 81-82 recession that affected everyone.
Click to expand...

WOW!Whatta argument.WE SURVIVED!!:lamo
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Gimmesometruth said:
How is rebutting your claim that Obama was the primary cause of low participation "ducking" that "central" issue?

Go ahead and repeat what you already said again and claim I am ducking it if you wish, but this consistently weird debate style is making you look really bad.
Click to expand...

You have rebutted nothing. :cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Donc said:
WOW!Whatta argument.WE SURVIVED!!:lamo
Click to expand...

Feel free to jump in and answer the question, how did the recession of 07-09 affect you or your family?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
The intent of that statistic is to hide the fact that Bush inherited a very low unemployment rate, benefited from the housing bubble, and ultimately trashed the economy as he doubled unemployment as he slithered out of DC after achieving the lowest JAR on record.
Click to expand...


Keep up the denial.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I don't know why you even bother to mention Clinton's name since you admit it was Bush's fault that not enough was done to prevent it.?
Click to expand...

I mentioned Clinton to present a clear picture of the GWB crowd's misunderstanding of the situation. Since I have no investment in GWB's reputation on this score, I'm not admitting anything. I'm merely offering a factual account of events as I understood them. You should try it.
:roll:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

pbrauer said:
You better rethink that because you're wrong. If we didn't lose the 700k the UE Rate would be lower.
Click to expand...

Here's what I calculated ...

The current LF is: 155,028,000
The current unemployment level is: 11,742,000
That makes the unemployment rate: 7.6%

If we gained 700K in the public sector instead of losing them:

The current LF would be between: 155,028,000 and 156,428,000 (depending on how many were in the 'not in labor force' )
The current unemployment level would be: 10,342,000
That would make the unemployment rate between: 6.6% and 6.7%
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Feel free to jump in and answer the question, how did the recession of 07-09 affect you or your family?
Click to expand...


We’re not discussing my personal finances. This thread is titled “U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6% “.We should keep close to that by at least a degree or two.:2wave:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

pbrauer said:
But your wrong, the public sector grew under President Bush. Decreasing income tax revenue resulting from the recession caused loss of public sector jobs. That's about 700K worth which is probably worth a decrease percentage point in the UE rate.
Click to expand...

Yes, the public sector grew under GWB. There was enough growth and employment to support it. Under BHO that has not been the case.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Donc said:
We’re not discussing my personal finances. This thread is titled “U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6% “.We should keep close to that by at least a degree or two.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
Click to expand...

As I stated before - this is important.

People are being swayed into thinking the unemployment situation is improving because the U-3 rate is dropping.

But it is incredibly deceptive as the ONLY reason it is dropping is because people are leaving the work force because they have either given up, prematurely retired or no longer count in U-3 statistics.

All the gov't./Fed have done is force people to leave the work force.

Take the participation rate from the day Obama took over and the U-3 rate is over 10%.

Whatever the government/Fed are doing is just making the situation worse and they are masking it with skewed statistics (like the skewed CPI numbers).
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
Click to expand...

What was the unemployment rate when BO was sworn in and what is it now?How many jobs were being lost per month as apposed to now?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
As I stated before - this is important.

People are being swayed into thinking the unemployment situation is improving because the U-3 rate is dropping.

But it is incredibly deceptive as the ONLY reason it is dropping is because people are leaving the work force because they have either given up, prematurely retired or no longer count in U-3 statistics.

All the gov't./Fed have done is force people to leave the work force.
Click to expand...

Where is the proof for the bolded? How do you know it's not attributed boom retiring or the increase of the prominence of college-both of which are true
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted as you continue to buy what the media tells you.
Click to expand...
What media do I watch that gave me that opinion?

Conservative said:
I am waiting for exactly what President Bush did to hurt you or your family?
Click to expand...
Ummm, exectly what part of, "few presidents have ****ed this nation as royally as he did," do you not understand?

Conservative said:
You seem to believe that Bush had all that power to get us into this mess but Obama doesn't have the power to get us out of that mess.
Click to expand...
Wait a second, Con -- hold up!!

What happened to YOUR CLAIM:

"As a Leader the numbers are his responsibility and he cannot delegate that responsibility."​

I thought you said leaders are responsible for their numbers? So are you saying Bush is exempt from you rule or are you saying Bush wasn't a good leader?

Conservative said:
Obama was in the Senate that helped create the mess.
Click to expand...
So you equate the responsibility between one Senator of the minorty party with the president whose party conrolled both chambers of the Congress, huh? Sure says a lot about your worldview.

Conservative said:
Obama said he had the solutions to the problems but like so many you ignore the Obama results and still blame them on Bush
Click to expand...
And things have noticably improved from when Obama took over. Gone are the months where unemployment swelled by 700,000 or more. Gone are the days of negative 3½ percent or more GDP. Gone is Bush's Great Recession.

Conservative said:
You think Bush is destroying the consumer confidence today?
Click to expand...
Nice argument. It reveals you don't even realize that consumer confidence is higher today than it was when Bush left office.

Conservative said:
you think Bush is destroying the incentive of small business today?
Click to expand...
Yet another bull**** argument since small business are no longer being "destroyed."

Conservative said:
You think Bush proposed penalizing wealth creation?
Click to expand...
Apparently, you're unaware that we were under Bush's tax code until just a few months ago.

Conservative said:
You think the way to prosperity is to tax the producers in this country?
Click to expand...
Are you new to this country? The wealthy have always been the ones to contribute the most in taxes. This is nothing new (except to you, apparently).

Conservative said:
It is obvious to me that you never managed anything in your life and have no concept of leadership. Your constant whining about Bush says a lot about you just like your ignoring the Obama results does the same thing.
Click to expand...
You owe me a new irony meter.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
All paper losses, perpetuated by greed from individuals including many in Congress.
Click to expand...

No, total loss, as in values of homes, retirement accounts, etc....

To blame the loss on Bush is typical but let's say it is all Bush's fault, where is the blame on Obama for the poor recovery and economic policies that have done nothing but add to the debt?
Click to expand...

In one hand you want to blame Obama for employment numbers. On the other hand, you wish to absolve Bush II for the great loss of net wealth since the Great Depression. I am not blaming Bush for anything, i was simply stating a fact.

How did the recession of 07-09 affect you and your family? You survived it, I survived it so are we that much smarter than anyone else? The fact is the low interest rates, low inflation saved a lot of people who didn't have that luxury in the 81-82 recession that affected everyone.
Click to expand...

If i bought a home with an interest rate of 8.6% 30 years fixed in 1977, the fact that interest rates went to 17.6% in 1982 would not have impacted me. However, the fact that my net worth decreased by 30% in a matter of months did!!! Notice how net wealth did not decline at all during the Reagan recession.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
If either had been able to match GWB's average unemployment rate of 5.3% both would have better reputations.:cool:
Click to expand...

Too bad, Romney could not live up to President Obama's reputation.:cool:

...
This past Friday, like the first Friday of every month, saw the release of the latest jobs numbers. Within minutes of the release, analysts left, right, and center began pointing nervously at August's decline in labor force participation-the fraction of adults who are working or looking for a job. Several hundred thousand Americans became demoralized and gave up looking for work, said the left. Labor force dropout concealed an unemployment rate exceeding 11% at the close of Obama's first term, said the right. Labor force participation was at its lowest since 1981, and "at an all-time low" among men.


Hold the phone. The labor force participation rate can decline for reasons that should concern us, as when increasing numbers of the unemployed give up looking because of a terrible labor market. That is what most observers have in mind when they see labor force participation falling. But it can also decline for reasons that are either benign or that should cheer us. For instance, as we have grown richer over time, the duration of our working years has shrunk. The typical worker retired at 70 sixty years ago; today he retires at 63. That's a decline in labor force participation.


In fact, the small August drop in labor force participation-which at any rate is not statistically reliable and may be overturned when the final numbers come in next month-almost surely did not reflect rising discouragement among job-seekers. This is readily seen by comparing the so-called "U4" jobless rate-which combines the unemployed and "discouraged workers"-to the official "U3" unemployment rate. Both fell by 0.2 percentage points between July and August. If the fall in labor force participation had been about hopelessly unemployed people, the change in the U4 rate would have looked worse than the U3 change.

Read more RealClearMarkets - Misunderstanding Declines In Labor Force Participation
​
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
Yes, the public sector grew under GWB. There was enough growth and employment to support it. Under BHO that has not been the case.:cool:
Click to expand...

Shall we just race too the bottom?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
Click to expand...
Yes, the labor force is in constant flux. Every couple of months it shifts from gains to loses; and then back again. Is it your intention to highlight this everytime it's negative while ignoring it when it's positive?

lf.jpg

Your point is ... ?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
Click to expand...

RealClearMarkets - Misunderstanding Declines In Labor Force Participation

This past Friday, like the first Friday of every month, saw the release of the latest jobs numbers. Within minutes of the release, analysts left, right, and center began pointing nervously at August's decline in labor force participation-the fraction of adults who are working or looking for a job. Several hundred thousand Americans became demoralized and gave up looking for work, said the left. Labor force dropout concealed an unemployment rate exceeding 11% at the close of Obama's first term, said the right. Labor force participation was at its lowest since 1981, and "at an all-time low" among men.


Hold the phone. The labor force participation rate can decline for reasons that should concern us, as when increasing numbers of the unemployed give up looking because of a terrible labor market. That is what most observers have in mind when they see labor force participation falling. But it can also decline for reasons that are either benign or that should cheer us. For instance, as we have grown richer over time, the duration of our working years has shrunk. The typical worker retired at 70 sixty years ago; today he retires at 63. That's a decline in labor force participation.


In fact, the small August drop in labor force participation-which at any rate is not statistically reliable and may be overturned when the final numbers come in next month-almost surely did not reflect rising discouragement among job-seekers. This is readily seen by comparing the so-called "U4" jobless rate-which combines the unemployed and "discouraged workers"-to the official "U3" unemployment rate. Both fell by 0.2 percentage points between July and August. If the fall in labor force participation had been about hopelessly unemployed people, the change in the U4 rate would have looked worse than the U3 change.





To gain some perspective, let's step back and look at the long-term trends in labor force participation among men. That's where the declines are. Start with teens and young adults. After rising over the course of the 1970s, the labor force participation of men between the ages of 16 and 24 has declined markedly since 1979. The 2011 rate was the lowest since data became available in 1948.


Terrible news? No, what the data show is an impressive rise in school enrollment among teens and young adults. The decline in labor force participation among young men was from 75% in 1979 to just 57% in 2011. That 18-point drop is mirrored in data from the Department of Education showing that male school enrollment rates rose between 1980 and 2010. Enrollment rose by 20 points for 18- to 19-year-olds, and by 16 points for 20- to 22-year-olds. It also rose by 8 points among 16- to 17-year-olds and by 9 points among 22- to 24-year-olds. Averaging the rates across the four (roughly) equally-sized groups indicates that the school enrollment rate rose 13 points from 1980 to 2010, from 47% to 60 percent. There are, of course, many young men who simultaneously work and attend school, but the fraction of 18- to 24-year-old college enrollees (of either gender) who attended part-time was 20% in 1980 and 20% in 2010.

Continue Reading


​
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Fruityfact said:
Where is the proof for the bolded? How do you know it's not attributed boom retiring or the increase of the prominence of college-both of which are true
Click to expand...

Where did I type that it is not (partially) to do with boomers retiring?

The answer is - I did not.

But even that incredibly useless organization - The Fed - says:

'V. CONCLUSION

The sharp decline of the LFPR since the onset of the recent recession is due to long-term shifts related to demographic trends and to the
cyclical downturn in the labor market. A variety of evidence indicates
that, on balance, trend factors account for about half of the decline in
labor force participation from 2007 to 2011, with cyclical factors accounting for the other half.'

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

So even the pathetically ignorant (imo) Fed says that - in essence - at LEAST 1/2 have basically given up because it sucks out there.

That still leaves the U-3 rate at over 9% (last time I checked).

And that does not take into account all the boomers that have prematurely retired because they cannot find work.

No matter how you slice it - even according to the Fed - unemployment is FAR worse then when Obama took over (not that GWB was doing much good either).


Or do you have links to unbiased, stats/facts to the contrary?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
As I stated before - this is important.

People are being swayed into thinking the unemployment situation is improving because the U-3 rate is dropping.

But it is incredibly deceptive as the ONLY reason it is dropping is because people are leaving the work force because they have either given up, prematurely retired or no longer count in U-3 statistics.

All the gov't./Fed have done is force people to leave the work force.

Take the participation rate from the day Obama took over and the U-3 rate is over 10%.

Whatever the government/Fed are doing is just making the situation worse and they are masking it with skewed statistics (like the skewed CPI numbers).
Click to expand...
That's a rather bogus argument as it assumes that 100% of those who fell out of the workforce were driven out of it and that argument is completely ridiculous.

We know there are many who died. Many more who chose to retire. Many who opted to go onto disability. Many who picked school over work.

Thre are many reasons that people are no longer in the workforce. You cannot sophistically cast all 6 million of them into the same bucket for why they dropped out of the workforce.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Fruityfact said:
Where is the proof for the bolded? How do you know it's not attributed boom retiring or the increase of the prominence of college-both of which are true
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this. So, where are the jobs the retirees are leaving behind? Where are the jobs the college attendees are not filling? Those jobs dont seem to be around. The theory does not fit the facts.

What appears to be happening is retirees are leaving the workforce and their jobs are being dissolved or jobbed out to the existing workforce. Even entry level jobs which college attendees would be looking for if they werent in college are scarce.

What does fit the facts is retiree jobs not resulting in good paying jobs upon retirement and participation is simply dropping. Along with discouraged workers slowly become what is termed unemployable, especially in a highly competitive job market. Or they just give up altogether.

Neither of the previous two above circumstances are good signs for the economy.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
No, total loss, as in values of homes, retirement accounts, etc....



In one hand you want to blame Obama for employment numbers. On the other hand, you wish to absolve Bush II for the great loss of net wealth since the Great Depression. I am not blaming Bush for anything, i was simply stating a fact.



If i bought a home with an interest rate of 8.6% 30 years fixed in 1977, the fact that interest rates went to 17.6% in 1982 would not have impacted me. However, the fact that my net worth decreased by 30% in a matter of months did!!! Notice how net wealth did not decline at all during the Reagan recession.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. Unfortunately, all lost on that one. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom