• 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. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

This might be a more interesting debate if we could stop the insults about liberals or rightwingers. It seems legitimate to discuss not only if there is job growth, but are we growing good paying jobs. If we fire one middle manager in a big company making 100K and hire two Wal mart greeters making 20K have we made progress?
It's ridiculous to claim that growth of nearly 300 thousand jobs in a month is bad. And the reason I pointed out that it's rightwingers who are doing it is because I don't see anyone on the left complaining about adding nearly 300 thousand jobs in a month. It doesn't matter if they're low paying jobs. Most people who earned a good salary before losing their job won't even take a low paying job unless it's out of desperation, so more likely than not, the portion of those nearly 300 thousand jobs which were low paying, went to people who were looking for such jobs.

But the bottom line is, the job market is growing and it has been growing for some time now. Are we back to where we were? No. But then when you lose 13 million jobs to under/unemployment and discouraged workers, as we did in 2008 and 2009, it takes time to completelky recover from a disaster like that. And it's rightwingers (not all, but many) who, despite growth in almost every month over the last 3 years, are the ones who hunt for bad news in the job market, even when the news is good. Folks like them don't want the economy to recover because they don't want Obama to get any credit. They're diehard supply-siders whose worst nightmare is to see any keynesian economics prove to be productive.
 
No one said it made it right, only that you and others will only see it when a democrat is in charge, and despite next to no difference between the two parties, you and others will go all hyperbolic socialist (with Obama some will add the communist Marxist Kenyon terrorist).

And you are free to address anything I've ever ACTUALLY said.


now care to address what is being argued?

Not with you....I prefer an honest debate.
 
Once again...

...in April...some more stats...

- the average weekly hours dropped from 34.6 to 34.4 hours.

- manufacturing jobs created...zip.

- mining and logging jobs...down 3,000

- construction jobs...down 6,000

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted


Plus, the underemployment rate (U-6 - the REAL unemployment indicator to me) went up from 13.8% to 13.9%.

So basically, you're just cherry picking the negative parts. The Goods Producing Industries dropped employment (though residential construction employment went up), while all the gains were private service producing. Not the best of trends, but it's still more jobs. And Goods Producing dropped 9,000 (not statistically significant) while service industries increased 185,000 (which is statistically significant).

And while the U6 did go up, the U4 went down and the U5 stayed flat. So while Discouraged went up, all other marginally attached went down.
 
So basically, you're just cherry picking the negative parts. The Goods Producing Industries dropped employment (though residential construction employment went up), while all the gains were private service producing. Not the best of trends, but it's still more jobs. And Goods Producing dropped 9,000 (not statistically significant) while service industries increased 185,000 (which is statistically significant).

And while the U6 did go up, the U4 went down and the U5 stayed flat. So while Discouraged went up, all other marginally attached went down.

If you think service industry jobs are as remotely as important to America's future as manufacturing/construction jobs...then you have not a clue what you are talking about.

Obviously if you throw trillions of government debt dollars around (through the Fed and fiscal deficits) you are going to create a lot of service industry jobs...that's a no brainer.

But creating an environment that encourages Americans to manufacture and construct 'things' in a profitable manner is the key to a healthy economic future...not lots of debt based, service jobs.

And the only U-numbers I care about are U-3 (because the masses fixate on it) and the U-6 (which offers the broadest figure).


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
If you think service industry jobs are as remotely as important to America's future as manufacturing/construction jobs...then you have not a clue what you are talking about.
Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. You seem to have missed the part where I said "Not the best of trends, but it's still more jobs. "

But creating an environment that encourages Americans to manufacture and construct 'things' in a profitable manner is the key to a healthy economic future...not lots of debt based, service jobs.
But is it better or worse than no jobs?
 
Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. You seem to have missed the part where I said "Not the best of trends, but it's still more jobs. "

But is it better or worse than no jobs?

I read it (unlike you, I read and understand as best I can posts that I quote/reply).

I also read the rest which suggested you were putting too much importance on mostly debt-based, service jobs.

Hence my reply.


Have a nice day.
 
I read it (unlike you, I read and understand as best I can posts that I quote/reply).

I also read the rest which suggested you were putting too much importance on mostly debt-based, service jobs..

You didn't understand very well then, if you got that idea from my post. Or by "too much importance" do you mean "not dismissing entirely?"
 
You didn't understand very well then, if you got that idea from my post. Or by "too much importance" do you mean "not dismissing entirely?"

I meant what I typed.

Now if you excuse me, debating/chatting with closed minded people, (such as you seem to be on this subject) I find a complete waste of time.


Have a nice day.
 
I meant what I typed.

Now if you excuse me, debating/chatting with closed minded people, (such as you seem to be on this subject) I find a complete waste of time.


Have a nice day.

I find it interesting that you refuse to consider that you might ever be less than fully clear in what you write and when asked to clarify, refuse to do so. And at the same time you stand by any misinterpretations you have and refuse to consider that you might have misunderstood. And then call me close-minded.

Look, no one's saying the economy is great (and if anyone is, they're wrong), but it is clearly getting better than it was last year and the year before. Growth in the service industry might not be the optimum place for growth, but it is still growth and it's still more jobs.
 
I find it interesting that you refuse to consider that you might ever be less than fully clear in what you write and when asked to clarify, refuse to do so. And at the same time you stand by any misinterpretations you have and refuse to consider that you might have misunderstood. And then call me close-minded.

Look, no one's saying the economy is great (and if anyone is, they're wrong), but it is clearly getting better than it was last year and the year before. Growth in the service industry might not be the optimum place for growth, but it is still growth and it's still more jobs.

Right there you proved you do not understand America's economy. The economy is getting worse.

But then, most 'economists' (like Krugman for example) don't understand the economy either.


The U-6 went up and all those debt-fed, service jobs are is stagnation justification.

Clearly you do not understand...but you are civil, I give you that.

History will show that the economy is heading for a cliff.

You don't agree - we shall see.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Right there you proved you do not understand America's economy. The economy is getting worse.

But then, most 'economists' (like Krugman for example) don't either.


The U-6 went up and all those debt-fed, service jobs are is stagnation justification.

Clearly you do not understand...but you are civil, I give you that.

History will show that the economy is heading for a cliff.

You don't agree - we shall see.


Have a nice day.
WTF???

The U6 is down to 13.9% from 14.5% a year ago and you think the economy is getting worse because it ticked up by 1/10th of one percent in one month?? Trends mean nothing to you, do they?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

And no, the economy is not "heading for a cliff." Unemployment is just one metric used to determine the health of the economy. And unemployment is dropping. Another is GDP, which was at 2.5% last quarter. Not great, but not "heading for a cliff."
 
WTF???

The U6 is down to 13.9% from 14.5% a year ago and you think the economy is getting worse because it ticked up by 1/10th of one percent in one month?? Trends mean nothing to you, do they?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

And no, the economy is not "heading for a cliff." Unemployment is just one metric used to determine the health of the economy. And unemployment is dropping. Another is GDP, which was at 2.5% last quarter. Not great, but not "heading for a cliff."

Obviously you don't really understand things or you'd agree with him. There's no debate...if he says it, it's true, and clearly people who actually have degrees in economics and have studied the trends and patterns don't know what they're talking about if they disagree with his casual observation.
 
Obviously you don't really understand things or you'd agree with him. There's no debate...if he says it, it's true, and clearly people who actually have degrees in economics and have studied the trends and patterns don't know what they're talking about if they disagree with his casual observation.

You forgot to have a nice day. :lamo
 
today:

Jobs Report: Unemployment Rate Rises to 7.6 Percent - ABC News

Unemployment in May ticked up to 7.6 percent as employers added 175,000 jobs, a tepid report that may cheer investors hoping for interest rates to stay low, boosting stocks.

Economists including JJ Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist of TDAmeritrade, had expected the addition of 167,000 jobs with the unemployment rate unchanged at 7.5 percent.

The industries with the strongest employment growth in the last month were temporary help agencies, which added 26,000 jobs; and food services, which added 38,000 jobs in May and 337,000 over the past year.

The civilian labor force increased by 420,000 to 155.7 million in May.

Stephen Bronars, senior economist with Welch Consulting, said people are starting to come back and look for work, but he was not encouraged by the labor force participation rate, which "changed little" at 63.4 percent, the Labor Department said.

"The participation rate is still quite low, even after adjusting for the aging of the U.S. workforce, so we can expect the unemployment rate to stay in this range -- near 7.5 percent -- throughout the rest of the year if employment growth continues at the modest and steady pace of about 175,000 new jobs per month," Bronars said.

Bronars said he was concerned that the unemployment rate for adult African-American men over 20 years old jumped to 13.5 precent from an average of about 12.7 percent over the past three months.

Another concern, said Bronars, is that over the past year, employment has grown at the same rate as the U.S. adult population. Some 58.6 percent of adults were working in May 2013, the same as a year ago, which is a "bit of a disappointment," Bronars said. He said the employment/population ratio would ideally increase above 60 percent.

Bronars said employment growth that maintains a constant employment to population ratio is "not ideal" given that the economy is still recovering from a very deep recession.

"The hope is that job growth would rebound faster than it has. If we were starting from a position of strength it would be very good to have jobs grow at the same rate as the population," he said.

Today's report is being closely watched by investors, who are worried that the Fed's low-interest rate policy may be ending, removing a major mover for the stock market, which has finally regained the levels last seen before the 2007-2008 recession.

At the opening bell, the Dow Jones Industrial average rose 84 points to 15,183.

The Federal Reserve said it expects high unemployment into 2015, and it has previously said it plans to keep its benchmark interest rate near zero if the inflationary outlook is manageable and the unemployment rate exceeds 6.5 percent.

Kinahan said he had his eye on the average workweek, which was unchanged at 34.5 hours in May.

"If the average workweek stays the same or goes down and the jobs number doesn't meet it, that's where you have to be concerned," he said.

Kinahan said he is concerned by the number of temporary jobs, "as opposed to good, solid jobs" created in the U.S. economy.

Other jobs reports from earlier in the week were mixed.

On Thursday, the Labor Department said the number of people seeking unemployment benefits fell 11,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 346,000. The four-week moving average was 352,500, an increase of 4,500 from the previous week's revised average of 348,000.

Private payroll provider ADP said on Wednesday that companies added 135,000 jobs in May, the second consecutive month of disappointing gains after averages of 200,000 jobs a month from November through February.
 
Back
Top Bottom