• 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 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Unitedwestand13 said:
Or the mitt Romney presidential campaign. Too soon ;)
Click to expand...

If there was ever a reason to get money out of politics, Romney's nomination should be a textbook example as no one in the electorate liked the guy...
 
Boo Radley said:
See above.
Click to expand...

Let me help you with the answer

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2002 to 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Very little, thankfully. ;)
Click to expand...

Tickled to death I live in TX, moved here in 1992 and have a good understanding of what this state has that most others do not and I wouldn't change it for anything.
 
Conservative said:
What am I missing here, asked the question about discouraged workers and someone brings up Rick Perry? What does that have to do with the question?
Click to expand...

Go back and read the exact quote to which the reply was made, and you might see the humor...
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, the u-6 number is unemployed, DISCOURAGED, and under employed.
Click to expand...
No, the U6 numerator is Unemployed plus Marginally Attached plus Part Time for Economic Reasons.

Discouraged workers are people who dropped out because they couldn't find a job and saw no prospects of a job.
Click to expand...
Close....Discouraged are those who say they want to work, that they could have started a job last week if offered, had looked for work in the last year but not the last 4 weeks and whose reason for no longer looking is that they do not believe they be successful due to lack of jobs, lack of skill, education, or discrimination.

It's a very subjective number and the margin of error is something like +/- 12%.

The number is 21 million and has nothing to do with retirees.
Click to expand...
Unemployed 11,777,000 marginally attached 2,582,000 and part time for economic reasons 8,226,000 gives 22,585,000 That's what is ued ins the U6. Who said retirees were included in the U6? and you realize of course that more people than just discouraged leave the labor force? You seem to be using the 2 interchangebly.


You don't think a million in June was significant?
Click to expand...
One million is the Total number or discouraged in June, not the number who became discouraged.
 
pinqy said:
No, the U6 numerator is Unemployed plus Marginally Attached plus Part Time for Economic Reasons.

Close....Discouraged are those who say they want to work, that they could have started a job last week if offered, had looked for work in the last year but not the last 4 weeks and whose reason for no longer looking is that they do not believe they be successful due to lack of jobs, lack of skill, education, or discrimination.

It's a very subjective number and the margin of error is something like +/- 12%.

Unemployed 11,777,000 marginally attached 2,582,000 and part time for economic reasons 8,226,000 gives 22,585,000 That's what is ued ins the U6. Who said retirees were included in the U6? and you realize of course that more people than just discouraged leave the labor force? You seem to be using the 2 interchangebly.


One million is the Total number or discouraged in June, not the number who became discouraged.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point? The numbers I posted are accurate and show the number discouraged in the month of June. The total U-6 is 14.3% of the labor force so sounds like we are arguing about the same thing and are both showing that the 7.6% U-3 doesn't tell the entire story.
 
Well, the link doesn't explain what odd interpretation of Labor Force was being used or why the BLS number is "artificial."
You weren't going to try and say[/B][/COLOR], that the US population didn't grow now were you?
Click to expand...
Why would I? But what does that have to do with the Labor Force? The Lalbor Force doesn't have to increase with the population...It tends to, of course, but with fewer young people entering and more of every one leaving, of course it shrank. It's recovered to pre-Obama, though not pre-recession levels.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
Well, the link doesn't explain what odd interpretation of Labor Force was being used or why the BLS number is "artificial."
Why would I? But what does that have to do with the Labor Force? The Lalbor Force doesn't have to increase with the population...It tends to, of course, but with fewer young people entering and more of every one leaving, of course it shrank. It's recovered to pre-Obama, though not pre-recession levels.
Click to expand...

Yeah I see you picked up some of it. The whole article explains it.....basically we are still under 2007 levels. Population has increased. That the recovery wasn't even set for, until 7 years later than which it explain out perfectly. Also It does show that back then they stated 229k jobs or 230k. Which was more of my concern with going thru his links on the fact of what the Economists were stating going back to 2009. Which the MS media doesn't like to mention to much.

Course some are now saying they may not be hiring as many winter seasonal workers like they thought they were going to do.
 
Conservative said:
Absolutely amazing, Debt when Obama took office 10.6 trillion dollars and 16.8 trillion today. That is a liberal success story. We pay debt service on the total debt not the percentage of GDP. Which is higher debt service on the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt or the 6.2 trillion Obama debt?
Click to expand...

No, debt to GDP is far more relevant than the gross amount debt in much the same way that your mortgage to your salary is much more relevant then the aggregate value of your mortgage. Government revenues are a function of GDP and grow with GDP growth (unless you are doing Bush tax cuts and like that kind of shooting yourself in the foot economics).

But, actually your suggesting the debt service is much, much higher now than Reagan, I do not believe that is true. In fact, they should be remarkably similar. Consider interest rates, the largest part of debt service on 10 and 30 year treasuries, was substantially higher during the Reagan years than now, meaning your gross payments are not much different (again, just like your current mortgage payment buys a ton more house than it did in 1984).

Though you may be factually correct on the amount of debt on1/1/09 and today, you would likely be in gross error ascribing all of the blame to Obama for the change in that debt.... but, then again, I appreciate the fact that being in such territory is within your comfort zone.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Actually, they are about the same. Interest rates, the largest part of debt service on 10 and 30 year treasuries, was substantially higher during the Reagan years.

Though you may be factually correct on the amount of debt on1/1/09 and today, but you would be of gross error ascribing all of the blame to Obama for the change in that debt.... but, then again, I appreciate the fact that being in such territory is within your comfort zone.
Click to expand...

Tell me how much the 21 plus million Americans that are unemployed, under employed. discouraged are paying in Federal Income Taxes and how much the very poor economic growth is generating to reduce the deficit and debt? Obama economic policies and spending policies are what has caused the massive increase in debt. I do understand how ideologues who support Obama are blinded by that ideology and ignore the actual results.
 
Conservative said:
Here is the good news to liberals, anyone that isn't counted to make the numbers look better is a boost to the liberal ideology. Over 1 million people were discouraged last month and the number of unemployed/discouraged and under employed is still 21 million. There were more unemployed last month than the previous month and the labor force is still down 2 million from the beginning of the recession. Only a true ideologue buys the surface rhetoric and never explores the actual data.
Click to expand...

That was the third-best June jobs report in the last 15 years. May and April's jobs numbers were revised higher by a combined 70,000 jobs. ONly in wingerland is that a bad number.:roll:
 
You gotta remember...in Conservative's backwards world, hemorraghing hundreds of thousands of jobs under a Republican President is preferable to gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs under a Democrat. It has to do with the (R).
 
Donc said:
That was the third-best June jobs report in the last 15 years. May and April's jobs numbers were revised higher by a combined 70,000 jobs. ONly in wingerland is that a bad number.:roll:
Click to expand...

Well congratulations, only a leftwing zealot has no problem with over 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 14.3% U-6, over a million people discouraged in June, very low economic growth. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and such low expectations?
 
disneydude said:
You gotta remember...in Conservative's backwards world, hemorraghing hundreds of thousands of jobs under a Republican President is preferable to gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs under a Democrat. It has to do with the (R).
Click to expand...

That’s true DD. He more than likely would have a stroke if Grassley and Durbin's offshore outsourcing 50/50 rule makes in into a bill. But rest assured, the House baggers roadblock would hold up.:thumbs:
 
disneydude said:
You gotta remember...in Conservative's backwards world, hemorraghing hundreds of thousands of jobs under a Republican President is preferable to gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs under a Democrat. It has to do with the (R).
Click to expand...

What do you call the over 1 million people who were discouraged last month and stopped looking for jobs? You see, hemorraghing jobs that you cannot see or aren't counted is never a problem for a liberal.
 
Conservative said:
Well congratulations, only a leftwing zealot has no problem with over 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 14.3% U-6, over a million people discouraged in June, very low economic growth. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and such low expectations?
Click to expand...

julyjobs_large.png


Whats wrong with this image in your world con?:2wave:
 
Donc said:
julyjobs_large.png


Whats wrong with this image in your world con?:2wave:
Click to expand...

Let's see if you can figure it out? Where are the discouraged workers in this number?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146397 146157 146108 146130 145929 145738 145530 145196 145059 144792 144078 143328
2009 142187 141660 140754 140654 140294 140003 139891 139458 138775 138401 138607 137968
2010 138500 138665 138836 139306 139340 139137 139139 139338 139344 139072 138937 139220
2011 139330 139551 139764 139628 139808 139385 139450 139754 140107 140297 140614 140790
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Tell me how much the 21 plus million Americans that are unemployed, under employed. discouraged are paying in Federal Income Taxes and how much the very poor economic growth is generating to reduce the deficit and debt? Obama economic policies and spending policies are what has caused the massive increase in debt. I do understand how ideologues who support Obama are blinded by that ideology and ignore the actual results.
Click to expand...

I see you still meet poignant counter-argument with obfuscation. I was merely taking apart your assertion that debt to GDP was not relevant. The post I took issue with.....

Conservative said:
Absolutely amazing, Debt when Obama took office 10.6 trillion dollars and 16.8 trillion today. That is a liberal success story. We pay debt service on the total debt not the percentage of GDP. Which is higher debt service on the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt or the 6.2 trillion Obama debt?
Click to expand...

.....made no mention of unemployment or Obama ideology, nor did I reply with any assertion mentioning unemployment or Obama ideology.

When you are called out on a math problem, it is not sound argument to interject theology. It just shows all of the readers that you can't answer the math problem.
 
Posts #91 and 92 prove that "economics" is 'political' and belongs in that forum, rather than the 'non-political' forum. One could make a case that 'economics' has always lied at the heart of our problems.
 
Conservative said:
Let's see if you can figure it out? Where are the discouraged workers in this number?
Click to expand...

According to this site if we stay at the current rate of job creation, the unemployment rate will drop to 6% in about two years.BAD NEWS FOR CON.:2wave:
 
Conservative said:
Do you have a point? The numbers I posted are accurate and show the number discouraged in the month of June.
Click to expand...

The numbers are accurate, but your understanding is off. The number of discouraged in June is NOT the number who left the labor force in June nor the number of people who became discouraged in June. The U6 includes all marginally attached, not just discouraged.
You don't seem to understand what the data actually mean. For example:
The total U-6 is 14.3% of the labor force
Click to expand...
U6 is the rate, not a number, and it's unemployed plus marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus marginally attached.

[
so sounds like we are arguing about the same thing and are both showing that the 7.6% U-3 doesn't tell the entire story.
Click to expand...

Neither does the U6. No single number can tell the full story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom