• 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%

How can economists be so pathetic as to look at the basic numbers of this report and not read the details?

How can a job report with full time jobs lost, most of the new jobs are part-time and/or unskilled AND the U-6 rises 0.5% as anything but a negative?

I mean the number of full time workers dropped by 240,000!?!

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

Yet Wall Street seemed to generally like it because all they saw was the 195,000 number and the fact the U-3 did not go down.

The more I follow Wall Street...the dumber it looks to me (with notable exceptions).

And don't even get me started on 'economists' and/or the macroeconomic, bean counter morons at the Fed.


Thanks a lot Obama...under your leadership, America is becoming a nation of part time, unskilled workers.
Plus, the nation has WAY MORE debt.

Go back to Chicago you macroeconomic moron.
 
Last edited:
What exactly in that video is wrong? Have you ever been to D.C? The history of our country is there and you can interpret it your way all the time but you cannot change it. This country wasn't built on the economic and social principles of Obama and the economic results show total failure. You are entitled to your own opinion but you aren't entitled to your own facts. I am so sorry but liberalism outlived its usefulness decades ago but dies hard. A much weaker country couldn't survive decades of trying to re-write history and fundamentally changing this country. It is just taking a little longer to destroy it and remake it into that perceived liberal utopia. Funny how liberal nations really aren't utopias

But it was. Restrictions, regulations, all have been with us from day one. You merely don't know our history.
 
Business produces things they hope they can sell. Demand is created all the time. If business only produced what they can sell, innovation wouldn't exist. That's the flaw with the current emphasis on demand. The never ending chicken/egg argument.

Obviously, a company doesn't want dead inventory, but it happens. Many manufacturers sell products at a loss, so that other products they produce can be sold at a sufficient profit to benefit the entire enterprise.

Think about it, the automobile was a gamble, as was the personal computer. Cells phones carried enormous risk, considering mobile phones had existed for some time prior to companies "betting the farm" with investments in cell towers and the rest of the required infrastructure.

Capital sitting idle is the worst thing for a company, it must be put to work. But why are so many sitting on such big profits? The demand siders would suggest they need to pay their workers more, and hire a bunch of people so demand will pick up, and the economy will grow.

With so much economic uncertainty, why would a company do that? Obamacare is real, and it's a major concern. Energy continues to be a variable that is a significant issue.

At present, it takes @$300,000 in revenue to sucessfully cover the annual cost of an employee being paid $15+/hr. Do you know how much it costs to raise revenue by $300,000?

Lot's of variables that charts, and theories, and statistics have a difficult time defining.

Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:

Great post! Having semi-retired from a Fortune 500 company, I find your posts to be among the best on here. It's great to hear from a businessman who is out there fighting in the trenches on a daily basis, and understands what he sees! :thumbs: It's unfortunate that BHO doesn't have more like you in his administration, because making it difficult for businesses to succeed is not the way to go, as we are seeing! :screwy:
 
How can economists be so pathetic as to look at the basic numbers of this report and not read the details?

How can a job report with full time jobs lost, most of the new jobs are part-time and/or unskilled AND the U-6 rises 0.5% as anything but a negative?

Yet Wall Street seemed to generally like it because all they saw was the 195,000 number and the fact the U-3 did not go down.

The more I follow Wall Street...the dumber it looks to me (with notable exceptions).

And don't even get me started on 'economists' and/or the macroeconomic, bean counter morons at the Fed.

It is called being lazy which is another quality of liberalism
 
But it was. Restrictions, regulations, all have been with us from day one. You merely don't know our history.

Yes, regulations are necessary but when do regulations become too plentiful and destroy incentive along with economic growth? Without economic growth there are too many people dependent on the taxpayers and no jobs created. That is what we are seeing right now, a stagnant economy that isn't creating enough jobs so what is Obama's answer? more regulations.
 
Now you understand.

When you learn to control your bias, you will be able to read what somebody has posted, rather than allow your brain to insert what isn't there.
I understand that you were searching for an escape for your position. It doesn't change the fact that your view of manufacturing declines in the US was inaccurate.
 
Yes, regulations are necessary but when do regulations become too plentiful and destroy incentive along with economic growth? Without economic growth there are too many people dependent on the taxpayers and no jobs created. That is what we are seeing right now, a stagnant economy that isn't creating enough jobs so what is Obama's answer? more regulations.

Not sure if any line. But each regulation must be viewed on its own as to whether it is needed or not. Too many is subjective. Objectively each must be weighted by need.

But our problem isn't the regulations. Our economy was thriving with as many or more. Deregulation may well have led to some of our problems. You don't clearly see all the different issues we face, so you approach it too simplistically, which ultimately means you have wrong.
 
Actually, what is evident to all, is your dishonest argument.

I posted a quite factual, and quite literal, statement claiming thousands of FACTORIES had closed since FDR. If you checked the post I was replying to, FACTORIES was used in the claim.

You, quite dishonestly, perverted that statment into something about EMPLOYMENT, which I never mentioned.

When you learn to debate, I might consider investing more time doing so. In the mean time, I see no point.
This is beyond stupid, the point wasn't buildings, it was jobs, EMPLOYMENT.
 
Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:

Great post! Having semi-retired from a Fortune 500 company, I find your posts to be among the best on here. It's great to hear from a businessman who is out there fighting in the trenches on a daily basis, and understands what he sees! :thumbs: It's unfortunate that BHO doesn't have more like you in his administration, because making it difficult for businesses to succeed is not the way to go, as we are seeing! :screwy:

Hi Polgara :2wave:

Such kind words.

It's unfortunate that the folks in the trenches are used by the liberal/progressive factions as punching bags, so they can distract from the questionable things they are trying to do.

It baffles me that with so many business people singing the same chorus about regulations and other impediments to their business growth, their voices are ignored.

Oh well, I guess that just needs to run it's course.
 
So, if a Rep was in the WH and the jobs report showed only 2 new jobs created (which you said was a good report) - would you still call that a good report?

Yes or no, please?

That would depend upon what the trend was, if the date was dec 2008, it would be a fabulous report. If Romney was in the WH today, it would be a bad report for June. If Romney was in the WH today, I would say 195,000 is a good report.
 
It is called being lazy which is another quality of liberalism

Actually, I don't personally think it is a trait of liberalism.

I think liberal ideals are good.

Unfortunately, they are INCREDIBLY naive.

So all that spending and giving money to everyone for nothing breeds laziness and/or attracts those that are lazy to the party.

Even relatively decent people will sit around and do nothing if you pay them enough to do so with no seeming consequences.


I think Paul Krugman (for example) is a very intelligent, decent man...he is just a complete ignoramus on macroeconomics in the real world...IMO.
 
Last edited:
That would depend upon what the trend was, if the date was dec 2008, it would be a fabulous report. If Romney was in the WH today, it would be a bad report for June. If Romney was in the WH today, I would say 195,000 is a good report.

2008? During a recession?

That was five years ago...talk about apples and oranges.

Why not compare it to 10 years ago? Or the Great Depression? Or 1865?


So would you call this jobs report where 240,000 full times jobs were lost...a good report?

Yes or no, please?
 
This is beyond stupid, the point wasn't buildings, it was jobs, EMPLOYMENT.

You know, I find it interesting how often you incorporate perjoritive inflamatory words in your replies to me.

Do you want me to report you, because I have no problem doing that?

My statement was neither stupid, nor out of context.

How could it be?

It was simply a statement of fact. You're attempt to pervert it into something different is just your attempt to continue to attack without merit.

I think you need to refrain from continuing to do this. I believe the TOS here are designed to keep people like you from attacking others.

I'm sure the moderators would appreciate you trying to do that.
 
I understand that you were searching for an escape for your position. It doesn't change the fact that your view of manufacturing declines in the US was inaccurate.

I have nothing to escape from. Nothing I wrote was inaccurate.

Please provide any evidence that my statement was inaccurate.

Actually, don't. It seems you need to run in circles, and I'm not that interesting in watching you do that.
 
So, if a Rep was in the WH and the jobs report showed only 2 new jobs created (which you said was a good report) - would you still call that a good report?

Yes or no, please?
Once more, you are asking a question I've already answered (again, in the post you quoted), and even if I were to answer again, you've already admitted this:

I doubt it.

Why waste time reading posts from people you don't respect much?

So please take your dishonesty someplace else. Thanks.
 
How can economists be so pathetic as to look at the basic numbers of this report and not read the details?

How can a job report with full time jobs lost, most of the new jobs are part-time and/or unskilled AND the U-6 rises 0.5% as anything but a negative?

I mean the number of full time workers dropped by 240,000!?!

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators.

And what's the margin of error for that change and is it statistically significant?
 
Business produces things they hope they can sell. Demand is created all the time. If business only produced what they can sell, innovation wouldn't exist. That's the flaw with the current emphasis on demand. The never ending chicken/egg argument.

Obviously, a company doesn't want dead inventory, but it happens. Many manufacturers sell products at a loss, so that other products they produce can be sold at a sufficient profit to benefit the entire enterprise.

Think about it, the automobile was a gamble, as was the personal computer. Cells phones carried enormous risk, considering mobile phones had existed for some time prior to companies "betting the farm" with investments in cell towers and the rest of the required infrastructure.

Capital sitting idle is the worst thing for a company, it must be put to work. But why are so many sitting on such big profits? The demand siders would suggest they need to pay their workers more, and hire a bunch of people so demand will pick up, and the economy will grow.

With so much economic uncertainty, why would a company do that? Obamacare is real, and it's a major concern. Energy continues to be a variable that is a significant issue.

At present, it takes @$300,000 in revenue to sucessfully cover the annual cost of an employee being paid $15+/hr. Do you know how much it costs to raise revenue by $300,000?

Lot's of variables that charts, and theories, and statistics have a difficult time defining.


Capital is sitting idle precisely because companies don't increase production in the hope that the market will expand. Businesses expand when they have a sufficient evidence that an expansion will increase profit. They don't just expand for the sake of expansion.

Supply and demand combine to form an equilibrium. If supply increases but demand stays the same, then prices and profit fall. This disincentives any one producer from flooding the market with goods. If demand increases, but supply stays the same then prices increase forming a strong intensive for expansion.

If you want to learn about why, read discussions on work by Von Neumann, Stackelberg, and Nash. You may find the math a bit tricky, but the concepts are fairly simple.

The notion of "economic uncertainty" makes for convenient talking points, but it doesn't have much to do with reality. Companies aren't hoarding money because they're scared of some boogeyman. They're hoarding money because expansion will hurt their profits.
 
Once more, you are asking a question I've already answered (again, in the post you quoted), and even if I were to answer again, you've already admitted this:

You made a general statement.

Now I want to see if you will hold that for Reps as well as Dems?

So I assume the answer is yes.

So when a Rep is in the White House, if a jobs report comes out that has only 2 jobs (lol) created...you will call it a good report.

Noted.



Have a nice day.
 
And what's the margin of error for that change and is it statistically significant?

Save the coy crap for someone else.

If you have a point, make it or don't waste my time...please.


If you know it - state it (and you usually act like you know these things).

If you don't - find it yourself, please. You have access to the same BLS stats as I do.
 
Last edited:
Capital is sitting idle precisely because companies don't increase production in the hope that the market will expand. Businesses expand when they have a sufficient evidence that an expansion will increase profit. They don't just expand for the sake of expansion.

Supply and demand combine to form an equilibrium. If supply increases but demand stays the same, then prices and profit fall. This disincentives any one producer from flooding the market with goods. If demand increases, but supply stays the same then prices increase forming a strong intensive for expansion.

If you want to learn about why, read discussions on work by Von Neumann, Stackelberg, and Nash. You may find the math a bit tricky, but the concepts are fairly simple.

The notion of "economic uncertainty" makes for convenient talking points, but it doesn't have much to do with reality. Companies aren't hoarding money because they're scared of some boogeyman. They're hoarding money because expansion will hurt their profits.


Thank you for the links, but my background and education make such an effort unnecessary.

What you have posted is an outline of the obvious.

The fact is, in different times, economic downturns provided opportunity for gain for those companies who invest wisly and position themselves to capitalize on the inevitable upturn. In different times, economic downturns cleared the playing field, and allowed growing companies to capture increased market share exposed by those who relinquished it.

This time around, not so much, since continued uncertainty over the impact of policies not yet implemented cloud the analysis of the future. My business here in Southern California employs many people, requires a fair amount of energy to sustain, and involves compliance with a remarkable number of regulatory agencies. While I accept that as the cost of doing business, I would suggest it would be almost impossible to start my company from scratch in California's current regulatory environment.

Such realities within the current business model aren't caught in graphs detailing the relationship of supply to demand, or in the effective use of capital in a fluid economic environment.
 
While I agree, in his most recent article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/opinion/krugman-defining-prosperity-down.html?_r=1& his ridiculous optimism is finally waning.

He states, "Full recovery still looks a very long way off. And I’m beginning to worry that it may never happen."

Yeah...maybe he is finally seeing the light...well, part of the light.

He is still waxing poetic about the joys of massive government spending.


But, you are right...he seems to be at least BEGINNING to see the situation for what it is...hopeless unless something changes.
 
There is nothing "general" about this statement.

I believe that was in reference to this jobs report...not the '2 jobs created per Month is a good jobs report' position you have.

So, then I assume the answer is yes.

So when a Rep is in the White House, if a jobs report comes out that has only 2 jobs (lol) created...you will call it a good report (assuming you still have this standard).

Noted.


Have a nice day.
 
Back
Top Bottom