• 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%

Unemployment isn't going to move until the people (or workforce) caught in the "void" gain employment....

People do realize that if you don't meet the following criteria that you are not counted in unemployment statistics:

a) currently receiving unemployment.

b) currently have a job.

If both A and B don't apply to you then you're part of the "void."

We've hit rock bottom. The only way unemployment numbers will drop is when those caught in the "void" start to go back into the workforce, however that's going to take years and years (it really depends on our governments position on taxation and regulation)....
 
pinqy said:
Which means that for the month in question they are NOT participating in the labor market.
Click to expand...

NO...it merely means on the day they answered the question they were not. And even so, howsoever a sample is applied, it is still only a "representative sample" and may not actually have value among the hundreds of millions it is supposed to represent.

pinqy said:
Who cares about fault? And the point is that if they're not trying to get a job we can't know if they could or not. For Discouraged, we just have their belief, which may or may not be accurate.
Click to expand...

I do, because I know their belief is NOT inaccurate. This is a buyer's market, and employers have ample choice among hundreds of candidates in just about any job opening. Human Resources sections don't want to deal with ALL applicants, so they do triage...eliminating people "too old, too young, not enough education, too much education, criminal records...etc. That's business as usual, which is more devastating to job seekers in a smaller job market. If you happen to fall into one or more of those categories and consistently get no response from applications, you might get a little discouraged. Ya think?

I've also dealt with hundreds of discharged workers who had criminal records and were so desparate to work they denied criminal history on applications in hopes of getting a foot in the door and proving their value. They get hired, work for 6 - 13 months with no problems, then get fired for lying. In every case when I asked the employer would they have hired the person had they been honest on the application, the answer was NO! These people wanted to work and had good work records once hired, some even up for promotions when the info was discovered. If they are honest they don't get hired, if they lie they get hired and work some, but then get fired for lying. Would you get "discouraged?"

pinqy said:
You're saying they're lying about their reasons?
Click to expand...

Uh...if you are asking about reasons given by the unemployed? NO, for the most part they are telling the TRUTH about their reasons. Why would you think I thought the unemployed were lying? Employers? Hell yes, they lie all the time, an opinion garnered from empirical evidence.

pinqy said:
And your alternative would be......???
Click to expand...

Duh, you already know it...count everyone of legal age and capable of working, minus prisoners, soldiers, retirees, and disabled on public assistance based on info garnered from tax records. Basically counting everyone else including the "Hidden Unemployed."

pinqy said:
Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4. Each month is 8 panels each in a different month, so every month you have around 7,5000 in their first month, and 7,500 returning after a break. So about 75% of the sample is the same from one month to the next and for the same month in consecutive years, about 50% is the same.
Click to expand...

OH. so it IS like the Nielson Ratings? LOL It's still a B/S system as far as I am concerned.

pinqy said:
It's a very complicated survey and really, it couldn't be manipulated...
Click to expand...

....blah blah blah. If you are of legal age, capable of working, and can make yourself available for work THEN YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED! Period! That's because at any time of any working day you have the potential of seeking work.

Anything else is business supported government propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Unemployment isn't going to move until the people (or workforce) caught in the "void" gain employment....

People do realize that if you don't meet the following criteria that you are not counted in unemployment statistics:

a) currently receiving unemployment.

b) currently have a job.

If both A and B don't apply to you then you're part of the "void."

We've hit rock bottom. The only way unemployment numbers will drop is when those caught in the "void" start to go back into the workforce, however that's going to take years and years (it really depends on our governments position on taxation and regulation)....
Click to expand...

Prove that last part, concerning taxes and regulations when all the evidence says those things have minimal effect at best.
 
Conservative said:
Is that what your textbooks told you? Ever been out in the real world? There is a reason Reagan has a higher approval rating and ranking than Obama. Obama is making Jimmy Carter look good and making you look foolish. Reagan provided the leadership to actually meet with Tip ONeil and the Democrat House. Reagan had the leadership to actual demand that Congress work together and set the tone by doing it with ONeil. Reagan didn't take African vacations or play golf every weekend. Reagan actually promoted the greatness of America and is loved today by all except big govt. promoting liberals.
Click to expand...
Isn't funny how when you are confronted by facts and figures comparing the 2 eras (and I keep having to remind the old man, I was in college and working in 1980) all you can do is to revert back to full rhetoric, falling back to "leadership". Carter and O'Neil did not get along because Carter wanted to do what he did in Georgia, cut back on spending. O'Neil wanted the fat military spending proposals Reagan was willing to offer. What p'd off O'Neil was the underhanded use of the FICA rate increases Congress approved, it did not go into SS but was used to finance the general fund spending.

Oh no, I just went all historical and factual again.......sorry....I know it hurts.
 
Kushinator said:
It is not based on opinion or perception, but simply based on the data! Which of course supports my position.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you think your unbiased data trumps Conservative's biased opinion? :roll:
 
Mr.Nick said:
Unemployment isn't going to move until the people (or workforce) caught in the "void" gain employment....

People do realize that if you don't meet the following criteria that you are not counted in unemployment statistics:

a) currently receiving unemployment.

b) currently have a job.

If both A and B don't apply to you then you're part of the "void."
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish. Where on Earth did you get that idea from?

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
...
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
Click to expand...

Or, from the Technical Note to the Employment Situation:
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
Click to expand...

And how do you explain A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex which is a breakdown of those neither Employed nor Unemployed?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Isn't funny how when you are confronted by facts and figures comparing the 2 eras (and I keep having to remind the old man, I was in college and working in 1980) all you can do is to revert back to full rhetoric, falling back to "leadership". Carter and O'Neil did not get along because Carter wanted to do what he did in Georgia, cut back on spending. O'Neil wanted the fat military spending proposals Reagan was willing to offer. What p'd off O'Neil was the underhanded use of the FICA rate increases Congress approved, it did not go into SS but was used to finance the general fund spending.

Oh no, I just went all historical and factual again.......sorry....I know it hurts.
Click to expand...

Facts? Don't need no stink'in facts!



:coffeepap
 
Conservative said:
Right, and people don't work in the defense industry. All those evil corporations and business that don't hire people or aren't run by people. Yes, the new liberal normal, demonize the engine that drives our economy. Love how liberals love percentage change and inflation adjusted numbers ignoring that expenses and revenue during the time frame are what people have, what people spend thus is irrelevant today.
Click to expand...

I thought that you weren't a fan of Keynesian economics. The majority of defense spending is pure Keynesian. Are you in favor cuts in the nation’s defense?:2wave:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Isn't funny how when you are confronted by facts and figures comparing the 2 eras (and I keep having to remind the old man, I was in college and working in 1980) all you can do is to revert back to full rhetoric, falling back to "leadership". Carter and O'Neil did not get along because Carter wanted to do what he did in Georgia, cut back on spending. O'Neil wanted the fat military spending proposals Reagan was willing to offer. What p'd off O'Neil was the underhanded use of the FICA rate increases Congress approved, it did not go into SS but was used to finance the general fund spending.

Oh no, I just went all historical and factual again.......sorry....I know it hurts.
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, Reagan did exactly what Tip ONeil wanted, LOL, you want badly to re-write history but you cannot change it. So you were in college during the Reagan years, how about that, a real expert on what was going on out in the real world. I keep hearing about how much money Reagan spent on defense but never have I seen you put a dollar figure on it nor do I ever hear you or anyone else talk about the Peace dividend left by Reagan or the rebuilding of the military as a result of Carter where helicopters couldn't even stay in the air. Yes, historical data that you want to ignore is the data that ranks Reagan high in performance something Obama will never see. He is making Carter look good and that is saying something.

Obama lacks the leadership skills for the job he holds and you along with all the other supporters lack a basic understanding of what leadership really is. Such low standards and expectations have blinded you to reality.
 
Donc said:
I thought that you weren't a fan of Keynesian economics. The majority of defense spending is pure Keynesian. Are you in favor cuts in the nation’s defense?:2wave:
Click to expand...

I keep hearing how much Reagan spent on defense, put a dollar figure on it and compare the discretionary budget today to the discretionary budget then vs non discretionary budget then vs what it is today. Spending that generates 17 million new jobs, doubles GDP, increases tax revenue by over 60% doesn't seem to be a problem for thinking individuals. Wonder how many Americans would take those numbers today? 1.7 trillion added to the debt to generate those numbers vs. 6.2 trillion today to generate the numbers we have now. Hmmm, wonder which one the American people would prefer?
 
Conservative said:
Aw, yes, Reagan did exactly what Tip ONeil wanted, LOL, you want badly to re-write history but you cannot change it. So you were in college during the Reagan years, how about that, a real expert on what was going on out in the real world. I keep hearing about how much money Reagan spent on defense but never have I seen you put a dollar figure on it nor do I ever hear you or anyone else talk about the Peace dividend left by Reagan or the rebuilding of the military as a result of Carter where helicopters couldn't even stay in the air. Yes, historical data that you want to ignore is the data that ranks Reagan high in performance something Obama will never see. He is making Carter look good and that is saying something.

Obama lacks the leadership skills for the job he holds and you along with all the other supporters lack a basic understanding of what leadership really is. Such low standards and expectations have blinded you to reality.
Click to expand...
More confused, conflicted empty rhetoric. You say you can't find the data on Reagan's defense spending but then you elude to Carter NOT funding defense! (oh, and the weird example you give, the "helicopter not staying in flight" is a reference to the dust storm that wiped out the Iranian hostage rescue attempt, and if you feel that dancing on the graves of those soldiers embellishes your argument....you go with that. I think it is just another sad example of your ideas, but you go for it.)
 
Boo Radley said:
Prove that last part, concerning taxes and regulations when all the evidence says those things have minimal effect at best.
Click to expand...

Go to your local "mini mall" walk around and look at how many open spaces there are......

Your goddamn environment is the proof.

You think businesses just closed their doors out of "protest of a black man being president?"

Even a democrat small business owner will tell you what I just said.....

Obama and his ilk love large unionized corporations and hate small businesses and non-union corporations and his commie filth will do everything in their power to make it as difficult as possible for private non-union businesses to succeed..

Obama hates business and capitalism as much as the next progressive and will tax and regulate the **** out of them....

Obama is a union shill and an authoritarian.... He wants unions and complete dictation over the private sector, because when you can dictate a business you can dictate an outcome and that is the consensus amongst progressives in government -- dictated outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
I keep hearing how much Reagan spent on defense, put a dollar figure on it and compare the discretionary budget today to the discretionary budget then vs non discretionary budget then vs what it is today. Spending that generates 17 million new jobs, doubles GDP, increases tax revenue by over 60% doesn't seem to be a problem for thinking individuals. Wonder how many Americans would take those numbers today? 1.7 trillion added to the debt to generate those numbers vs. 6.2 trillion today to generate the numbers we have now. Hmmm, wonder which one the American people would prefer?
Click to expand...
This is hilarious! You are not only defending the increase in spending by Reagan, you are cheerleading it!

At the same time you don't adjust for inflation or recognize that the debt incurred today is from revenue declines, not spending on jobs programs.

We go over this every single day, every day is groundhog day for you.
 
Boo Radley said:
Wasn't about democrats. He asked you.
Click to expand...

It is about reality, something you don't understand. In 1987 the Reagan budget for 242 million Americans was less than a trillion dollars. Today we have 70 million more people and a budget almost 4 times that number yet that isn't enough? Reagan built a feeling of self reliance not govt. reliance, Reagan promoted individual wealth creation, not bureaucrat wealth creation. Reagan promoted the private sector growth not demonizing it like Obama has. You simply are out of touch with reality and read too many textbooks that teach you nothing about human behavior and activity.
 
Boo Radley said:
Despite the popular saying, perception isn't necessarily reality. May a person mistaken one thing as the cause when it was really something else. That's why it's better to test your perception from time to time.
Click to expand...

Well, despite a desire to have it be considered not true, perhaps there is a reason the saying is popular.

I'd guess it's been tested enough times to keep it that way, wouldn't you?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
More confused, conflicted empty rhetoric. You say you can't find the data on Reagan's defense spending but then you elude to Carter NOT funding defense! (oh, and the weird example you give, the "helicopter not staying in flight" is a reference to the dust storm that wiped out the Iranian hostage rescue attempt, and if you feel that dancing on the graves of those soldiers embellishes your argument....you go with that. I think it is just another sad example of your ideas, but you go for it.)
Click to expand...

Never said I couldn't find it, I know it, apparently you don't because you want to buy what the media tells you. You have way too much invested in failure and low expectations, rather a shame.
 
Conservative said:
It is about reality, something you don't understand. In 1987 the Reagan budget for 242 million Americans was less than a trillion dollars. Today we have 70 million more people and a budget almost 4 times that number yet that isn't enough? Reagan built a feeling of self reliance not govt. reliance, Reagan promoted individual wealth creation, not bureaucrat wealth creation. Reagan promoted the private sector growth not demonizing it like Obama has. You simply are out of touch with reality and read too many textbooks that teach you nothing about human behavior and activity.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I wouldn't go to you for reality. But he asked you a specific question. You evaded it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is hilarious! You are not only defending the increase in spending by Reagan, you are cheerleading it!

At the same time you don't adjust for inflation or recognize that the debt incurred today is from revenue declines, not spending on jobs programs.

We go over this every single day, every day is groundhog day for you.
Click to expand...

Obama is always talking about govt. investment so you tell me about govt. investment that creates the numbers I posted. Do you have a problem with it? What is the return on the 6.2 trillion Obama debt?
 
Conservative said:
I keep hearing how much Reagan spent on defense, put a dollar figure on it and compare the discretionary budget today to the discretionary budget then vs non discretionary budget then vs what it is today. Spending that generates 17 million new jobs, doubles GDP, increases tax revenue by over 60% doesn't seem to be a problem for thinking individuals. Wonder how many Americans would take those numbers today? 1.7 trillion added to the debt to generate those numbers vs. 6.2 trillion today to generate the numbers we have now. Hmmm, wonder which one the American people would prefer?
Click to expand...

What is the multiplier effect of building a bomb and sticking it in the ground for thirty or forty years? PURE KEYNESIAN that you were ranting against within the last year. :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Pretty sure I wouldn't go to you for reality. But he asked you a specific question. You evaded it.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I answer every question I am asked, when are you going to admit that Obama has been a major disappointment and hasn't generated the results you thought he would generate or the results he promised?
 
ocean515 said:
Well, despite a desire to have it be considered not true, perhaps there is a reason the saying is popular.

I'd guess it's been tested enough times to keep it that way, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

No. The saying actually means someone will believe it even though its not true. And that as been tested and proven true again and again. Another saying is that it's impossible to teach someone something that person THINKS he or she knows. Misperception dies a long, s low death.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. Beyond silly. First off, what did Bush do to cause the problem to begin with? That's right nothing. The wheels were turning way before he came in office that caused the housing market to burst. If fact, he made at least a modest attempt to do something about it but people raking in millions off the corrupt scam on capital hill would hear nothing about it and ran his people off. Another fact. Obama was in position as a Senator to do something about the looming housing bubble problem but did nothing. As it turns out, the scam operators is where he got huge sums of his campaign cash from but Obama won't tell you that.

Second off, the recession ended about two or three months after Obama took office. He has lead the worst recovery from a recession on record. The answers are as simple as they can be as why that has happened. Higher taxes, Obamacare, more regulations, lawlessness from government and so on gives business little confidence or reason to invest. But that doesn't sit well with the liberal mindset so Obama supporters tell any lie, ignore anything and everything that makes any sense, and pretend that he has worked wonders when the facts are completely opposite.

Third off, things are still getting worse, overall. Sure, there highlights, here and there. But Presidents are not about here and there. Losing full time jobs each month is a big disaster just waiting on time to happen. Pushing for millions of more of low wage workers competing for few available jobs won't create an economic turn around. Pushing back by a year part of a disaster healthcare law won't cause business investment. Business wondering what crimes or untruthfulness will be committed next at DOJ won't cause them to invest more money. Business wondering what kind of stupidity will come out of the department of energy won't cause them to invest money (unless it has been stolen from taxpayers). And so on and so.

And we still have three years left of this train wreck.
Click to expand...
Bush did "nothing to cause the Bush Great Recession??"

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Even Bush himself disagrees with you...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, RNC acceptance speech
 
Conservative said:
Unlike you I answer every question I am asked, when are you going to admit that Obama has been a major disappointment and hasn't generated the results you thought he would generate or the results he promised?
Click to expand...

Now that's just not true. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom