• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

Conservative said:
Yes, they spoke that results don't matter and the entitlement crowd won. If you worked in the private sector and generated Obama results you would be fired, not rehired.
Click to expand...
Hey Conservative, if the queen of England had balls she would be king. Let me remind you, the economy during the Bush administration was a bubble economy. The current bad job picture is due to several factors. Globalization has taken many jobs plus automation has taken more and many employers learned during the Great Bush Recession (GBR) they could manage with less employees, so they ain't hiring them back.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe we should merely Use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual; with existing legal and physical infrastructure in our republic.
Click to expand...

i'm not really sure what that would look like. socialism is giving the means of production to the workers. i'm more for properly regulated capitalism, and i think that we could do a better job regulating it.
 
Conservative said:
Wonder what happened to those shovels for those shovel ready jobs in the Stimulus passed in February 2009. Seems they didn't get to the locations as promised or there wouldn't have been that many jobs lost in 2009. Easier to blame Bush for the job loss vs. explaining the reality that this was another Obama lie.

Further what people don't want to recognize is that discouraged workers were 700,000 last month and those people although unemployed aren't counted which makes the unemployment rate lower. Obama has had record numbers of discouraged workers making the unemployment rate look better than it really is and that number is reflected in the U-6 reported number of 12.7% as well as the labor participation rate of 63% which still is at record lows.

All this shows is that the Obama economic policy has been a disaster but far too many don't look inside the numbers. There are still fewer people working today than when the recession began in December 2007 and yet the debt has increased over 6.7 trillion dollars in less than 6 years to generate those numbers.

Discouraged workers by month
Click to expand...

the stimulus didn't go far enough, though i'm personally grateful for part of it. when i got ****canned in 2009, i was able to afford to COBRA because of the stimulus.

ideally, any time wall street crashes the economy and everyone gets fired, an automatic WPA type program should kick in, taxes should go up to pay for it, and people could get to work rebuilding our infrastructure. as the economy recovers, the program would phase out automatically, and taxes would go back down. this would have the side benefit of giving wall street an incentive not to boom and bust the economy, because the busts would become a lot more painful.

had we done this in 2008, the economy would look a lot different today.
 
Helix said:
i'm not really sure what that would look like. socialism is giving the means of production to the workers. i'm more for properly regulated capitalism, and i think that we could do a better job regulating it.
Click to expand...

That isn't the only thing socialism is about; only the stereotypical version of socialism does that. Using socialism to bailout capitalism could be as simple as correcting for a natural rate of unemployment in any at-will employment State.
 
a351 said:
:shrug: Hourly wages have ticked upwards 10 out of the last 12 months. Portraying this month's one cent decline as some sort of a trend is a fools errand.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you, I and apparently the rest of the investing public read this differently than you did.
 
danielpalos said:
That isn't the only thing socialism is about; only the stereotypical version of socialism does that. Using socialism to bailout capitalism could be as simple as correcting for a natural rate of unemployment in any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...

so what would you do, specifically? like i said, i'm not sure what that would look like. upthread, i posted the plan of action that i would support.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe we should merely Use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual; with existing legal and physical infrastructure in our republic.
Click to expand...

Socialism bailed out Capitalism ?

When exactly ?
 
With anything above a third world AnCap, second and first world are considered more developed due to socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.
 
jmotivator said:
I don't know what to tell you, I and apparently the rest of the investing public read this differently than you did.
Click to expand...
Who is the "investing public"? Are they the few that do most of the investing? Are they the ones that have the real knowledge? Is that real knowledge about the long term or the short term, i.e. are they just looking for short term gains?

I have to add to be clear: The investing public is not the public that has their money managed by a pro, but the ones that buy and sell themselves. (sorry that I keep adding, but) Note the investing public is a small portion of the public.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
With anything above a third world AnCap,
second and first world are considered more developed due to socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.
Click to expand...

I asked for a specific example of when Socialism had to bail out Capitalism.
 
Fenton said:
I asked for a specific example of when Socialism had to bail out Capitalism.
Click to expand...
Given that there are very few examples of pure Socialism or Capitalism, so dropping those out, how about now? Data suggests that it is working. (btw, pure anything is a invitation to trouble. Just an engineer's pov.)
 
Can you show me where in your stats it shows over 500,000 jobs created? I'd like to see that!

a351 said:
No, it does not. The headline figure from the BLS is in net form. To put it simply if those 320,000 people had just recently lost their positions (Which we do not know for sure, as the potential pool for UI recipients is in the millions) , than roughly 500,000 people found employment in the same month. It's also important to note that the total number of UI recipients has declined in the past year.
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
Hey Conservative, if the queen of England had balls she would be king. Let me remind you, the economy during the Bush administration was a bubble economy. The current bad job picture is due to several factors. Globalization has taken many jobs plus automation has taken more and many employers learned during the Great Bush Recession (GBR) they could manage with less employees, so they ain't hiring them back.
Click to expand...

Thus a liberal success story, less employees, lower economic growth, and high debt. You really do have low standards, don't you? Apparently only when someone with a D is in the office
 
Helix said:
the stimulus didn't go far enough, though i'm personally grateful for part of it. when i got ****canned in 2009, i was able to afford to COBRA because of the stimulus.

ideally, any time wall street crashes the economy and everyone gets fired, an automatic WPA type program should kick in, taxes should go up to pay for it, and people could get to work rebuilding our infrastructure. as the economy recovers, the program would phase out automatically, and taxes would go back down. this would have the side benefit of giving wall street an incentive not to boom and bust the economy, because the busts would become a lot more painful.

had we done this in 2008, the economy would look a lot different today.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but COBRA was in place long before the stimulus and I don't recall the stimulus providing any funding for healthcare. Had Obama not bailed out the unions but rather worked with the private sector things would look a lot better today. As it is we have low economic growth, fewer employees working today than when the recession began, high debt which apparently is what some here want to trumpet.
 
Was watching some of the Saturday morning financial programs summing up the past week.

The general consensus pretty much was:

192,000 jobs was well before the hoped for number and below expectations, and indicates that we are still in a very sluggish economy.

The unemployment rate, the way they figure it these days, did hold steady but nevertheless the number of Americans who are not working continues to tick upward. The unemployment rate PLUS the number of people actually gainfully employed is the realistic barometer of economic recovery. As it is, the unemployment rate is pretty much a flagrant lie.

Also the unemployment rate and the statistics on how many jobs are created does not reflect reductions in hours, earnings, and benefits as underemployment is fast becoming the new normal.

I personally have been out of the loop for almost a year now, but still know enough people who want to work or want better jobs to believe things aren't at all all hunky dory rosy out there.
 
CalGun said:
Can you show me where in your stats it shows over 500,000 jobs created? I'd like to see that!
Click to expand...

The reported number was 192,000. What happened though was 500,000 re-entered the workforce after either being discouraged or totally out of the labor force for whatever reason. That increased the number eligible for work thus causing the 192000 to not affect the U-3 unemployment rate. Had those people dropped out of the labor force the unemployment rate would have dropped with the 192000 jobs supposedly created.

What the left wants to ignore is that there are a lot of part time workers in that number and the real unemployment rate is 12.7% which included the 8 million part time workers who want full time jobs but are unable to find one, the discouraged workers along with the unemployed. The left loves playing with the numbers just like they are doing with ACA numbers.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The unemployment rate, the way they figure it these days, did hold steady but nevertheless the number of Americans who are not working continues to tick upward.
Click to expand...
You seem to be implying that there's been a change in how the rate is calculated. What do you think has changed? But you're wrong...the number of people in the U.S. not working (not counting children under 16, or people in prison or an institution) went down by 304,000 (unemployed went up 27k, not in the Labor Force went down 331k)

The unemployment rate PLUS the number of people actually gainfully employed is the realistic barometer of economic recovery.
Click to expand...
ummm, how does that work? A rate plus a level? You'll have to show those numbers.

As it is, the unemployment rate is pretty much a flagrant lie.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced you understand what the rate means

Also the unemployment rate and the statistics on how many jobs are created does not reflect reductions in hours, earnings, and benefits as underemployment is fast becoming the new normal.
Click to expand...
How could they reflect those? And hours went up, hourly earnings went down 1 cent, but weekly earnings went up.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Was watching some of the Saturday morning financial programs summing up the past week.

The general consensus pretty much was:

192,000 jobs was well before the hoped for number and below expectations, and indicates that we are still in a very sluggish economy.

The unemployment rate, the way they figure it these days, did hold steady but nevertheless the number of Americans who are not working continues to tick upward. The unemployment rate PLUS the number of people actually gainfully employed is the realistic barometer of economic recovery. As it is, the unemployment rate is pretty much a flagrant lie.

Also the unemployment rate and the statistics on how many jobs are created does not reflect reductions in hours, earnings, and benefits as underemployment is fast becoming the new normal.

I personally have been out of the loop for almost a year now, but still know enough people who want to work or want better jobs to believe things aren't at all all hunky dory rosy out there.
Click to expand...

A better reflection on how the economy is doing might be the average family income. With more spending going in government that money usually comes from the middle class because they have less protection against the IRS, the politician and the bureaucrats. The rich and the poor will both be much the same.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/americans-income-drops-most-in-twenty-years_10202011
 
Grant said:
A better reflection on how the economy is doing might be the average family income.
Click to expand...
While certainly useful, you can't get those numbers as timely. The most recent data I can find for household income is from 2012.
 
austrianecon said:
It's not enough to outpace population workforce increases.
Click to expand...

Here is what the liberals want to ignore and want the public to forget

Employment numbers

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 2013

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170 144303 143568 144386 144586
2014 144586 145266 145742
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
What the left wants to ignore is that there are a lot of part time workers in that number and the real unemployment rate is 12.7% which included the 8 million part time workers who want full time jobs but are unable to find one, the discouraged workers along with the unemployed. The left loves playing with the numbers just like they are doing with ACA numbers.
Click to expand...



Ermm...how would including the underemployed make a "real unemployment rate"? Want a full-time job or not, they are still employed so that'd be doctoring the numbers (so to speak).

It is pretty well know the unemployment rate doesn't include the discouraged. I could see adding that plus the unemployed (actively looking) to create a more realistic rate, especially with how the economy went.
 
coyotedelmar said:
Ermm...how would including the underemployed make a "real unemployment rate"? Want a full-time job or not, they are still employed so that'd be doctoring the numbers (so to speak).

It is pretty well know the unemployment rate doesn't include the discouraged. I could see adding that plus the unemployed (actively looking) to create a more realistic rate, especially with how the economy went.
Click to expand...
You do realize that's already done, right? And while the official rate, the U-3, stayed the same, the U-4, which adds discouraged, dropped from 7.2%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom