• 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%

Travis007 said:
Youve yet to corrct me.....
Click to expand...
You said everyone was forced to buy insurance. I proved you wrong. You acknowledged your error.

You're welcome for the reminder.
 
1063130498]No. Because they are no longer participating in the labor market. Same for other marginally attached, retires, and anyone else who leaves the labor force.
Click to expand...

So when they come back like 500,000 did last month they become counted again but not when they decide the labor market isn't good enough to find a job? They are different than retirees because they jump in and out of the work force, most retirees don't. AND YES THEY ARE UNEMPLOYED


It depends on whether or not they're still looking for work. Benefits have nothing to do with labor force classification...less than half counted as unemployed receive benefits.
they lower the labor force number same as anyone else leaving the labor force
Click to expand...

Whether or not they are looking for work is a subjective term, if they are of working age, employable they should be counted in the labor force. Discouraged workers do indeed benefit the incumbent in the official unemployment rate numbers.

I wonder which is worse to you, 700,000 unemployed or an economy that created 700,000 discouraged workers since both affect the unemployment rate
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's focus on the topic folks and not personal back and forths about off topic crap
 
Slyfox696 said:
You said everyone was forced to buy insurance. I proved you wrong. You acknowledged your error.

You're welcome for the reminder.
Click to expand...

You got schooled that day... again you just played a symantics game and everyone knew that.. and I never acknowldedged you to be correct ( huh?)
everyone is forced to buy healthcare... or pay a fine..aka as FORCED

now back on topic please
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Yup.

Average pay went down, manufacturing went down (slightly) and the largest area of growth outside of 'leisure and hospitality' was 'temporary help services'.

Trillions of dollars pouring in from the Fed/government and record low interest rates and this is all it produces - other then propping up the stock markets (which benefits almost exclusively the rich).
Click to expand...

So you classify the rich as all those with 401K's?
 
pinqy said:
No. Because they are no longer participating in the labor market. Same for other marginally attached, retires, and anyone else who leaves the labor force.


It depends on whether or not they're still looking for work. Benefits have nothing to do with labor force classification...less than half counted as unemployed receive benefits.
they lower the labor force number same as anyone else leaving the labor force
Click to expand...

Hi there pinqy, Tell me, is a lower labor force a good thing? Does it show a strengthening economy, or a weakening one....

Now, I will concede that 'boomers' retiring are going to have some effect, but to pin the whole malaise on retirees is ludicrous. Retirees can be measured quite easily using either the SS roles, or Medicare roles to determine if these non participants are discouraged workers, or people over 65 that have retired. Either way, it is, or at least should be unacceptable to anyone in this nation, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, or Socialist, etc. that the Bull **** we are being fed is that because the labor participation rate drops, which is making the UE rate falsely look like it is coming down, and we are supposed to think that is a good thing. We are supposed to think that this is what Obama had in mind when he pushed through borrowing over a Trillion dollars to "stimulate" the economy....I would rather he just said he was going to steal the money, and give it to his friends. At least that would have been somewhat honest.
 
Conservative said:
Since you are so passionate about the issue and call everything we say asinine how about explaining it to us? Would love to be educated by a liberal rather than just having you say something that you cannot back up
Click to expand...

I am referencing a federal doctrine in American and law and State laws regarding the same. Why not get a clue and a Cause?
 
danielpalos said:
I am referencing a federal doctrine in American and law and State laws regarding the same. Why not get a clue and a Cause?
Click to expand...

Wow, you have the right title, liberal as you make no sense.
 
danielpalos said:
A federal doctrine and State laws make no sense to you; you must be an alleged conservative.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of federal doctrines and state laws, you have given no definition of either.
 
Helix said:
monthly jobs report. rage or rejoice.
Click to expand...

Still 2.5 applicants for every job. Although the economy is recovering, that recovery is weak.
 
Conservative said:
There are a lot of federal doctrines and state laws, you have given no definition of either.
Click to expand...

And he won't....Blowing smoke is endless, having to actually lay out what you are saying is daunting, and likely couldn't be done in his case.
 
Mr.Nick said:
That isn't the problem - the problem is the formula the government uses to calculate these statistics - their formula is blatantly flawed.

However it doesn't even stop there - the media that reports this data is dishonest as well. The media will report that 500,000 jobs were created but they will not report that 750,000 jobs were lost - which if we use realistic math and not that Common Core bull**** would equate into a 250,000 net loss on jobs.
Click to expand...
The headline figure we're discussing is a net figure. NET. InterNET. Basketball NET.

Here's a good read for you : http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf

It's the jobs report from January of '09. It says we lost 598,000 positions. Does that mean that not a single person found a job during that time period?
 
Cephus said:
Or less people looking for work. The government has no way of tracking people who aren't filing for unemployment.
Click to expand...
Negative. Unemployment benefits don't even enter the jobs picture. They aren't used. This is explicitly stated by the folks who actually tally the figures.

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.
Click to expand...

How the Government Measures Unemployment
 
a351 said:
Negative. Unemployment benefits don't even enter the jobs picture. They aren't used. This is explicitly stated by the folks who actually tally the figures.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Click to expand...

I believe it would be simpler if anyone filing for unemployment is presumed to be otherwise not employed in the market for labor in any at-will employment State.
 
a351 said:
The headline figure we're discussing is a net figure. NET. InterNET. Basketball NET.

Here's a good read for you : http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf

It's the jobs report from January of '09. It says we lost 598,000 positions. Does that mean that not a single person found a job during that time period?
Click to expand...

You do absolutely amaze me.

You don't even understand the difference between a gain and a loss which makes me at a loss of words here.

It's ****ing weird.... 500 minus 750 does not translate into 250, however the government and their love fest for Obama and progressives deceptively portrays that it does. Now, you can bet your ass that if a republican was president the media would say 250 jobs were lost instead of saying 500 jobs were "created." Furthermore the best part of their propaganda is their language - they use the word "created" as if the government created jobs or Obama himself created jobs..
 
danielpalos said:
I believe it would be simpler if anyone filing for unemployment is presumed to be otherwise not employed in the market for labor in any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...

You cant get unemployment if you didn't previously have a job...

It's not like some homeless guy can walk into the unemployment office and apply for unemployment and they will just give it to him.... Hell in most cases employers will deny unemployment to previous employees, that lost their job...
 
Mr.Nick said:
You do absolutely amaze me.

You don't even understand the difference between a gain and a loss which makes me at a loss of words here.

It's ****ing weird.... 500 minus 750 does not translate into 250, however the government and their love fest for Obama and progressives deceptively portrays that it does. Now, you can bet your ass that if a republican was president the media would say 250 jobs were lost instead of saying 500 jobs were "created." Furthermore the best part of their propaganda is their language - they use the word "created" as if the government created jobs or Obama himself created jobs..
Click to expand...

I believe it should have more to do with morals and faithfully executing a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe it should have more to do with morals and faithfully executing a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.
Click to expand...

I believe the government should be more honest when it comes to their accounting instead of lying just to save face.

As far as morals - our government is immoral and the reason for that is because most politicians are lawyers and lawyers are generally taught to abandon morals, and of course there are few exceptions there.... Some still hold onto their morals and work for organizations such as the innocent project, and that is a noble and moral cause.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe it should have more to do with morals and faithfully executing a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know what your intent was there but it seems good natured...

The problem is the government lies in an attempt to make themselves look successful when they're anything but.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I believe the government should be more honest when it comes to their accounting instead of lying just to save face.

As far as morals - our government is immoral and the reason for that is because most politicians are lawyers and lawyers are generally taught to abandon morals, and of course there are few exceptions there.... Some still hold onto their morals and work for organizations such as the innocent project, and that is a noble and moral cause.
Click to expand...

Mr.Nick said:
Well I don't know what your intent was there but it seems good natured...

The problem is the government lies in an attempt to make themselves look successful when they're anything but.
Click to expand...

It is why I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.
 
a351 said:
Negative. Unemployment benefits don't even enter the jobs picture. They aren't used. This is explicitly stated by the folks who actually tally the figures.
Click to expand...

And it assumes that people responding to the surveys are telling the truth, which isn't necessarily true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom