• 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%

So, I've posted in this thread a few times, but what it comes down to is that one group says that the large number of people that are doing the measurements don't know what they are doing and/or the people on the top are lying. The others are saying that if you look at how the measurements are made, the results make sense. One group has a certain answer that is based on beliefs, the other is less sure and is willing to accept a complex process and less certainty in that answer. I also ran into that as a design engineer.
 
iguanamavalus63131527 said:
You are right. Obama does care about the middle class. They are the ones who's
401K's have recovered under his policies.
Click to expand...

The Middle Class is Shrinking under Obama at a unprecedented rate.
And these 401ks are being held up temporarily by unprecedented FED stimulus.

Do you know HOW a 401k works, or what a 401k is for ??

I'm not dumb enough to count the temporay increase in a account I can't access for another 15 years without a huge penaly, and neither is anyone else unless they're a low information Obama supporter.

When the market corrects itself, and those 401k's drop in value, are you going to blame George Bush ?
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why do you think all the addition to the labor force was from discouraged? You do realize that discouraged are only a small percentage of those not in the labor force, right?

They are different than retirees because they jump in and out of the work force, most retirees don't. AND YES THEY ARE UNEMPLOYED
Click to expand...
And other marginally attached? Person A quit looking for work because he believed he didn't have any s kills anyone wanted (discouraged). Person B quit looking because his mom was sick (marginally attached, reasons other than discouragement). Both are currently available to work but neither has started looking yet. Why do you say A is unemployed and B not?


Whether or not they are looking for work is a subjective term,
Click to expand...
Ummm, no, that's a pretty objective measure. Either they're looking or not. Either they're doing something that could possibly get them a job, or not. Discouraged is subjective as it's all based on what someone says they want and why they stopped looking.

if they are of working age, employable they should be counted in the labor force.
Click to expand...
"employable" is very subjective. And why would you count someone who doesn't want a job as in the labor force?
 
Slyfox696 said:
But ONLY because of the nature of the statistic. I fully suspect when those same sites were posting statistics which were of benefit to their party, those people were all too happy to use those sources as legitimate sources.
Can I provide a link to prove something which never happened? I'm pretty damn amazing, but even I can't produce data to something which never happened.

Your question is ridiculous.

You ask a ridiculous question which has absolutely no way to be answered and then say no other answer will be acknowledged? Do you really not see the utter absurdity of this?

Nevermind, don't answer that. I've debated with you before, I fully expect you to not see the absurdity of your question.
I've encountered you on these forums a couple of times now and at no point have you added anything of value to the conversation. The only time you even attempted to debate, you made a provably false statement on which I corrected you.
Click to expand...

So you (apparently) admit that you have no unbiased, factual proof that had the government/Fed just left the economy 'alone' (no bail outs, QE's, mark-to-market rule changes, stimulus, etc.) that the U-3 would not be much lower then it is?

Noted and thank you.

Good day.
 
iguanaman said:
So you classify the rich as all those with 401K's?
Click to expand...

I said 'almost exclusively'...not 'only'.

If you can prove to me that the more then 1/4 of the monies earned through the growth of the stock markets since QE's began was done so not by the rich (millionaire's), I will change my point.

Otherwise, I will not.
 
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.
 
j-mac said:
Hi there pinqy, Tell me, is a lower labor force a good thing? Does it show a strengthening economy, or a weakening one....
Click to expand...
It depends. Labor force participation rate is higher now than anytime before 1978....would you say we're better off now than anytime before 1978? I wouldn't. The participation rate has been going down since 2001.. the recession made it worse and we could tell that as discouraged went up, but there were demographic reasons, not just retirees, as well. Labor force going down because more teenagers are staying in school? Especially if they don't need jobs? That would be good. There are many different factors to look at.

Now, I will concede that 'boomers' retiring are going to have some effect, but to pin the whole malaise on retirees is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Sure. But it is a major factor.
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.
Click to expand...
No, it's not that easy. You can still work and collect Social Security, you just face restrictions on hours. In March, there were 2.44 million people who were retired or faced social security limits on earnings who worked part time. And you seem to think that those not in the labor force are either retired or discouraged....which is ridiculous. Students, stay home spouses, disabled, independently wealthy, people who just mooch off of their friends, etc. There are around 90 million people 16 and older not in prison or an institution who are not looking for work. Less than a million are discouraged.


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.
Click to expand...
The UE rate is a measure of what percent of people trying to job are failing. Those not trying have zero chance of getting a job. That someone not trying to work in March didn't get a job is no surprise and tells us nothing about the labor market. That 6.6% of those who could actually have been working weren't tells us something.

Here's the breakdown for those not in the labor force: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm
 
Last edited:
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...
Here's how the survey works. The businesses were asked in February how many people were on their payrolls for the pay period that included February 12th.. This was aggregated to represent the whole country. In March, they were asked again for the pay period that contained March 12th., and again it was aggregated. The difference was 192,000. Therefore, 192,000 new jobs. How do you see that as anything other than net? You want to see the gross numbers, go to Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Home Page for the Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey. It's not as timely as the CES, and the time frame is different...the CES asks how many were on the payroll for the one payperiod for the month, while JOLTS asks how many hires and separations for the whole month.
 
pinqy said:
Why do you think all the addition to the labor force was from discouraged? You do realize that discouraged are only a small percentage of those not in the labor force, right?

And other marginally attached? Person A quit looking for work because he believed he didn't have any s kills anyone wanted (discouraged). Person B quit looking because his mom was sick (marginally attached, reasons other than discouragement). Both are currently available to work but neither has started looking yet. Why do you say A is unemployed and B not?



Ummm, no, that's a pretty objective measure. Either they're looking or not. Either they're doing something that could possibly get them a job, or not. Discouraged is subjective as it's all based on what someone says they want and why they stopped looking.

"employable" is very subjective. And why would you count someone who doesn't want a job as in the labor force?
Click to expand...


The discouraged workers in the Month of March dropped to 698,000 from over 700,000 the month before so no the number re-entering the labor force did not all come from discouraged workers but that doesn't change the fact that 698,000 individuals were not counted in the monthly unemployment number and they definitely were unemployed. As I stated the discouraged worker number is an arbitrary number and very subjective but the more discouraged the better the official unemployment rate will be and that is the issue. GW Bush never had anywhere near the number of discouraged workers Obama had but he was charged with 700,000 lost jobs per month. so again I ask you is it better to have that many lost jobs or that many discouraged workers for the official unemployment rate?

Why would I want to count someone who doesn't want a job in the labor force? Because they if they are able body people they should be counted in the labor force and that removes the subjectivity from the issue. Doesn't matter who the President is, they are all judged the same way and on objective numbers.
 
DA60 said:
I said 'almost exclusively'...not 'only'.

If you can prove to me that the more then 1/4 of the monies earned through the growth of the stock markets since QE's began was done so not by the rich (millionaire's), I will change my point.

Otherwise, I will not.
Click to expand...

All this is so funny going from someone who I thought was a capitalist. Now you are poo pooing the record stock market recovery like a socialist at a Karl Marx convention. QE was not implemented to boost the stock market though. It is being used by the Fed to stave off DEFLATION. The contraction in the money supply caused by the financial meltdown brought us dangerously close to deflation. If you know anything about economics, deflation is the most damaging condition possible for a modern capitalist nation. You do not mess around with it.
 
Conservative said:
The discouraged workers in the Month of March dropped to 698,000 from over 700,000 the month before so no the number re-entering the labor force did not all come from discouraged workers but that doesn't change the fact that 698,000 individuals were not counted in the monthly unemployment number and they definitely were unemployed.
Click to expand...
No, they don't match the definition of unemployed, therefore they're not unemployed, by definition. Why do you insist they're unemployed? And again, why discouraged and not other marginally attached?
As I stated the discouraged worker number is an arbitrary number and very subjective but the more discouraged the better the official unemployment rate will be and that is the issue.
Click to expand...
It's not arbitrary...there's a strict definition. there are strict definitions for all categories. And actually, for the February to March change, the official rate didn't change, but the U-4, which adds in the discouraged, went down. So in this case, including the discouraged would have made things look better.
GW Bush never had anywhere near the number of discouraged workers Obama had but he was charged with 700,000 lost jobs per month. so again I ask you is it better to have that many lost jobs or that many discouraged workers for the official unemployment rate?
Click to expand...
You can't compare a change in one metric to a level of another. It doesn't make any sense.

Why would I want to count someone who doesn't want a job in the labor force? Because they if they are able body people they should be counted in the labor force and that removes the subjectivity from the issue.
Click to expand...
Why should they be counted in the labor force? They're not participating in the labor market...they're not available to work...they just distort the issue. And how are you figuring the definition of unemployed is subjective...it's quite objective. And which is is, do you want to include just discouraged or all people without jobs?

Doesn't matter who the President is, they are all judged the same way and on objective numbers.
Click to expand...
Judged? There's not judging. Why would it make any difference to a person what category they fall in?
 
iguanaman said:
All this is so funny going from someone who I thought was a capitalist. Now you are poo pooing the record stock market recovery like a socialist at a Karl Marx convention. QE was not implemented to boost the stock market though. It is being used by the Fed to stave off DEFLATION. The contraction in the money supply caused by the financial meltdown brought us dangerously close to deflation. If you know anything about economics, deflation is the most damaging condition possible for a modern capitalist nation. You do not mess around with it.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with you...especially since the Fed has already admitted that one of the reasons for QE was to indirectly stimulate the economy through raising the stock market. And this goes along with the second Fed mandate which is for 'full employment'.

Please show me exactly where Bernanke said that QE was started and continued ONLY for deflation?

Btw - there is NOTHING free market about QE.
 
DA60 said:
I totally disagree with you...especially since the Fed has already admitted that one of the reasons for QE was to indirectly stimulate the economy through raising the stock market. And this goes along with the second Fed mandate which is for 'full employment'.

Please show me exactly where Bernanke said that QE was started and continued ONLY for deflation?

Btw - there is NOTHING free market about QE.
Click to expand...

You disagree that you are talking like a socialist by dissing the stock market gains? Why is that a problem to you? Did you scream when Bush tried to boost it with the housing bubble too or is just when a Democrat is in the White house that you hate stock market gains? Preventing deflation IS stimulating for the economy by the way. There is no drag worse for an capitalist economy than deflation.
Here's some reading for you about the Europeans that are now copying the Fed to head off their own deflationary pressures
On Europe's move toward QE to prevent deflation | Credit Writedowns
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
You disagree that you are talking like a socialist by dissing the stock market gains? Why is that a problem to you? Did you scream when Bush tried to boost it with the housing bubble too or is just when a Democrat is in the White house that you hate stock market gains? Preventing deflation IS stimulating for the economy by the way. There is no drag worse for an capitalist economy than deflation.
Here's some reading for you about the Europeans that are now copying the Fed to head off their own deflationary pressures
On Europe's move toward QE to prevent deflation | Credit Writedowns
Click to expand...

I could care less what some economist 'thinks' about this..or some faceless nobody on a chat forum.

And you still have not shown me what I asked for...because you cannot.

Here is an excerpt from a Bernanke speech in 2012:

'Large-scale asset purchases can influence financial conditions and the broader economy through other channels as well. For instance, they can signal that the central bank intends to pursue a persistently more accommodative policy stance than previously thought, thereby lowering investors' expectations for the future path of the federal funds rate and putting additional downward pressure on long-term interest rates, particularly in real terms. Such signaling can also increase household and business confidence by helping to diminish concerns about "tail" risks such as deflation. During stressful periods, asset purchases may also improve the functioning of financial markets, thereby easing credit conditions in some sectors.'

FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy since the Onset of the Crisis--August 31, 2012

Right there I have proven your apparent assertion wrong that QE was 'being used by the Fed to stave off DEFLATION.' That may have been one of their goals...but it was not the only one...not by a mile.


As for your inflation paranoia, it is just that.

Deflation as the giant boogeyman is a Keynesian-style fallacy that has never been proven.

Whereas large and sustained deflation is definitely not good....short term deflation is often necessary to correct an overinflated market sector.


AS for 'dissing' the stock market gains...you are right I am. And so are Peter Schiff and Ron Paul and Jim Rogers and Marc Faber...all strong Austrian schoolers.
And they do so because they (apparently) realize that this market boom is a fantasy...a non-fundamentals based increase that is on the back of Fed money 'printing' and little more.
There is NOTHING capitalist about QE.

And yes I thought the Fed/Bush housing bubble stimulation was wrong...I am neither rep nor dem. I believe in a free market...free of government meddling.


Now I have zero intention of getting into some long-winded back-and-forth with you on this.

Believe whatever you want on this, I don't much care - no offense.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
pinqy;1063132438]No, they don't match the definition of unemployed, therefore they're not unemployed, by definition. Why do you insist they're unemployed? And again, why discouraged and not other marginally attached?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that but that is the problem, they are indeed unemployed and the number is subjective. The reality remains, discouraged workers are not included in the labor force which benefits the incumbent when it comes to the official unemployment rate

It's not arbitrary...there's a strict definition. there are strict definitions for all categories. And actually, for the February to March change, the official rate didn't change, but the U-4, which adds in the discouraged, went down. So in this case, including the discouraged would have made things look better.
You can't compare a change in one metric to a level of another. It doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

The U-4 rate went down but it is higher than the official rate. The reality is that Obama has had record numbers of discouraged workers, more than double the average of Bush and discouraged workers remains subjective which is the point. Subjectivity has no business is reporting official numbers

Why should they be counted in the labor force? They're not participating in the labor market...they're not available to work...they just distort the issue. And how are you figuring the definition of unemployed is subjective...it's quite objective. And which is is, do you want to include just discouraged or all people without jobs?
Click to expand...

Why? Because they are able body people capable of working. They do indeed distort the real number of people not working and thus unemployed

Judged? There's not judging. Why would it make any difference to a person what category they fall in?
Click to expand...

President's take credit for the official number and the official number is understated, that is why it is wrong
 
Travis007 said:
You got schooled that day... again you just played a symantics game and everyone knew that
Click to expand...
Facts are not semantics, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. Furthermore, that was my stance from the very beginning, so the idea of "being schooled" is absurd, since it was my position from the first.

and I never acknowldedged you to be correct ( huh?)
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. You even pointed out how people are not forced to buy insurance, which was the tax.
everyone is forced to buy healthcare... or pay a fine..aka as FORCED
Click to expand...
The fact they are allowed to pay the tax proves they are not forced to have insurance. This is really simply stuff.

now back on topic please
Click to expand...
I never left the topic.
DA60 said:
So you (apparently) admit that you have no unbiased, factual proof that had the government/Fed just left the economy 'alone' (no bail outs, QE's, mark-to-market rule changes, stimulus, etc.) that the U-3 would not be much lower then it is?
Click to expand...
That's correct, I cannot provide proof of something which did not happen because no one can prove something which never happened and asking someone to prove something which never happened is simply asinine.

So is there a reason you're asking an irrelevant question which no one can answer?
 
DA60 said:
I could care less what some economist 'thinks' about this..or some faceless nobody on a chat forum.

And you still have not shown me what I asked for...because you cannot.

Here is an excerpt from a Bernanke speech in 2012:

'Large-scale asset purchases can influence financial conditions and the broader economy through other channels as well. For instance, they can signal that the central bank intends to pursue a persistently more accommodative policy stance than previously thought, thereby lowering investors' expectations for the future path of the federal funds rate and putting additional downward pressure on long-term interest rates, particularly in real terms. Such signaling can also increase household and business confidence by helping to diminish concerns about "tail" risks such as deflation. During stressful periods, asset purchases may also improve the functioning of financial markets, thereby easing credit conditions in some sectors.'

FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy since the Onset of the Crisis--August 31, 2012

Right there I have proven your apparent assertion wrong that QE was 'being used by the Fed to stave off DEFLATION.' That may have been one of their goals...but it was not the only one...not by a mile.
Click to expand...

You're correct. I'm not sure why the other poster is arguing that improving market conditions wasn't a goal. The entire point of QE was to bring down the far end of the yield curve to improve liquidity and bank balance sheets. This included but was not limited to fighting deflation. That much is obvious.
 
Helix said:
monthly jobs report. rage or rejoice.
Click to expand...

How many jobs were lost?

How many people were not counted as unemployed because they stopped looking for work?
 
Soupnazi630 said:
How many jobs were lost?

How many people were not counted as unemployed because they stopped looking for work?
Click to expand...

discussed earlier in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom