• 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 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

We were talking about the number of people in the workforce. There are more people in the workforce now than in December 2007. As my link shows.

I posted the actual chart, 146.3 million WORKING Americans in December and 145.8 million working today over 6 years later. You better learn how to read the BLS data..There better be more people in the work force today than in 2007 as we have a growing population. That growth however was stagnant and just because people are in the work force that doesn't mean they are working.

Here is what you posted and that is the lie as I showed

There are more people working now than when the recession started. It's just a fact.
 
The labor participation is at an all time low, too.

I read an article the other day that described how the process for determining unemployment has recently been changed - it seems that today in la-la land, you are now unemployed only if you are currently collecting an unemployment check! I guess those who have just given up trying to find a job are just lazy, huh? The article further stated that if unemployment were calculated as it has been for years, the true rate would be closer to 14 percent! So I wonder how they're going to pay for both their health insurance, and their "skyrocketing" utility bills under the new EPA rules? Where are Houdini and David Copperfield when you need them? :mrgreen:

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
 
37.2%: Percentage Not in Labor Force Remains at 36-Year High | CNS News


The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who do not have a job and are not actively seeking one remained at a 36-year high in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In December, April, and now May, the labor force participation rate has been 62.8 percent. That means that 37.2 percent were not participating in the labor force during those months.

Before December, the last time the labor force participation rate sunk as low as 62.8 percent was February 1978, when it was also 62.8 percent. At that time, Jimmy Carter was president.

Media outlets work overtime to spin bad economic data | Fox News

Media outlets work overtime to spin bad economic data

are you guys working overtime?


Obamas ability to be portrayed as a winner is staggering given the facts shows just how incompetent he actually is.



ONE THING IS FOR SURE the drudgereport is your friend.

Dat FOX news citation. Lovin it.
 
I read an article the other day that described how the process for determining unemployment has recently been changed - it seems that today in la-la land, you are now unemployed only if you are currently collecting an unemployment check! I guess those who have just given up trying to find a job are just lazy, huh? The article further stated that if unemployment were calculated as it has been for years, the true rate would be closer to 14 percent! So I wonder how they're going to pay for both their health insurance, and their "skyrocketing" utility bills under the new EPA rules? Where are Houdini and David Copperfield when you need them? :mrgreen:

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:

I would love a source please. Then I'll consider this.
 
Research is something that seems to escape liberals. You want badly to believe what you are told. Clinton changed the way unemployment was measured in 1995 with the official rate, the U-3 always being understated.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

They love to spout "post a link" when all they have to do is use google, the information is out there they know it.
 
Research is something that seems to escape liberals. You want badly to believe what you are told. Clinton changed the way unemployment was measured in 1995 with the official rate, the U-3 always being understated.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
You do realize that the only change to the official rate was that before, people waiting to start a new job did not have to have looked for work in the previous 4weeks to be classified as unemployed. Now they do. And military were once again excluded from the survey (they were only included from 1984 to 1993)
 
Took 6 long years for unemployment rates to reach pre-crisis levels. Current 6.3% is still way too high.
 
You do realize that the only change to the official rate was that before, people waiting to start a new job did not have to have looked for work in the previous 4weeks to be classified as unemployed. Now they do. And military were once again excluded from the survey (they were only included from 1984 to 1993)

Yes, and I realize that the official rate that is posted isn't really the true picture and that we have fewer people working today than we had when the recession began. The U-6 rate is the true picture and what is ignored with Obama are the huge numbers of discouraged workers that is still at record highs.
 
I read an article the other day that described how the process for determining unemployment has recently been changed - it seems that today in la-la land, you are now unemployed only if you are currently collecting an unemployment check! I guess those who have just given up trying to find a job are just lazy, huh? The article further stated that if unemployment were calculated as it has been for years, the true rate would be closer to 14 percent! So I wonder how they're going to pay for both their health insurance, and their "skyrocketing" utility bills under the new EPA rules? Where are Houdini and David Copperfield when you need them? :mrgreen:

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:

Absolutely untrue.
 
They love to spout "post a link" when all they have to do is use google, the information is out there they know it.

Interesting, isn't it, they never ask another liberal to post a verifiable source and simply buy what they are told. Research is a foreign concept to people who buy the liberal rhetoric and ignore the liberal results.
 
You obviously didn't read my post. Your responding posts in no way address what I said. Please read it and get back to me. Thanks.

I don't want to get into the weeds here and I'll accept your comments that there have been 8.8 million jobs created since the financial crisis making up for the 8.7 million jobs lost during the financial crisis. That said, the devil is likely in the details in that the simple numbers do not indicate how many of the initially lost 8.7 million jobs were full time jobs and how many of the 8.8 replacement jobs are part-time. Perhaps the reason for a lot of the discrepancies is that if one person holds 3 part-time jobs, counted in the 8.8 million new jobs where they held just one full-time job that was lost in the 8.7 lost since the financial crisis, that would account for a lot of people dropping out of the labor force and the increase in those without jobs and/or no longer looking.

And let's also not forget that normally, following a recession, job and economic growth is often in the 4 to 5% rate whereas last quarter the effective rate was negative .01%.

You can sugar coat the statistics all you want, but if you think the US economy is chugging along as it was shortly after 9/11 and the Bush tax cuts to just prior to the financial crisis you're only fooling yourself.
 
Yes, and I realize that the official rate that is posted isn't really the true picture and that we have fewer people working today than we had when the recession began. The U-6 rate is the true picture and what is ignored with Obama are the huge numbers of discouraged workers that is still at record highs.
Oh, so you'll be happy that while the official rate didn't change, the U-6 dropped. But why do you consider including people who have jobs as a truer picture of unemployment? And discouraged are nowhere near record high.The high was 1,308,000 in December 2010 It's now at 697,000.
 
Oh, so you'll be happy that while the official rate didn't change, the U-6 dropped. But why do you consider including people who have jobs as a truer picture of unemployment? And discouraged are nowhere near record high.The high was 1,308,000 in December 2010 It's now at 697,000.

What are the labor participation rate comparisons?
 
Absolutely untrue.

I am trying to locate the article, per Luftwaffe's request. I will post the link as soon as I find it. I don't know what you consider "untrue," but I posted what I had read. You can then take it up with the writer of the article.

Greetings, pinqy. :2wave:
 
Walmart is the largest single employer, and the next couple of runner ups are day labor temp agencies.

YES. WE. CAN.
 
I am trying to locate the article, per Luftwaffe's request. I will post the link as soon as I find it. I don't know what you consider "untrue," but I posted what I had read. You can then take it up with the writer of the article.

Greetings, pinqy. :2wave:
Why don't you read the actual methodology? Employment Situation Technical Note
 
great doing the avg. thing huh? fine so the upper most workers get paid more and this offsets more lower wage jobs being added.
Not really rocket science, but answer this one question. How much effect did dictator Obama's Executive order giving ALL federal workers a 10.10 minimum wage factor into all of this?
I assure you more then you think, but hey its your :spin:.

True on that. Upper level management salaries have skyrocketed, while minimum wage jobs are mostly what people are getting. Therefore, giving just an average (the arithmetic mean) is meaningless, without also giving the median, along with the standard deviation. This is how people present dishonest data to support their position.
 
Oooooh a whole 5 cents? That makes up for all the losses :roll:

I'm sure the 21.9 million underemployed agree with you when compared to 11.8 million back in 06.

This is globalism. Corporations have gotten very good at not needing full-time positions, Unions don't have the muscle to make them, and the American public is schizo on the issue so the government goes along with what the Money says.

Don't know why conservatives fuss so much over the natural outcomes of an economy where corporations can distribute their pipelines across continents and still pull everything together. The world the way it is and the way it is going should be everything you ever wanted.
 
Which actual methodology are you referring to? I know the difference between U3 and U6, but I was fortunate in never having to collect unemployment, nor do I expect to in the future.

I think pinky is ignoring my earlier question. What say you pg? Good evening...
 
This is globalism. Corporations have gotten very good at not needing full-time positions, Unions don't have the muscle to make them, and the American public is schizo on the issue so the government goes along with what the Money says.

Don't know why conservatives fuss so much over the natural outcomes of an economy where corporations can distribute their pipelines across continents and still pull everything together. The world the way it is and the way it is going should be everything you ever wanted.

Nonsense.

This is the effects of a incompetent progressive who passed a law that mandated unquantifiable cost increases on Consumers and Businesses years before its implementation.

This is the effects of tax increases on Capital and dividends and monetary stimulus that removes incentives on Capital.

If this was all " Globalisms " fault then it would apply universally.

But Texas is growing economically and is growing a surplus.

" Globalism"....Lol !

What's next ?
 
Which actual methodology are you referring to? I know the difference between U3 and U6, but I was fortunate in never having to collect unemployment, nor do I expect to in the future.

You're clearly not familiar wit the methodology if you think UI benefits play any role in the U-3. Never have.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom