U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

Fenton said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

You're wrong, but that's okay. The overwhelming majority of humans always have been. Enjoy your world inside your head while the real one marches onto to its eventual fate.

Morality Games said:

You're wrong, but that's okay. The overwhelming majority of humans always have been. Enjoy your world inside your head.

Click to expand...

"Human's " ?

You're a "human" I assume.

Either that or the consequence of some amazing scientific research into cross species genetics.

But I'm going to assume I'm not posting to a chatty Chimpanzee ( even though your assertions thus far prove otherwise ) and ask you to simply PROVE that I am wrong

AlabamaPaul said:

I think pinky is ignoring my earlier question. What say you pg? Good evening...

Click to expand...

I guess pinqy would rather question me on the merits of an article I read recently, which he apparently didn't agree with. When I locate the damn thing, I'll post it, and he can argue with the author. :mrgreen: I didn't write it - I just read it.

Good evening, AP! :2wave: Glad to see you again!

polgara said:

I guess pinqy would rather question me on the merits of an article I read recently, which he apparently didn't agree with. When I locate the damn thing, I'll post it, and he can argue with the author. :mrgreen: I didn't write it - I just read it.

Good evening, AP! :2wave: Glad to see you again!

Click to expand...

Standard MO, so don't let it get you down. My second foray to the forum this week, imagine... :lol:

Fenton said:

"Human's " ?

You're a "human" I assume.

Either that or the consequence of some amazing scientific research into cross species genetics.

But I'm going to assume I'm not posting to a chatty Chimpanzee ( even though your assertions thus far prove otherwise ) and ask you to simply PROVE that I am wrong

Click to expand...

Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, dozens of less prolific cities and entire states -- technologies and communications that have eliminated local reliance on unskilled labour and allowed companies to easily replace personnel with foreigners and machines don't lend themselves to job creation. Over and above all that, corporations have been able to rely on their increasingly efficient pipelines to cut away middleman jobs and to reduce unskilled labour to part-time. Human population growth is supplying new (unskilled) humans far faster than our resources or economic system can supply them with jobs, so specific group or individual is in a position to complain. I'm not sure how many states and cities have to become ruins before the effects of globalism become self-evident enough that we don't need to argue about them anymore.

Just because things are going well for Texas "right now" doesn't mean the same will be true in twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years, or a thousand years. Texas is "benefiting" situationally because its conservative climate allows it to compete with the increasingly complicated and competitive Chinese labour market. Looking ahead, you can see the problems are already looming. For example, the Earth's population will grow to the point where directing so much of our farm output to sustaining livestock will become less and less practical; ranching, one of the cornerstones of the Texan economy, will diminish greatly as meat becomes more a luxury food; there will still be a job for ranchers, but the huge fields that supply so much labour and generate so much capital will wither away as the grain sourced from other regions goes to feed humans directly.

One detail like Texas that is succeeding right now for various favourable complex socio-economic reasons doesn't take anything away from what I said about the direction of the Earth, America, and humanity as a whole are heading in.

Just take a glance at the influence of American pharmaceuticals not just in America, but Canada, England, France, Asia, etc. Through the various political organizations that represent its interests, the industry is quite nimble and able to push the legislation it desires in countries spanning entire continents.

Conservative said:

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

Click to expand...

No, it's just that someone made the claim so it is their responsibility to back it up.

Deviating otherwise would constitute as making a logical fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof", even the most common of morons understand that one (it's practically the most universally understood fallacy).

Working-age population has grown by nearly 7 million since 2008 and about 6 million since Lehman:



In other words, the economy is not even close to having proportionate pre-crisis levels of employment, just numeric pre-crisis levels. What accounts for the relatively low unemployment rate? The labor force participation rate accounts for it, which by no means is limited just to people retiring. Not a single reputable economist would argue that the change in the participation rate over the past few years is not predominantly due to economic conditions. I assure you that these people are not retirement age.

AlabamaPaul said:

What are the labor participation rate comparisons?

Click to expand...

64.3% in December 2010, and currently 62.8% Not sure what that has to do with my post, though. And, back then, 7.5% of those not in the labor force said they wanted a job (but weren't trying to find work), while now it's 7% So most of the drop in the participation rate is due to more people not wanting to work.

pinqy said:

64.3% in December 2010, and currently 62.8% Not sure what that has to do with my post, though. And, back then, 7.5% of those not in the labor force said they wanted a job (but weren't trying to find work), while now it's 7% So most of the drop in the participation rate is due to more people not wanting to work.

Click to expand...

Why would you think people do not want to work? Could it be they are discouraged with the opportunities available? When you have close to 40% of the working age population not working, there are serious economic issues...

AlabamaPaul said:

Standard MO, so don't let it get you down. My second foray to the forum this week, imagine... :lol:

Click to expand...

With things heating up all over the place, maybe we could ask for your attendance four or five times a week? You gotta admit, events are not exactly normal now, and you do have duties, you know! :mrgreen:

polgara said:

With things heating up all over the place, maybe we could ask for your attendance four or five times a week? You gotta admit, events are not exactly normal now, and you do have duties, you know! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can handle this crowd that often. I get bored easily with the same debate points being used over and over...

AlabamaPaul said:

Why would you think people do not want to work? Could it be they are discouraged with the opportunities available? When you have close to 40% of the working age population not working, there are serious economic issues...

Click to expand...

What are you defining as "working age?" The Labor Force Participation rate is age 16+ with no upper limit. Under 20 has a very low participation rate (fewer need jobs) and over 55 the rate starts dropping too. For ages 25-54 the participation rate is 80.9% A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race

And you did realize that 62.8 participation is higher than anytime before November 1977, right? Surely you're not claiming the labor market is better off now than every month between 1947 (earliest available data) and November 1977?

And no, if they were discouraged, they would want to work but don't think they'd succeed. If you say, "no, I don't want a job" I'm not going to assume discouragement. The number of discouraged has gone down, as I already showed.

Tettsuo said:

U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3% | Fox Business

The U.S. added 217,000 jobs in May as labor markets seem to be gaining the kind of sustained momentum that has proven elusive as the economy has struggled to recover from the 2008 financial crisis.
The headline unemployment rate was 6.3%, according to figures released Friday by the Labor Department. That rate is the same as in April, when 288,000 jobs were created, far more than had been expected.

Click to expand...

There are massive unemployment problems a) first and foremost they never consider those who have been not-recieveing employment benefits, and they certainly don't place emphasis on jobs "gained" and only focus on "jobs lost" and c) this farce has never focused on unemployment..... All those factors create a false unemployment numbers by the formula alone.

My only though process when it comes to such a "scam" is basically to keep consumer faith in the economy and the market.

Either way the formula for determining unemployment is flawed, because it doesn't factor the millions that are "lost" in the void of unemployment or even those who are are working cash jobs.

IMO, you don't have to be an economist - just intelligent, informed and especially vigilant.

pinqy said:

What are you defining as "working age?" The Labor Force Participation rate is age 16+ with no upper limit. Under 20 has a very low participation rate (fewer need jobs) and over 55 the rate starts dropping too. For ages 25-54 the participation rate is 80.9% A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race

And you did realize that 62.8 participation is higher than anytime before November 1977, right? Surely you're not claiming the lab or market is better off now than every month between 1948 and November 1977?

Click to expand...

I didn't define working age, the US Dept of Labor does that, and I'm not sure I'd be proud of any number that is almost 40 years old, also one which was at a time when women were just entering the workforce in mass. Now, if you want to argue the merits of why women felt the need to do so, we can...

Mr.Nick said:

There are massive unemployment problems a) first and foremost they never consider those who have been not-recieveing employment benefits,

Click to expand...

That is a lie, and you know it, because you've been told so and shown the proof. Unemployment insurance is NOT and never has been part of the definiton used by BLS. It's not even asked in the survey

and they certainly don't place emphasis on jobs lost and only focus on "jobs gained"

Click to expand...

"Jobe gained" is NET CHANGE and already includes jobs lost.

a351 said:

Good to see the momentum continue. Also worthy of note is the fact that we've now recouped all the jobs lost since the beginning of the financial crisis.

Click to expand...

Yep, we now have 1,000,000 more burger flippers in the United States than we had six years ago. And even a few former high tech executives riding on the back of trash trucks.

AlabamaPaul said:

I didn't define working age, the US Dept of Labor does that,

Click to expand...

They don't use that term in the labor force statistics. Again, there's no upper limit. If you bothered to look at the chart you'd have seen that the low participation is below age 20 and above age 55. A large part of the shift are those who say they do not want a job....students, retirees, stay home spouses, disabled, etc.

and I'm not sure I'd be proud of any number that is almost 40 years old, also one which was at a time when women were just entering the workforce in mass. Now, if you want to argue the merits of why women felt the need to do so, we can...

Click to expand...

I'll ask in a different manner: If near 40% not working means "serious economic issues", then are you claiming we had serious economic issues every month before 1968 when the participation rate first hit 60%? Or will you admit that there are other factors than economic conditions that can affect the participation?

pinqy said:

They don't use that term in the labor force statistics. Again, there's no upper limit. If you bothered to look at the chart you'd have seen that the low participation is below age 20 and above age 55. A large part of the shift are those who say they do not want a job....students, retirees, stay home spouses, disabled, etc.

I'll ask in a different manner: If near 40% not working means "serious economic issues", then are you claiming we had serious economic issues every month before 1968 when the participation rate first hit 60%? Or will you admit that there are other factors than economic conditions that can affect the participation?

Click to expand...

You're conflating debating points, and I never intimated there was an upper age limit. We're talking about different times, the first is where women were becoming a significant part of the workforce, and still are today, as compared to a time when they were not. The only thing today between a person and a job are either skills, economic conditions, or a desire to seek work...

pinqy said:

That is a lie, and you know it, because you've been told so and shown the proof. Unemployment insurance is NOT and never has been part of the definiton used by BLS. It's not even asked in the survey

"Jobe gained" is NET CHANGE and already includes jobs lost.

Click to expand...

It'd not lie - its basic fact.....

The basic formula to establish unemployment is workforce divided by unemployment.... That says nothing abut the MILLIONS that have lost there benefits and are caught in a void or those who have previously lost their jobs..... It's a ****ing scam given the present formula that neglects 70% of those without work or are doing cash jobs on the side to make ends meet. Lets not forget these "jobs gains" are nothing more than "net gains" and not gross gains or losses.

This is a double dip recession - and potentially a depression,

It's amazing how people ignore reality but only pay attention to numbers.

All I see is businesses closing, pawn shops opening and corporate businesses sustaining,

This is not a "growing economy" this is a stagnant economy.

pinqy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Every month of Obama has been higher than any month of Bush and that makes every month a record. Now you can continue to make excuses for the incompetent in the WH but the reality is it is the number of unemployed, number of discouraged workers, number of under employed that matters. Liberal economic policies are always a disaster

HogWash said:

Yep, we now have 1,000,000 more burger flippers in the United States than we had six years ago. And even a few former high tech executives riding on the back of trash trucks.

Click to expand...

We have 1,000,000 people who don't have jobs or unemployment benefits who rely on food stamps and maybe if they're lucky a little cash from odd jobs or state welfare.

Mexicans buy fast food joints and only hire their family or illegals - at atleast where I'm from.

Tettsuo said:

Obama's success must be killin' you guys! LOL! :lamo

Click to expand...

What success?

HogWash said:

Yep, we now have 1,000,000 more burger flippers in the United States than we had six years ago. And even a few former high tech executives riding on the back of trash trucks.

Click to expand...

Here in liberal land, garbage men are paid 22 bucks an hour working 70 hours a week. yes 1800 and change a week to big up the garbage

Mr.Nick said:

We have 1,000,000 people who don't have jobs or unemployment benefits who rely on food stamps and maybe if they're lucky a little cash from odd jobs or state welfare.

Mexicans buy fast food joints and only hire their family or illegals - at atleast where I'm from.

Click to expand...

Eat somewhere else

Tettsuo said:

U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3% | Fox Business

The U.S. added 217,000 jobs in May as labor markets seem to be gaining the kind of sustained momentum that has proven elusive as the economy has struggled to recover from the 2008 financial crisis.
The headline unemployment rate was 6.3%, according to figures released Friday by the Labor Department. That rate is the same as in April, when 288,000 jobs were created, far more than had been expected.

Click to expand...

It is a dismal economic performance.eace