• 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!

US economy adds 288,000 jobs in June

pinqy said:
I see you corrected just aas I started to edit...but thank you for showing that I was correct about the decline in participation going back to 2000.
Click to expand...
Here's another way to look at it.

Most of the increase in the labor force was due to women entering the workforce -- a change that was derided and decried by conservatives for years.

Meanwhile, men have apparently been gradually staying out of the workforce increasingly since 1948.


US-Labor-Force-Participation-Rates-Sex-April-2013.png
 
donsutherland1 said:
I suspect that he was referring to the 2.9% annualized decline in real GDP for Q1.
Click to expand...

When do the Q2 figures come out?

I suspect that we will see a huge increase, making up for the Q1 decline.
 
We are not out of the woods yet, but bear in mind that some of the effects of the Great Depression that started in 1929 were felt until 1953, the year in which the stock market rebounded to what it was when the Great Depression hit.

This is good news, though, but it is going to take some more years of continued growth before we can really say that everything is now OK. A downturn like this doesn't end in a day. It takes many years.
 
imagep said:
When do the Q2 figures come out? I suspect that we will see a huge increase, making up for the Q1 decline.
Click to expand...
1st pass is probably end of August. Revised figures will probably follow in about a month.

And yes, the current predictions are all positive, in part there is an assumption of pent-up demand from Q1, plus exports are up.
 
pinqy said:
I see you corrected just aas I started to edit...but thank you for showing that I was correct about the decline in participation going back to 2000.
Click to expand...

This is the stat that's been bothersome for me... It's the Employment to Population Ratio. It's a measure of the eligable American workforce that is currently employed. Going back 50 years, it always shadows the unemployment rate... until the Obama Administration:

epratio.jpg
 
Grim17 said:
This is the stat that's been bothersome for me... It's the Employment to Population Ratio. It's a measure of the eligable American workforce that is currently employed. Going back 50 years, it always shadows the unemployment rate... until the Obama Administration:

View attachment 67169151
Click to expand...


The baby boom generation never started retiring before the Obama Administration. We have never had such a high percent of young people in school either.
 
When will the media learn to read beyond the headlines?

According to the household survey...there were 799,000 more people employed part time in June.

But there were 523,000 less people employed full time in June.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


So losing over 1/2 a million full-time jobs in one month is considered good news....okaaaaaay.

The McDonald's/WalMart-type recovery is in full swing.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
DA60 said:
When will the media learn to read beyond the headlines?

According to the household survey...there were 799,000 more people employed part time in June.

But there were 523,000 less people employed full time in June.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


So losing over 1/2 a million full-time jobs in one month is considered good news....okaaaaaay.

The McDonald's/WalMart-type recovery is in full swing.
Click to expand...
Since February, we've created roughly 400,000 full time jobs, even after the loss you mentioned.

Like you said, it's good to look at all the evidence, not just a limited scope of information.
 
I see the job numbers this morning claiming 288K jobs added. Sounds great, doesn’t it!? Now we get to hear from the liberals as they brag about their president.

So I take a dive into the numbers… and guys, the numbers suck.

In May, we had 118,727 full-time jobs.
In June, that number dropped over 500K — to 118,204.

Staggering…

In May, there were 27,219 part-time jobs.
In June, the number jumped to 28,018 — almost 800K part-time jobs.

No wonder we had a 2.9% contraction in GDP.

I am adding this so you can see for yourselves.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

As we reported previously, and as hardly anyone else will discuss, in June the composition of added jobs was rather abysmal: according to the Household survey, while over half a million full-time jobs were lost, this was offset by less paying, benefits-free part-time jobs rising by 799K, the most since 1993. So what does that mean for the job quality as reported by the Establishment Survey. Let’s dive in.

Of the 288K jobs added in June, here were some of the biggest contributors:

Retail Trade: 40.2K
Leisure and Hospitality: 39K
Education and health: 38K
Government: 26K
Temp Help Service: 13.1K
What about the well-paying jobs? Well, here they are:

Professional business services: 53.9K
Financial Services: 17K
Manufacturing: 16K
Information: 9K
Construction: 6K

Read more at Anyone take a close look at today’s job numbers? 288K jobs added… look inside for the details. They suck. | InvestmentWatch


and as one of my favorite reporters used to say.....Paul Harvey

"now you know the rest of the story"
 
Slyfox696 said:
Since February, we've created roughly 400,000 full time jobs, even after the loss you mentioned.

Like you said, it's good to look at all the evidence, not just a limited scope of information.
Click to expand...

In other words, roughly 100,000 full-time jobs a month. Not nearly as impressive when you phrase it like that huh? Also not as impressive when one considers this decline occurs in an environment where full-time jobs are still several million short of pre-recession highs.
 
More jobs available - great. 9.5 million still unemployed - not great. 1.5 billion a day spent by the federal govt just on income support - not great.
 
imagep said:
The baby boom generation never started retiring before the Obama Administration. We have never had such a high percent of young people in school either.
Click to expand...

True that. I was planning on retiring at the beginning of this year, but got a raise to stay on one more year. And yes, I am part of the baby boom generation, and will be retired at the end of this year. It is OUR generation that accounts for the drop in participation in the work force.
 
Tettsuo said:
Because the economic news is good, the numbers are askew to Conservative eyes.
Click to expand...

Breaking even is good news vs. the bad news of losing that many jobs, however the goal isn't to just break even.
 
imagep said:
When do the Q2 figures come out?

I suspect that we will see a huge increase, making up for the Q1 decline.
Click to expand...


You " suspect " ?? Based on what ?

Wishful thinking ?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Umm...why not?
Click to expand...

depending on the state of economy, you need "x" amount of jobs just to keep up with population increasing

that number varies by month, and by year

this article is a couple of years old, but is informative on how it is calculated

How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist

but the bottom line is, approximately 100k jobs a month is necessary to keep up

so if 400k jobs were created in first 4 months, we are about breaking even

now that is much better than going backwards....but not really helping out with the gdp growth

we need 250k full time, good paying jobs monthly to really hit the gas pedal

believe it or not, the ACA is contributing to the number of part time jobs going up, and full time jobs going down
 
imagep said:
That's not possible, Rush said that our economy was going to collapse on Jan 1st of this year due to Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, you and all the other liberals have such low standards and ignore the details behind the numbers. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and such low economic standards.

June Full-Time Jobs Plunge By Over Half A Million, Part-Time Jobs Surge By 800K, Most Since 1993 | Zero Hedge

What wonderful results, a surge of 800,000 part time jobs and a plunge in the number of full time jobs.

Suggest you people pay closer attention to the results and stop reading the headlines. Here is what you are ignoring


The Obama Presidency Unravels « Commentary Magazine

Conservatives tried to tell you in 2008 you were electing an incompetent, made the same claims in 2012 where 4 million more got the message and yet there are still people here who continue to buy the Obama rhetoric. Wonder why his JAR is so low now? Hmmmm, what is it going to take to get you Obama supporters to wake up?
 
Tettsuo said:
No one on FOX told them it was.
Click to expand...

Fox didn't tell me that we have less people working today than we had when the recession began, BLS did. Amazing how these numbers are ignored. Didn't Obama say he had the answers and here we are almost 7 years after the recession began, have a growing population and still fewer people employed than were employed when the recession began. Guess Obama lies so much that supporters still don't pay any attention
 
gdgyva said:
believe it or not, the ACA is contributing to the number of part time jobs going up, and full time jobs going down
Click to expand...
Part time positions are up by all of 10,000 in the past year, while full time positions are up by 2 million. Not exactly apocalyptic in nature. :shrug:
 
a351 said:
Part time positions are up by all of 10,000 in the past year, while full time positions are up by 2 million. Not exactly apocalyptic in nature. :shrug:
Click to expand...

when did the ACA go into effect for business?

ooooh....thats right....it isnt in effect yet

i am not Kreskin (if you dont get the reference, google it), but i do see a pattern forming

On Monday, the Obama administration announced that it again will delay aspects of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate, the New York Times reports.

The employer mandate requires businesses with more than 50 employees working 30 hours or more per week to provide affordable health insurance coverage to workers or face fines.

The Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service on Monday released a final rule that outlined the enforcement timeline of the mandate (Treasury release, 2/10). The changes included in the new regulations will affect both mid-sized and large companies.
Mid-sized businesses that employ 50 to 99 full-time workers will have another year to provide health insurance coverage to employees. These employers will not face fines for failing to provide coverage to workers until 2016, according to the final rule (Norman/Nather, Politico, 2/10).

Obama Administration Further Delays ACA's Employer Mandate - California Healthline

now i ask myself.....why would the administration push it back yet again?

could the mid term elections have anything to do with it?

i wonder.........
 
a351 said:
Part time positions are up by all of 10,000 in the past year, while full time positions are up by 2 million. Not exactly apocalyptic in nature. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Where in the hell did you get that number? BLS disagrees with you

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 275,000 in June to 7.5 million.
The number of involuntary part-time workers is down over the year but has shown no
clear trend in recent months. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See
table A-8.)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom