• 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

imagep said:
What does unemployment benefits have to do with how many people companies chose to hire?
Click to expand...

Unemployment benefits create less incentive to even look for a job and when they run out there is no choice but to get off your ass and apply for the hundreds of jobs in your paper.
 
imagep said:
Interesting graph, I havent seen that one before.

It looks to me that the ratio started dropping a couple of years before the recession, then plummeted during the recession (mostly under Bush's watch), leveled off at a lower level and has recently started increasing.

What's your point? That that Bush policies ruined our economy and that the Obama policies are finally increasing the ratio?
Click to expand...

Quite amazing, that GW Bush destroyed the economy while Democrats controlled the Congress thus the legislative agenda and purse strings but Obama with a Democrat Congress couldn't turn it around. Maybe if those shovels for those shovel ready jobs ever arrived we wouldn't have the unemployment we have today. Just goes to show that Obama doesn't have a clue how to be the leader of a Capitalistic economy nor do his supporters. I find it interesting how you claim you never voted for Obama but take every opportunity to promote his failed economic policies.
 
Conservative said:
Unemployment benefits create less incentive to even look for a job and when they run out there is no choice but to get off your ass and apply for the hundreds of jobs in your paper.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the Obama recovery is so strong companies can't find people fast enough to fill positions.
 
Grim17 said:
Actually, it follows the unemployment rate. When we went into the recession and unemployment began to rise, the EP ratio began to fall. This is the first time since this statistic has existed that the unemployment rate has fallen, and the ratio has remained flat and not risen.

This is the unemployment rate (in red) with the Employment to Population Ratio (blue inverted) overlayed on to it, spanning the last 40 years.

View attachment 67169184

What it means is, that the decline in the unemployment rate for the first time, isn't a genuine indicator of the percentage of Americans that are truly unemployed. It shows that the actual unemployment rate has changed very little since it peaked at 10.0% back in October of 2009.
Click to expand...

It only shows that the percentage of our population which is working has leveled off. I would have expected that the percentage working would have dropped since the baby boomers started retiring and since we have a record percentage of young people in school, so the fact that it flattened, indicates a stronger job market.

As our population ages and as techology continues to replace the need for human labor, the trend that you pointed to will increase - regardless of who is POTUS or who controls congress. this isn't a political issue, its a demographic and technology issue.

You guys are really grasping at straws to try to prove that our economy is crap. The next time that we have a republican potus, remember that liberals are just going to point to your posts, and use the same logic to trash your political agenda/policies.
 
Verax said:
Exactly, the Obama recovery is so strong companies can't find people fast enough to fill positions.
Click to expand...

Is marijuana legal in your state? Seems you have been smoking a little tonight.
 
Conservative said:
Unemployment benefits create less incentive to even look for a job and when they run out there is no choice but to get off your ass and apply for the hundreds of jobs in your paper.
Click to expand...

I understand that and agree. We should eliminate both unemployment benefits and the unemployment tax that employers have to pay.

But you failed to answer my question. What do unemployment benefits have to do with how many people companies chose to hire?

As an employer, I could care less whether people are drawing unemployment or not, that doesn't effect my hiring decisions, my hiring decisions are based upon the demand level for the products that I produce.
 
Conservative said:
Is marijuana legal in your state? Seems you have been smoking a little tonight.
Click to expand...

That's actually what your logic was implying. I guess they legalized marijuana in your state, funny that I haven't heard about that on the news.
 
Grim17 said:
Actually, it follows the unemployment rate. When we went into the recession and unemployment began to rise, the EP ratio began to fall. This is the first time since this statistic has existed that the unemployment rate has fallen, and the ratio has remained flat and not risen.

This is the unemployment rate (in red) with the Employment to Population Ratio (blue inverted) overlayed on to it, spanning the last 40 years.

View attachment 67169184
Click to expand...

Except the unemployment rate has never been meant to indicate the percent of the population that's unemployed. And since the period after 2000 is the first time since the data has been recorded that the labor force has been declining as a percent of the population, we would expect a larger difference between the emp-pop ratio and the UE rate. Just because something had always been a certain way doesn't mean that's how it should be.

The UE rate has always been a measure of how many people participating in the labor market are unsuccessful. That, for the first time, we've seen a steady increase in the number and percent of people who don't want to work doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the UE rate.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

Way to **** up the nation's numbers there Dan... sheesh.
 
pinqy said:
Except the unemployment rate has never been meant to indicate the percent of the population that's unemployed. And since the period after 2000 is the first time since the data has been recorded that the labor force has been declining as a percent of the population, we would expect a larger difference between the emp-pop ratio and the UE rate. Just because something had always been a certain way doesn't mean that's how it should be.

The UE rate has always been a measure of how many people participating in the labor market are unsuccessful. That, for the first time, we've seen a steady increase in the number and percent of people who don't want to work doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the UE rate.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how they decide who is looking for work. If they are using unemployment claims, that's only valid til they run out, then how do they count it? I know people still looking for a job after four and five years of being unable to find employment. They're still looking, but their unemployment ran out long ago for some, more recently for others, are they counted anymore or are they assumed to "not want to work" as you erroneously try to paint the current batches of chronically unemployed.
 
imagep said:
That's actually what your logic was implying. I guess they legalized marijuana in your state, funny that I haven't heard about that on the news.
Click to expand...

Anyone using booming and Obama economy in the same sentence has to be smoking something that is illegal in most states
 
imagep said:
It only shows that the percentage of our population which is working has leveled off. I would have expected that the percentage working would have dropped since the baby boomers started retiring and since we have a record percentage of young people in school, so the fact that it flattened, indicates a stronger job market.

As our population ages and as techology continues to replace the need for human labor, the trend that you pointed to will increase - regardless of who is POTUS or who controls congress. this isn't a political issue, its a demographic and technology issue.

You guys are really grasping at straws to try to prove that our economy is crap. The next time that we have a republican potus, remember that liberals are just going to point to your posts, and use the same logic to trash your political agenda/policies.
Click to expand...

I doubt that a Republican President will take 6 years to clean up the mess that Obama is leaving this country and won't be blaming well into that Republican's second term. Interesting how 45% of the people today wish Romney was in the WH and 39% support Obama. Wonder what you are missing that they understand?
 
Conservative said:
Is marijuana legal in your state? Seems you have been smoking a little tonight.
Click to expand...

Simply expanding on your logic. If cutting off unemployment benefits increases the labor pool and this effect causes a hiring spree this could only happen during a labor shortage right? They have some good weed in Texas?
 
pinqy said:
Except the unemployment rate has never been meant to indicate the percent of the population that's unemployed. And since the period after 2000 is the first time since the data has been recorded that the labor force has been declining as a percent of the population, we would expect a larger difference between the emp-pop ratio and the UE rate. Just because something had always been a certain way doesn't mean that's how it should be.

The UE rate has always been a measure of how many people participating in the labor market are unsuccessful. That, for the first time, we've seen a steady increase in the number and percent of people who don't want to work doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the UE rate.
Click to expand...


That was true until Clinton in 1993 changed the formula for calculating the OFFICIAL unemployment rate by removing Discouraged workers from the number. They are now still counted but not in the official reported rate. Prior to 1993 discouraged workers were included in the official reported rate.
 
Verax said:
Simply expanding on your logic. If cutting off unemployment benefits increases the labor pool and this effect causes a hiring spree this could only happen during a labor shortage right? They have some good weed in Texas?
Click to expand...

It doesn't increase the labor pool it forces people to actually look for jobs and become employed. There is no labor shortage only an incentive to get a job shortage and that is eliminated when unemployment benefits run out.
 
Summerwind said:
I'm curious how they decide who is looking for work. If they are using unemployment claims, that's only valid til they run out, then how do they count it? I know people still looking for a job after four and five years of being unable to find employment. They're still looking, but their unemployment ran out long ago for some, more recently for others, are they counted anymore or are they assumed to "not want to work" as you erroneously try to paint the current batches of chronically unemployed.
Click to expand...

They actually call people on the phone. Seriously, they do a telephone poll. All data is derived from the poll, and has nothing to do with claims for unemployment benefits (although those are reported seperately on a weekly bases).

They ask how many 16 years or older are in your household, how many are working, how many are looking for work, how many would like to work but are not working or looking for work (discouraged workers), and how many would work if they had a special need to work (marginally attached workers).

From my point of view, the only thing that matters is the basic unemployment rate. I could care less about discouraged workers, because I figure if one isn't working or bothering to look for a job, they really don't need a job. Anyone who refused to work or to look for work isn't unemployed, they are doing whatever it is that makes them happier than working or looking for work, and apparently they have found some alternative means of support.
 
Conservative said:
Anyone using booming and Obama economy in the same sentence has to be smoking something that is illegal in most states
Click to expand...

then you have to be smoking something, because you just did it.
 
Conservative said:
I doubt that a Republican President will take 6 years to clean up the mess that Obama is leaving this country and won't be blaming well into that Republican's second term. Interesting how 45% of the people today wish Romney was in the WH and 39% support Obama. Wonder what you are missing that they understand?
Click to expand...

I don't think I am missing anything. Neither Romney or Obama have even a bare majority of support. They both obviously suck. Would you not agree?
 
imagep said:
They actually call people on the phone. Seriously, they do a telephone poll. All data is derived from the poll, and has nothing to do with claims for unemployment benefits (although those are reported seperately on a weekly bases).

They ask how many 16 years or older are in your household, how many are working, how many are looking for work, how many would like to work but are not working or looking for work (discouraged workers), and how many would work if they had a special need to work (marginally attached workers).

From my point of view, the only thing that matters is the basic unemployment rate. I could care less about discouraged workers, because I figure if one isn't working or bothering to look for a job, they really don't need a job. Anyone who refused to work or to look for work isn't unemployed, they are doing whatever it is that makes them happier than working or looking for work, and apparently they have found some alternative means of support.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you seem to be assuming anyone not counted isn't looking and wants to be idle, that's simply not true. It a falsehood used to justify certain political stances regarding the chronically unemployed since the recession, before the recession as well, though with the apparently hopping economy and abundance of jobs, it seemed more likely then than now that the chronically unemployed were making a choice.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Some positive news for a change.
Click to expand...

The US economy added 288,000 jobs in June, latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have shown.

The unemployment rate dropped to 6.1%, its lowest level since September 2008.
Click to expand...

Yep...swimming pools opened for the summer and all the life guards went back to work. Plus, several hundred new fast food joints opened up and lots of counter, drive-thru people and microwave warmers were added to the ranks of the employed. Took care of that 0.6% drop from May.

Congrats to you, Obama.:lamo

OH YEAH...I forgot all those crack employees of SERCO processing all those obamacare apps.
 
Conservative said:
It doesn't increase the labor pool it forces people to actually look for jobs and become employed. There is no labor shortage only an incentive to get a job shortage and that is eliminated when unemployment benefits run out.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't explain why employers would hire more people. It's not like we had a shortage of people looking for work, if we did, then our economy would be booming. so are you really claiming that our economy is booming? No, I didn't think so. Your logic fails.
 
Last edited:
Summerwind said:
Yes, but you seem to be assuming anyone not counted isn't looking and wants to be idle, that's simply not true. It a falsehood used to justify certain political stances regarding the chronically unemployed since the recession, before the recession as well, though with the apparently hopping economy and abundance of jobs, it seemed more likely then than now that the chronically unemployed were making a choice.
Click to expand...

The poll is based upon what the people being polled tell them. Nothing more, nothing less. If they tell the pollster that they aren't looking, then they aren't unemployed by the standard definition of unemployed. If they tell the poster that they would like to have a job, but aren't looking, then they are counted as a discouraged worker.

Personally, I could care less about discouraged workers. maybe that's the hard conservative side of me, but if someone doesn't even bother to look for work, or to gain job skills to become employable, well, screw them, that's their problem, why should I care?

I'm much more concerned that people who want to work and are actively searching for work have jobs, than people who would like to work, but not like to work enough to keep looking for a job. That's just a lazy sorry arse worthless piece of shiet to me.
 
Summerwind said:
I'm curious how they decide who is looking for work. If they are using unemployment claims, that's only valid til they run out, then how do they count it?
Because, as you point out, unemployment benefits run out, and because only about a third of unemployed receive benefits, the unemployment figures have always been derived from a survey. No, it's not some random telephone survey...the country is divided up in regions, like regions in a state are put into groups (and some groups have only one area in them), and then individual areas are randomly selected with a chance proportional to size within its group. So place like NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, etc are the only regions in their group and will be selected with certainty, while Centre County, Mifflin County, Union County PA are probably in the same strata (with other counties probably) and only one will be selected. Then areas within are randomly selected down to a set of individual addresses. Houses are in the survey 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4 (and that's regardless of whether the house changes occupants or not. Initial interviews and re-entry interviews are in person, and then phone option afterwards.

Sorry for the overly long explanation, I've just found that many people equate "survey" with "completely inaccurate telephone survey.

Back to the point...those in the house age 15 and older are asked if they worked the previous week and if not, then what had they done to look for work in the previous 4 weeks. Just reading the classifieds doesn't count as active job search. Pretty much everything else does.

I know people still looking for a job after four and five years of being unable to find employment. They're still looking, but their unemployment ran out long ago for some, more recently for others, are they counted anymore or are they assumed to "not want to work" as you erroneously try to paint the current batches of chronically unemployed.
Click to expand...
If they looked in the 4 weeks between surveys then they would be unemployed, regardless of how long they've been looking. If they don't look that whole 4 weeks then they'd be Not in the Labor Force until they started looking again.

Oh, and I didn't erroneously say "not want to work" (and no one is assumed that they don't want to work)...I meant it. The majority of those Not in the Labor Force say they don't want to work...and that number and percentage has been growing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
HogWash said:
Yep...swimming pools opened for the summer and all the life guards went back to work. Plus, several hundred new fast food joints opened up and lots of counter, drive-thru people and microwave warmers were added to the ranks of the employed. Took care of that 0.6% drop from May.

Congrats to you, Obama.:lamo

OH YEAH...I forgot all those crack employees of SERCO processing all those obamacare apps.
Click to expand...

That stuff happens every year. The numbers are seasonally adjusted for that reason.
 
imagep said:
That still doesn't explain why employers would hire more people. It's not like we had a shortage of people looking for work, if we did, then our economy would be booming. so are you really claiming that our economy is booming? No, I didn't think so. Your logic fails.
Click to expand...

Employers aren't going to hire MORE employees because of the uncertainty as to future costs. What is happening now those employers that are hiring are getting more applicants because unemployment benefits have run out. This really has to be an act on your part because no one in business for themselves could be so poorly informed and lacking basic logic, common sense, as well understanding of personal behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom