• 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

:lol: Yeah, just link the websites and that means you know what you're talking about!

I'm an astronaut btw : NASA

The websites I post give the official data and results from the U.S. Economy. You seem to have a problem with the results because they don't show what you want to believe
 
Then on top of that, extrapolating census 2000 and 2010 numbers, the may to June population growth is approximately 243,000.

Uhh...yeah.

Anyway....

...according to several links I have seen, the average hours worked in a part time job is about 20 hours per week (not official numbers).

Here is an EU link:

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

If that is the case here, then that would mean that 523,000 jobs at a minimum of 35 hours per week are being replaced by 799,000 jobs at roughly 20 hours per week.

523,000 times 35 = 18,305,000

799,000 times 20 = 15,980,000

So, this would mean that there were less hours worked each week then the previous month...despite the fact there were more jobs.

In fact, by my math, you would need 22.9 hours per week per part time job just to equal the number of hours lost due to the demise of 523,000 full time jobs.

Also, the full time number was a theoretical minimum (based on evey job lost being equal to a maximum of 35 hours per week) that will certainly be much higher in reality.


So, on the face of it, not only is this jobs report not nearly as good as the headline suggests - it may even be a net regression of total employment hours available to Americans in June over May.
 
Last edited:
Uhh...yeah.

Anyway....

...according to several links I have seen, the average hours worked in a part time job is about 20 hours per week (not official numbers).

Here is an EU link:

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

If that is the case here, then that would mean that 523,000 jobs at a minimum of 35 hours per week are being replaced by 799,000 jobs at roughly 20 hours per week.

523,000 times 35 = 18,305,000

799,000 times 20 = 15,980,000

So, this would mean that there were less hours worked each week then the previous month...despite the fact there were more jobs.

In fact, by my math, you would need 22.9 hours per week per part time job just to equal the number of hours lost due to the demise of 523,000 full time jobs.

Also, the full time number was a theoretical minimum (based on evey job lost being equal to a maximum of 35 hours per week) that will certainly be much higher in reality.


So, on the face of it, not only is this jobs report not nearly as good as the headline suggests - it may even be a net regression of total employment hours available to Americans in June over May.

That trend will likely continue forever as technology continues to replace the need for human labor.
 
That trend will likely continue forever as technology continues to replace the need for human labor.

so that's what happened to all of the secretaries, bank tellers, receptionists, and stenographers

how much longer will we have cab drivers, truck drivers, and couriers, once the google driverless vehicle technology becomes proficient

surprised we still have car salesmen, as if you need someone to point out a car's features ... but then we see states prohibiting direct/internet sales of the tesla, in the ultimately errant belief they can stem that tide which will eliminate such valueless positions

anyone seen a plan to train our under-skilled to become adequately skilled for future employment opportunities?
 
so that's what happened to all of the secretaries, bank tellers, receptionists, and stenographers

how much longer will we have cab drivers, truck drivers, and couriers, once the google driverless vehicle technology becomes proficient

surprised we still have car salesmen, as if you need someone to point out a car's features ... but then we see states prohibiting direct/internet sales of the tesla, in the ultimately errant belief they can stem that tide which will eliminate such valueless positions

anyone seen a plan to train our under-skilled to become adequately skilled for future employment opportunities?

Not in this ****hole of a country. (USA)

And that's one of the main reasons we need a revolution/60s-style protests.
 
so that's what happened to all of the secretaries, bank tellers, receptionists, and stenographers

how much longer will we have cab drivers, truck drivers, and couriers, once the google driverless vehicle technology becomes proficient

surprised we still have car salesmen, as if you need someone to point out a car's features ... but then we see states prohibiting direct/internet sales of the tesla, in the ultimately errant belief they can stem that tide which will eliminate such valueless positions

anyone seen a plan to train our under-skilled to become adequately skilled for future employment opportunities?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but shouldn't having adequate job skills be the responsibility of those who are seeking jobs? Nothing is really preventing me from learning new job skills, other than the fact that I just don't see a need to right now.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you, but shouldn't having adequate job skills be the responsibility of those who are seeking jobs? Nothing is really preventing me from learning new job skills, other than the fact that I just don't see a need to right now.

you and i have the benefit of age, which many who need their skills updated, do not
also, during out era, getting a 4 year degree was the accepted means to attain/maintain middle class status
that's not so true anymore
every child in china is being taught software/coding
not so much in the USA
in germany, as they approach high school, the students are evaluated for the track they will best be expected to attain. those not inclined towards a 4 year degree learn other, practical, wage earning skills
here, not so much
our tech schools used to be almost free. while not as expensive as universities, their tuition and fees are now a barrier to many who would choose to attend to enhance their skills. why do we allow such a barrier to skills development in our country
while we cannot want education/training for those citizens who want it, we could eliminate such barriers to becoming better qualified for the workplace. why don't we
 
Uhh...yeah.

Anyway....

...according to several links I have seen, the average hours worked in a part time job is about 20 hours per week (not official numbers).

Here is an EU link:

Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

If that is the case here, then that would mean that 523,000 jobs at a minimum of 35 hours per week are being replaced by 799,000 jobs at roughly 20 hours per week.

523,000 times 35 = 18,305,000

799,000 times 20 = 15,980,000

So, this would mean that there were less hours worked each week then the previous month...despite the fact there were more jobs.

In fact, by my math, you would need 22.9 hours per week per part time job just to equal the number of hours lost due to the demise of 523,000 full time jobs.

Also, the full time number was a theoretical minimum (based on evey job lost being equal to a maximum of 35 hours per week) that will certainly be much higher in reality.


So, on the face of it, not only is this jobs report not nearly as good as the headline suggests - it may even be a net regression of total employment hours available to Americans in June over May.


I did a bit more research and found this link:

Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work

So taking the median from each part time group (1-34 hours/week) and doing the math, I came up with the following:

the average hours per week of a part time workers is 22.35 hours.

Plus, according to the same chart; 'Average hours, persons who usually work full time' is 42.6 hours/week.


So, using the above,

523,000 full time jobs at 42.6 hours/week equals 22279800 hours per week lost

799,000 part time jobs at 22.35 hours/week equals 17857650 hours per week gained

That leaves 4422150 less hours worked in June vs. May.

4422150 divided by 42.6 hrs/week for an average full time job equals 103,806.

That means (by my calculations) the equivalent of 103,806 average full time jobs were lost last month over May.


Imo, forget the headlines, this was a lousy jobs report.
 
you and i have the benefit of age, which many who need their skills updated, do not
also, during out era, getting a 4 year degree was the accepted means to attain/maintain middle class status
that's not so true anymore
every child in china is being taught software/coding
not so much in the USA
in germany, as they approach high school, the students are evaluated for the track they will best be expected to attain. those not inclined towards a 4 year degree learn other, practical, wage earning skills
here, not so much
our tech schools used to be almost free. while not as expensive as universities, their tuition and fees are now a barrier to many who would choose to attend to enhance their skills. why do we allow such a barrier to skills development in our country
while we cannot want education/training for those citizens who want it, we could eliminate such barriers to becoming better qualified for the workplace. why don't we

Fantastic post.

Hit the nail on the mother****ing head.
 
I did a bit more research and found this link:

Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work

So taking the median from each part time group (1-34 hours/week) and doing the math, I came up with the following:

the average hours per week of a part time workers is 22.35 hours.

Plus, according to the same chart; 'Average hours, persons who usually work full time' is 42.6 hours/week.


So, using the above,

523,000 full time jobs at 42.6 hours/week equals 22279800 hours per week lost

799,000 part time jobs at 22.35 hours/week equals 17857650 hours per week gained

That leaves 4422150 less hours worked in June vs. May.

4422150 divided by 42.6 hrs/week for an average full time job equals 103,806.

That means (by my calculations) the equivalent of 103,806 average full time jobs were lost last month over May.


Imo, forget the headlines, this was a lousy jobs report.

What percentage of labour remunerations are in "Wage" alone?
 
You are cherry picking and you (hopefully for your sake) know it.

The thread subject is last month.

And last month was a net loss of total employment hours in America.

To be fair, I think the animus of this thread was on the: Direction of the US Economy.

June being a SINGLE indicator of such.
 

How much a labourer is "paid" is not singularly accounted for by wage. Iirc, (and this could be wrong, I'm getting to the point of drunk now which tends to show a correlation with me getting banned :p) bring-home wage is roughly only 30-60% of what a labourer gets paid for their efforts in sum.
 
How much a labourer is "paid" is not singularly accounted for by wage. Iirc, (and this could be wrong, I'm getting to the point of drunk now which tends to show a correlation with me getting banned :p) bring-home wage is roughly only 30-60% of what a labourer gets paid for their efforts in sum.

Okay.
 

Are you familiar with the concept of work-sharing? How it assisted Germany, despite the lackadasical account of the global recession in their country overall, with the crisis?
 
Are you familiar with the concept of work-sharing? How it assisted Germany, despite the lackadasical account of the global recession in their country overall, with the crisis?

Sure.

I did calculations based on available data and I posted them.

No offense, but statistics from unbiased sources are pretty much all I am interested in discussing on this subject...not theories.
 
Sure.

I did calculations based on available data and I posted them.

No offense, but statistics from unbiased sources are pretty much all I am interested in discussing on this subject...not theories.

I get that. I really do. But you must understand that statistics are very, very, very, very easily and likely falsified or manipulated. It's literally the first thing even a second-rate statistics teacher will tell you.
 
I get that. I really do. But you must understand that statistics are very, very, very, very easily and likely falsified or manipulated. It's literally the first thing even a second-rate statistics teacher will tell you.

Fine...take whatever you want from them.

Believe them or not.

But statistics from unbiased sources are all I am interested in on this subject.


Now I am off to eat.

Good day.
 
Fine...take whatever you want from them.

Believe them or not.

But statistics from unbiased sources are all I am interested in on this subject.


Now I am off to eat.

Good day.

Ummm, now you're saying BLS data is unbiased?
And I am getting tired of you trying to prop up the BLS like they are some noble organization...taking their word on things without offering ANY unbiased proof (BTW - 'evidence' from the BLS is NOT unbiased....

And - once again - the BLS is NOT an unbiased source.

And I want UNBIASED FACTS - not opinions.

And also, it seems odd to do the math you were doing when BLS already publishes average hours, both for the CAR and CPS
 
Ummm, now you're saying BLS data is unbiased?
Not to me - but to most it seems to be...so it is an effective source at making a point.

And also, it seems odd to do the math you were doing when BLS already publishes average hours, both for the CAR and CPS

If I could have found the average hours of part time workers - I obviously would have used them.


Why don't you make yourself useful and post them then?


And while you are at it...

I will ask again, you called John Williams of ShadowStats.com a liar.

Where is your proof that John Williams intended to deceive and thus lied?
 
Last edited:
I will ask again, you called John Williams of ShadowStats.com a liar.

Where is your proof that John Williams intended to deceive and thus lied?

Lie, only due to the burden of proving it, may be too strong.

But John Williams and the near entirety of Shadowstats can easily be accused of Subreption.
 
Lie, only due to the burden of proving it, may be too strong.

But John Williams and the near entirety of Shadowstats can easily be accused of Subreption.

Well, pinqy said that he lied.

Either he should show proof or admit he has no proof and remove the accusation.
 
Well, pinqy said that he lied.

Either he should show proof or admit he has no proof and remove the accusation.

He?

I'm talking about *ME*, bud. Please, let's keep it in that sphere. If you want to discuss Pingy, please Quote Pingy.

And I consider Pingy one of the Most Reputable Fellows on this website.
 
He?

I'm talking about *ME*, bud. Please, let's keep it in that sphere. If you want to discuss Pingy, please Quote Pingy.

And I consider Pingy one of the Most Reputable Fellows on this website.

The post you quoted was directed at what pinqy typed.

Reputable people do not call others liars' in matter-of-fact terms without proof....at least not in my book.


Anyway, back to the subject.
 
The post you quoted was directed at what pinqy typed.

Reputable people do not call others liars' in matter-of-fact terms without proof....at least not in my book.


Anyway, back to the subject.

Well I'm too drunk to go into the minutinae of the discussion so I'll leave it be.

But Pingy is a Good person on this board.

And while, DA60, you and I disagree very much on this board I have gained a New Respect for you Recently. Just putting that out for you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom