• 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!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

How many of you supporting the Idiot in chief, are paid by the democratic party to come on here, and try to convince everyone things are so good.

Wow, what a deeply sourced post.

You just hate good financial news that is good for this nation because Obama is president. Derangement.
 
BssIofECUAAzRzf.png:large
 
A lot, apparently.
LOL

I read not one word of your last post.

I saw it was long and contained no useful links...so I ignored it.

When will you learn, I do not even begin to care about your theories on this subject (well, I tried to have an open mind with your chart..but now I realize my faith was misplaced).

Why would I?

Some faceless nobody on a chat forum who claims to have worked for that pathetic Bureau of Laboured Statistics.

Oh yeah...how will I survive without your knowledge of economics.

:rofl:

All you are good for to me is your extensive knowledge of the BLS website...that is it.

In other words, you are a good bureaucrat...but you, no offense, clearly do not understand macroeconomics.


(okay mods...I am done going off topic on this, sorry)


What are you talking g about?


I posted the chart. You wanted a link to it. I gave it to you. You wanted the data, I gave it to you. Now you want a link to the chart again. Do you have a learning disability? There are no other links I can give you....I gave you the links at least 3 times. You don't have to hunt any numbers, I gave you the links.

:roll:

I give up...over your head (apparently).


We are done here.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
Who told you that. Is this documented?

No, this is something that I wrote.

And you do realize that people who are self employed are ALL counted as having jobs don't you?

Sometimes, when they feel like it. I suppose you have more personal experience that I do, will you tell us your story?

Anyhow, they don't call employers, they call individuals. I highly suspect you just made up that story.

Where do you get the information that they don't call employers?

Suspect all you want, it doesn't change anything.
 
i guarantee it was fabrication. nothing about it is consistent with how that data is actually collected

Would you care to share your link to the procedures followed by the Dept of Labor data collectors? Or is that not included in your 'guarantee'
 
Now, back to the jobs report...

just to re-state...

(All these numbers are from the household survey)

Of the 232,000 more people employed in September,

- a whopping 230,000 are over 55!

- 45,000 were teenagers (16-19)

How did the rest do? Lousy.

- 20-24 years old went DOWN 72,000

- the all important 25-54 went DOWN 10,000

So all of the newly employed are either teenagers or over 55. The 20-54 age range had 82,000 less people employed.

Plus (or minus in this case), the average hourly wage dropped by a penny.


Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted


Somehow, I doubt the Dems will be mentioning the highlighted part.


And, once again, I am neither dem nor rep.
 
Who told you that. Is this documented?

And you do realize that people who are self employed are ALL counted as having jobs don't you?

Anyhow, they don't call employers, they call individuals. I highly suspect you just made up that story.
BLS doesn't call individuals, they call employers. That's for the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES) Yes, we were all talking about the CPS, which is collected by Census. but he could easily be in the CES if he pays UI taxes.

There are some things off....who did she say she worked for? What time period was she asking for? What a about the other questions?
 
let's call it retirement eligible
for social security purposes, i became retirement eligible (62) in august. (for purposes of full disclosure, i have been retired from my employer for 11 plus years)
and many, like me, chose to defer immediate social security retirement upon eligibility because it will enhance our earnings later. we put pencil to paper and realized it is smarter financially - long term - to defer retirement
however, at the height of the notso great recession, a number of my friends and acquaintances, having lost their jobs, or working reduced hours, and having few prospects at finding replacement employment equivalent to that they were forced to relinquish, chose to begin receiving social security benefits as soon as they became eligible. they preferred to defer that choice to realize greater total benefits. but the economy did not cooperate. they accepted the lesser, but immediate, benefit only because they needed the income. then
as the economy has begun improving, that more retirement eligibles are deferring to a later date to commence receiving their benefits is not surprising. an anecdotal observation to be certain, but one which appears to square with the data

It seems reasonable to assume that your experience and observations would apply to many Baby Boomers.

Given the focus people have on unemployment numbers, it is also reasonable to try and understand the tremendous changes in participation rates, and how those numbers have been used to bring the rate down. As people live longer, and events cause people to remain in the workforce longer, it seems reasonable to look into how the participation rate numbers are calculated.
 
The unemployment levels are meaningless when the participation rate is at a 30 year low.
 
No I didn't. Look back on my actual worlds.



I never made that claim. I said that we have a higher percentage of people who are retired than ever before. I never claimed that everyone age 60+ is retired, or that their younger siblings are all retired.

This is your exact quote:

"There were more babies born in 1946 than in any other year up until that time "​

I'm not trying to hold you to only that year, and no other years had more. My older brother was born in '47. That makes him 67. I have two other sisters who are younger than him. The point is, there are more baby boomers who are not eligible for retirement, or haven't retired, than there are those who are. Census data shows this is true. Add in the census data that is showing baby boomers are working longer, and it brings into question the methodology used to calculate the labor participation rate.
 
Good thing those in power are able to inform us of how well we are doing, especially before an election, otherwise, we wouldn't have anyway of knowing that.
 
You certainly have the right to your opinion.

But I do not call a jobs report where 82,000 less Americans ages 20-54 were employed in September AND the average wage per hour dropped (by a penny) a 'slow come back'.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

I call that a slow backtrack.


Btw, I am neither dem or rep.

Yeah ok...I am only going by what I see around me these days...Whenever these stats get reported, the argument is predictable...the Obamabots will say he's the greatest since sliced bread, and it was all Bush's fault in the first place, and the conservatives will say that Obama is hiding, and twisting numbers to lie to the public, then you'll have about a hundred pages of stat after stat being posted until my eyes are bleeding and I just need a drink....When I see someone in a position of leadership start pushing lower taxes, and see real welfare reform so that half the damn country isn't collecting it in one form or another, then I'll say it's getting better. Til then this is election year bull ****.
 
Yet you can give zero links to more to the story can you--along with proving how anemic +248,000 is, compared to Bush's disastrous 6 months of averaging -740,000.
All you can do is just say Obama is only highlighting the good news--which that many jobs is certainly good news.
Only Democratic Presidents have done what you accuse BTW.


Obama's policies are to blame for these new jobs--and the come back is anything but slow--and I am informed compared to what you admit.
And all of your uninformed opinions as you call them are anti-Obama--try the Wall Street Journal--Bible of the conservo-rightists.

You freely admit that Repubs couldn't do any better, any better with a problem they caused BTW.
You then rant off to Democratic socialism--as a worthless ending to what you have presented .

Wow, you really are a nasty person aren't you? Look, the only thing you show here NIMBY is that anything other than full fealty to "the One" will satisfy you...I simply don't trust the numbers in an election cycle...You don't like it? eh big deal.
 
The unemployment levels are meaningless when the participation rate is at a 30 year low.
Nonsense. The U-3 rate is still an useful barometer of labor market health. It's a measurement of the ability of those who want and need to work to actually gain employment. It's every bit as relevant as when the LFPR reached it's peak in the late 90's or when it was significantly lower following WWII.
 
Good thing those in power are able to inform us of how well we are doing, especially before an election, otherwise, we wouldn't have anyway of knowing that.
:lol: As if the Bureau of Labor Statistics is "in power." In your defense, the notion that the current administration is somehow in control of the figures is a really popular rallying call on this forum. It's on you to take the initiative and become better informed though.
 
:lol: As if the Bureau of Labor Statistics is "in power." In your defense, the notion that the current administration is somehow in control of the figures is a really popular rallying call on this forum. It's on you to take the initiative and become better informed though.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. The United States Department of Labor (DOL) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government responsible for occupational safety, wage and hour standards, unemployment insurance benefits, re-employment services, and some economic statistics; many U.S. states also have such departments. The department is headed by the U.S. Secretary of Labor.

Thomas Perez is the current U.S. Secretary of Labor. He took office after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 18, 2013.

Perez's nomination was criticized by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Pat Roberts (R-KS),[115] as well as the The Wall Street Journal editorial board,[116] for his decision not to intervene in a whistleblower case against Saint Paul, Minnesota in return for the city dropping a case before the Supreme Court (Magner v. Gallagher), which could have undermined the disparate impact theory of discrimination.[117] His nomination was also opposed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) for his views on immigration and his association with Casa de Maryland, calling the nomination "an unfortunate and needlessly divisive nomination".[118][119]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, nothing possibly divisive to see there.....:doh
 

As our population grows, it's perfectly natural that fewer people are in the workforce.

Let's say that this year one family exists, and there are two parents who both work and a 17 year old high school student who doesn't work and 83 year old granny. Thats a total of 2 people not in the labor force.

Next year two families exists, and there are now four parents who work, two teenagers who don't, and two elderly people - so that's now 4 people not in the workforce.

Any surprises?
 
BLS says 9.3 million unemployed, and another 6.3 million who say they want a job but are not looking for work.
Shadowstats says 34.5 million...over twice the number of people who want a job.

And they do not explain where they get their numbers from, or how they conduct their polls. At least the US government explains it's procedure and the information collected is available to the public.
 
Where do you get the information that they don't call employers?

Suspect all you want, it doesn't change anything.

You can look it up on the BLS website.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Not everything you hear at the tea party rallies or at the barber shop is true. Sometimes you need to verify your information prior to posting inaccurate data. DP is a little tougher than convincing your facebook friends of your lies.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom