• 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

Deuce said:
No, Republicans are the ones dragging their feet in order to sabotage the economy. Have to keep things bad until after the elections.
Click to expand...

I dont see the Democrats working. What exactly has the Senate done to balance the budget, reduce the debt, reign in spending, put forth pro growth policies? I know the House has passed several plans. They could even amend those.
 
upsideguy said:
of course, the Keystone pipeline has very little to do with the economy since it creates very, very few jobs. In fact, more jobs would be created by building a Hyatt Hotel than would be created by the Keystone pipeline..... then again, creating more jobs in fossil fuels isn't exactly particularly forward thinking, is it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, why would we create jobs there, it is only the engine that drives our economy. Let's throw our tax dollars at solar companies and watch the money disappear as they go bankrupt, that's the smart move.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, why would we create jobs there, it is only the engine that drives our economy. Let's throw our tax dollars at solar companies and watch the money disappear as they go bankrupt, that's the smart move.
Click to expand...

Bankruptcies are a part of entrepreneurship. They are a part of what makes our economy great. How many early automobile companies, airlines, computer companies are still with us? Most are gone. Yet, they worked collectively to commercialize new technologies, bring them to market and promote them as part of the American economic fabric. Being afraid of bankruptcy is being afraid of free enterprise and growth. Our economy will not move forward if we are too afraid of the future and too afraid of failure.

There have been a number of success stories already in solar energy and non-fossil fuel.... most notably, Tesla. But here are a ton of publicly traded stocks:

Solar Stocks - News and Discussion | Alt Energy Stocks

http://www-beststocks.com/top-solar-companies-to-own-for-2015.html

http://exploringgreentechnology.com/solar-energy/top-solar-energy-companies/

It is interesting that the top solar companies in the world are not American. Probably because we are so obsessed with fossil fuels and living in the past. Going through life afraid of investing in something that might not work out is for ******s; not to mention, rather a-American.

I have no problem with job creation. The market will do that just fine. OTH, there are certain industries that have thrived on the exploitation of workers (perhaps via blantant disregard for worker safety, ignoring work rules or substandard wages) or of their fellow citizens (dumping of toxic waste or air pollution). I have no problem with government regulation, and more important, enforcement, in such circumstances, even if it costs jobs. Because, if such actually costs jobs, it is indicative that the economics of the business relied on the ability to exploit and thus it was a bad business.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Bankruptcies are a part of entrepreneurship. They are a part of what makes our economy great. How many early automobile companies, airlines, computer companies are still with us? Most are gone. Yet, they worked collectively to commercialize new technologies, bring them to market and promote them as part of the American economic fabric. Being afraid of bankruptcy is being afraid of free enterprise and growth. Our economy will not move forward if we are too afraid of the future and too afraid of failure.

It is interesting that the top solar companies in the world are not American. Probably because we are so obsessed with fossil fuels and living in the past. Going through life afraid of investing in something that might not work out is for ******s; not to mention, rather a-American.

I have no problem with job creation. The market will do that just fine. OTH, there are certain industries that have thrived on the exploitation of workers (perhaps via blantant disregard for worker safety, ignoring work rules or substandard wages) or of their fellow citizens (dumping of toxic waste or air pollution). I have no problem with government regulation, and more important, enforcement, in such circumstances, even if it costs jobs. Because, if such actually costs jobs, it is indicative that the economics of the business relied on the ability to exploit and thus it was a bad business.
Click to expand...

That's just kind of silly to say, "Bankruptcies are a part of entrepreneurship." Kind of a general statement there. That really does not cut it when I see Obama flushing our tax dollars down the toilet because he's decided that we need to go solar now. Oh, and our government is not an entrepreneur, so they shouldn't be propping up these companies anyway. And even with millions of our tax dollars handed over to them, they failed anyway. Talk about a bad business model.
 
apdst said:
It takes a helluva lot more people to build a thousand miles of pipeline than it does to build a hotel.
Click to expand...

More, yes. A lot more? Not really..... 2,000 jobs for two years during construction; 35 jobs thereafter.

http://www.newsweek.com/state-depar...ne-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898

In comparison, Starwood Hotels employs 171,000 in 1170 properties. That means the average hotel employs 150 people, granted mostly low wage, but that isn't point. The point is that Keystone may make economic sense for TransCanada, but it isn't what people make it out to be: a big producer of jobs. I do not know how many jobs are created in the construction of a major hotel. I did find an average cost of a major hotel at about $100M, of which $60M construction cost. If you assume 50% of that is labor, or $30M at an average labor cost of $80K, we have about 400 jobs created in the building of your run of the mill luxury hotel.

Again, in comparison, from a job creation standpoint, Keystone is a yawner.
 
j-mac said:
So you both say...The fact that the BLS is now under the control of the DoL, and that is a political appointee leaves pause in the way they report numbers...Remember in the 2012 election when it was being said by both demo, and conservative pundits that the UE rate just had to drop below 8% for Obama to overcome the stat for election? Then magically right before the election, presto the number dropped below 8%.... Then after the election it was adjusted back to 8%.

It's crap like that which makes people believe that the books are cooked....
Click to expand...
The secretary of labor has no access to BLS data. The BLS Commissioner is a presidential appointee, but in off years. Dr Keith Hall was appointed by Bush in 2007 and continued to serve under Obama until 2012. He was not replaced until 2013.

The UE rate did drop to 7.8 forSeptember 2012 (published in October), but the October data was released in November, 4 days before the election and the rate went up to 7.9%. The September rate was not revised...you made that up.
 
apdst said:
It takes a helluva lot more people to build a thousand miles of pipeline than it does to build a hotel.
Click to expand...

And when it is done in a few years how many jobs will be left then? A Hotel needs employees during its entire existence.
 
iguanaman said:
And when it is done in a few years how many jobs will be left then? A Hotel needs employees during its entire existence.
Click to expand...

Yoi think that's the last pipeline that'll ever be built?
 
upsideguy said:
More, yes. A lot more? Not really..... 2,000 jobs for two years during construction; 35 jobs thereafter.

http://www.newsweek.com/state-depar...ne-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898

In comparison, Starwood Hotels employs 171,000 in 1170 properties. That means the average hotel employs 150 people, granted mostly low wage, but that isn't point. The point is that Keystone may make economic sense for TransCanada, but it isn't what people make it out to be: a big producer of jobs. I do not know how many jobs are created in the construction of a major hotel. I did find an average cost of a major hotel at about $100M, of which $60M construction cost. If you assume 50% of that is labor, or $30M at an average labor cost of $80K, we have about 400 jobs created in the building of your run of the mill luxury hotel.

Again, in comparison, from a job creation standpoint, Keystone is a yawner.
Click to expand...

You said, "to build", a hotel.
 
imagep said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes since the 17 and octogenarian didnt count. so if the now 18 year old doesnt go to college and cant find a job we grow one in not in the work force. if not no change.
 
Objective Voice said:
Tell that to the commercial banks whose balance sheets are stronger than they've ever been prior to the Great Recession.

Or to the hedge fund managers who are seeing record profits from the historic gains on Wall Street.

You may not like that growth hasn't come as quickly as you'd like or that it took a different path than you wanted, but economic growth has happened under this President. And that's something you can't deny.
Click to expand...


Wow, Monetary Stimulus via QE has been one huge failure when you consider what its intended purposes were.

Liberals like tp point to the Stock Market as a example of a Obama economic success. A closer look actually reveals a economy thats still on life support

It also reveals a Stock Market absolutely disconnected from the economy.

Corporate profits are sky high because they've chosen to cut Cost and do more with less, not because they've responded to a increase in demand that would coincide with a REAL recovery.

QE has knocked down their borrowing cost to next to nothing which they've taken great advantage of. They've used it to wipe out old debt and increase Productivity without HIRING.

You want a honest evaluation of our current economic conditions ? Look where all those profits are being spent.

Their buying back their shares or sitting on their dollars and NOT using them to expand and hire.

They're NOT pumping their Profits back into this economy. They're not investing in expansion, or growing in ways that would add new jobs.

And its not because they're " Rich and greedy " and its not because they " hate Obama ".

Its because after 6 years and 7 Trillion in new debt its still too risky for them to invest their principle back into a economy that STILL has to be propped up with Quantitative easing.
 
dogtowner said:
Yes since the 17 and octogenarian didnt count. so if the now 18 year old doesnt go to college and cant find a job we grow one in not in the work force. if not no change.
Click to expand...

You need to look up how the lfpr is computed. Obviously, you don't know and have been mislead.
 
DA60 said:
'The New Jobs Report Is Pure Fraud'

The New Jobs Report Is Pure Fraud | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...

The labor force participation rate itself is problematic as an economic indicator because it doesn't distinguish between those permanently excluded from the labor force (i.e. permanently disabled, retirees, etc.) and those who have only temporarily "dropped out". Nor does it in itself show anything, as it does not provide any understanding as to why it is what it is at. In other words, to even make the argument, you must first have to show that the LFP decline since 2000 has been due to cyclical influences and not a long term trend.

Regarding the job age thing, I don't even really understand the point of the argument. And, again, there is no explanation provided in the data as to why that's true. Neither the Blaze article or the ZeroHedge article explain that. And I'd say that's kind of important to using it to make an argument.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
You said, "to build", a hotel.
Click to expand...

... the economic impact of building a pipeline v. building a hotel. The point was (and is) in terms of job creation, the Keystone Pipeline is much to do about nothing.... Even if you just want to focus on the build... the Keystone pipeline creates about as many jobs as five major hotels.
 
DA60 said:
'The New Jobs Report Is Pure Fraud'

The New Jobs Report Is Pure Fraud | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...

Ok, let's go through the falsehoods: "First, the reason unemployment dropped to the fantasy level of 5.9% is that 315,000 more Americans dropped out of the labor force."
The labor force did drop, but by 97,000 not 315,000. Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

"Most of them dropped of unemployment to get on welfare, food stamps, or disability…"
There is no way to know that. The number of disabled in the Labor Force actually increased www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/captain6.htm

Hourly wages did drop as claimed, but by 1 cent/he. Weekly wages increased.

It is correct that the number of employed age 25-54 dropped, all the loss was in the 45-54 age group. 25-34 and 35-44 did gain jobs. Www.bls.gov/news release/empsit.t09.htm
 
'And finally, putting it all in context, here is the reason for the drop in the labor force participation rate. Apparently someone forgot to tell those 55 and older they are retiring in droves.'

Participation%20rate%20age%20group.jpg


"Hiring Grandparents Only": 230K September Jobs Added In 55-69 Age Group; 10K Lost In Prime, 25-54 Group | Zero Hedge


I don't know if this graph is true or not...I assume the source is the Bureau of Lying - er - Labor Statistics.

But if it is, it sure blows away the notion Obamaite's/others claim that the LFPR is dropping primarily because American's are retiring.
 
Last edited:
Age%20September.jpg


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...-were-added-55-69-age-group-10k-lost-prime-25


Now this chart is definitely accurate (although I thought the 230K number was all Americans over 55. This chart lists then as 55-69).

Well...if you can believe the Bureau of Lying Statistics (BLS) household survey. Oops...I should say Bureau of Labored - er - Labor Statistics.


No matter what, IMO, these are pretty pathetic numbers (along with the drop in average hourly wages) for a 'great' or even 'good' labor report.

How Obama-lovers/Keynesians can say that a labor report that LESS of the prime money making group of American workers (aged 25-54) are employed is a good report staggers the mind.

The ONLY age group that gained 'jobs' were teenagers and over 55's.

And the whole country is making less on average, per hour then they were in August.

IMO, anyone that says this is a good report is either ignorant and/or macroeconomically delusional.
 
Last edited:
According to a report from and/or posted on the BLS website (from 1999), the peak earning year's for men (and I assume for women as well) is 45-54.

Men’s earnings at peak at age 45-54 : The Economics Daily : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So how did this prime earning years group fare in September's labor report?

Ummm...not too good.

169,000 less American's in their peak earning years were employed in September then in August.

So...of all the groups on this household survey...the group that appears to have lost by FAR the most 'jobs' is the group that is in their peak earning years?

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


The more I study this labor report, the worse it looks.



Btw, for the heck of it, I though I would look at how this peak earning year group has fared since Obama took office.

Since January 2009, the 45-54 age group have lost 1,420,000 from their ranks!!! And America was supposed to be in a recovery for many years now.

Obama's/the Fed's policies are, IMO, systematically destroying the prime earning's age group in America.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
page 16


Finally, once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.
 
Last edited:
beefheart said:
Wow, what a deeply sourced post.

You just hate good financial news that is good for this nation because Obama is president. Derangement.
Click to expand...

No I just know they are fudging numbers just like they do with inflation, and that you are an obamabot
 
pinqy said:
The secretary of labor has no access to BLS data. The BLS Commissioner is a presidential appointee, but in off years. Dr Keith Hall was appointed by Bush in 2007 and continued to serve under Obama until 2012. He was not replaced until 2013.

The UE rate did drop to 7.8 forSeptember 2012 (published in October), but the October data was released in November, 4 days before the election and the rate went up to 7.9%. The September rate was not revised...you made that up.
Click to expand...
Bush appointed lots of people from across the isle, to tout hpw he could work with the other side...Lot of good that did him.

On the numbers being revised after the election, I remember an article speaking to that. I'm in my big truck right now typing on the phone. I'll look fpr it and post it if I can find it.
 
j-mac said:
Bush appointed lots of people from across the isle, to tout hpw he could work with the other side...Lot of good that did him.

On the numbers being revised after the election, I remember an article speaking to that. I'm in my big truck right now typing on the phone. I'll look fpr it and post it if I can find it.
Click to expand...

Was this it?

'Did The BLS Give Obama A Major Election 2012 Gift?

Just one month before the 2012 election, the Obama campaign received a major illegal campaign contribution from the Commerce Department. The Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported on October 5, 2012 that the nation’s unemployment rate suddenly dropped sharply over the prior month, from 8.1% to 7.8%. That supposedly ended the longest period in the nation’s history with unemployment over 8%, except for the Great Depression, which occurred under President Obama.

Just before the election. How convenient.

That was totally unbelievable at the time, and I and others said so then. In my Forbes column the very next week, “President Obama’s Unemployment Still Stuck at 14.7%,” I noted how inconsistent the supposed unemployment drop was with other contemporaneous economic data. The sharp unemployment drop supposedly resulted from a total of 114,000 new jobs created in September, 2012, according to the Establishment Survey of business payrolls of the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the Obama Administration had been emphasizing throughout its first term. But economist John Lott noted at Foxnews.com that the working age population had grown by 206,000 in September, 2012. With normal labor force participation during a recovery from a steep recession, that would have required 138,000 new jobs that month, just to keep pace with population growth, let alone to reduce the unemployment rate.'

Did The BLS Give Obama A Major Election 2012 Gift? - Forbes


Or this...

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report | New York Post

I am not sure how true the entire second article is. But it does at least raise serious concerns that there is data manipulation going on at the BLS.


Frankly, IMO, to assume that the White House (no matter who occupies it) NEVER puts pressure on the BLS to legally fudge the numbers during important times AND that the BLS's head bureaucrats NEVER oblige such requests has to be incredibly naive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom