• 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!

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
No one pays …

Happily ignored.

>>Where do you think …

Happily ignored.

>>It has been almost 7 years left office, don't you think it is time to stop diverting from the Obama record?

You made this comment in response to a quote from yerself. I don't think I've ever seen that.

>>Said no such thing, just quoted other liberals like you.

You said : "It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush." I thought maybe you were agreeing that the Bush administration lied and performed poorly.

>>There isn't a performance number from Bush that Obama has beaten.

"Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?," Forbes, May 18, 2013

"The Obama Recovery Has Been Miles Better Than the Bush Recovery," Mother Jones, Dec 6, 2014


>>Prove it using BLS data?

No problem. There are two sets of data: the
establishment survey (CES) and the household survey (CPS).

>>Obama inherited 143 million working Americans

134 million in CES; 142.2 in CPS.

>>that is now 147 million so where are those 12.3 million jobs??

No, it's now 141.4 in CES, and 148.5 in CPS.

So total nonfarm (CES) is up by 7.4 million, while total employment (CPS) is up 6.3 million.

The 12.3 million figure is the difference between the CES number in Feb 2009 — 129.6 — when the effects of the Great Recession were still playing through the labor market, and today's figure. I guess that's 11.8 million. I stand corrected, although I think I made a mistake somewhere.

With 223,000 jobs added in April, private-sector employment has grown for 62 consecutive months — the longest streak on record — to the tune of 12.3 million jobs over that time. — "5 Things You Should Know About the April Jobs Numbers : U.S. Department of Labor Blog," from Labor Secretary Tom Perez's blog​

Now to be fair, the difference between the CPS number in Dec 2009 — 138 — and today's figure is only 10.5 million. So you can choose that one if you want.

>>You can't so I expect an apology.

I'll pass.
 
Last edited:
Happily ignored.

>>Prove it using BLS data?

No problem. There are two sets of data: the
establishment survey (CES) and the household survey (CPS).

>>Obama inherited 143 million working Americans

134 million in CES; 142.2 in CPS.

>>that is now 147 million so where are those 12.3 million jobs??

No, it's now 141.4 in CES, and 148.5 in CPS.

So total nonfarm (CES) is up by 7.4 million, while total employment (CPS) is up 6.3 million.

The 12.3 million figure is the difference between the CES number in Feb 2009 — 129.6 — when the effects of the Great Recession were still playing through the labor market, and today's figure. I guess that's 11.8 million. I stand corrected, although I think I made a mistake somewhere.

With 223,000 jobs added in April, private-sector employment has grown for 62 consecutive months — the longest streak on record — to the tune of 12.3 million jobs over that time. — "5 Things You Should Know About the April Jobs Numbers : U.S. Department of Labor Blog," from Labor Secretary Tom Perez's blog​

Now to be fair, the difference between the CPS number in Dec 2009 — 138 — and today's figure is only 10.5 million. So you can choose that one if you want.

>>You can't so I expect an apology.

I'll pass.

Don't know how to do the quotes, do you? Just like you don't know how to do any research. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury are the official sites for data and you ignore them all. I have done my job here and nothing is going to change your mind. Gruber was right. I assure you one of these days you will indeed grow up and realize what a fool liberalism has made out of you. The electorate got it this past election, when will you?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2013

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170 144303 143568 144386 144586
2014 145206 145301 145796 145724 145868 146247 146401 146451 146607 147260 147331 147442
2015 148201 148297 148331

Looks like 6 million to me at a cost of 8.2 trillion dollars added to the debt. Obama loses the House in 2010, didn't regain it in 2012, and lost the entire Congress in 2014. The world is a mess and this is the worst recovery in the history of our nation. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance buying what you want to believe. Some people will never get it and you appear to be in that group
 
If unemployment was at its lowest level and wages were actually rising then I would be excited.

The Obama administration has been FANTASTIC for creating low paying jobs. We need a President who is fantastic at creating small business owners, but that would require someone who accepts that equality does not exist in reality.
 
And there probably would have been, if it weren't for the Great Bush Recession in between then and now. Maybe you didn't notice.

No, the recession was the fault of the Democrats, who stood in the way of reform of Fannie and Freddie. That's what precipitated the financial crisis. Maybe you remember that.
 
No, the recession was the fault of the Democrats, who stood in the way of reform of Fannie and Freddie. That's what precipitated the financial crisis. Maybe you remember that.

Fannie and Freddi didn't cause the mortgage crisis. Borrowers, lenders, underwriters, investment banks, ratings agencies, insurance entities, etc... all had skin in the game. Trying to pass the blame on the GSE's is entirely short-sighted, not to mention void of data analysis.
 
Fannie and Freddi didn't cause the mortgage crisis. Borrowers, lenders, underwriters, investment banks, ratings agencies, insurance entities, etc... all had skin in the game. Trying to pass the blame on the GSE's is entirely short-sighted, not to mention void of data analysis.

Wrong. Fannie and Freddie pumped billions and billions of toxic loans into the financial system which was tied together by credit default swaps and other derivatives. The Democrats refused to reform Fannie and Freddie, which were buying up subprime loans from everyone at government regulatory behest thereby creating an incentive to underwrite them. When the housing market went south it all came down.
 
Wrong. Fannie and Freddie pumped billions and billions of toxic loans into the financial system which was tied together by credit default swaps and other derivatives.

Perhaps you are unaware of what Fannie and Freddie actually do.

The Democrats refused to reform Fannie and Freddie, which were buying up subprime loans from everyone at government regulatory behest thereby creating an incentive to underwrite them. When the housing market went south it all came down.

ZandiFF.JPG


The data tells a different story.
 
And I am telling you it's not always the "low taxes/low barriers/low wages" are result of "neo-liberal" policy which by the way also spans 3rd way economics which even Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and a bunch of PMs in Australia support.
I understand perfectly that BC pushed neolibereal policy, whether it was NAFTA, the massive cuts to poverty programs or deregulation under Rubin and Greenspan...all of that increased wealth inequality.

Rather there are situations in which industries collapse because of overproduction, excess pollution and sometimes naturally it happens (creative destruction). They have just as much as role in the issues at hand. When these industries collapse they put pressure on wages, tax receipts, and bring in low barriers as well. You think Cable TV is gonna survive with the advent of higher broadband which will allow you more ability to watch streaming tv? Absolutely not. People will lose their jobs because of this technology.. just as Oyster and Crab industry in Maryland collapse due to excess pollution and over production.
Bullchit, steel, auto, electronics....these industries did not decline in the US because of "domestic overproduction", imports of these items more than made up for the declines.

There are underlying issues that have to be discussed outside of your "neo-liberal" meme. How do you get people to invest in cities and industries if you have no low tax rate carrot to hang in front of them? How do you get someone or company to make a long term investment in an area if you can't promise them taxes will stay the same during Governorships (Dem or Republican)? How can you say "Hey, invest here but we might raise your taxes despite the fact you pay $15hour and invest millions into environmental clean"?
By again eliminating the policy of "race to the bottom" which allows the downward pressure on wages and domestic production. You further augment the desirability of a population by investing in education.

Nobody wants to invest in uncertainty, people and companies that invest for the long term and the type of investment that sustains local economies look 30 years out in projecting costs. If the costs don't add up, they aren't gonna invest and they'll take those jobs overseas. That's not gonna change and it's certainly not gonna change with Obama's TPP push.
TPP is not, by and large, a trade agreement. It is a further extension of copyright and patent protections for corporations, giving them greater rights to sue individual states govts when protection laws are enforced. It is NAFTA on steroids as far as that is concerned, so if you are against TPP (which any good little Hayekian should hold an opposite position to yours), then how can you argue in favor of neoliberalism? The TPP is neoliberalism, it is the freeing of corporations.

You have to start thinking out of box. Long gone are the taxes of protectionist.
No, they exist....in other countries, it is that we have allowed neoliberalists to write our US industrial policy.
 
How do you explain the FACT that I grew up a Democrat, voted for Democrats for national office for about 20 years, and now realize that the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama don't represent the Democrat Party that I knew and supported?
Um, because you are the epitome, the prime example of the Southern conservative.
 
Um, because you are the epitome, the prime example of the Southern conservative.

Wrong, grew up in Ohio and Indiana, only moved to TX in 1992. Was always a conservative and the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have absolutely no conservative principles. The Democrat Party left me. Check with JFK and find out the difference.
 
If unemployment was at its lowest level and wages were actually rising then I would be excited.

The Obama administration has been FANTASTIC for creating low paying jobs. We need a President who is fantastic at creating small business owners, but that would require someone who accepts that equality does not exist in reality.
Hmm...don't the vast majority of small businesses create lower wage jobs? I believe the gap is @ 22% since small businesses have less capital.
 
you don't know how to do any research

I figure I do a decent job of it. I've been reading the monthly reports from BLS for fifteen years.

>>BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury are the official sites for data and you ignore them all

Ignore? I posted links to the data on employment. That comes from the BLS. I help collect it. As far as the debt figures go, yes, there is arguably a problem with borrowing from Social Security. My solution to that would be to allow the economy to continue to recover for another year or two, and then do what Bill Clinton did in 1993 when he raised the top income tax rate by a few points. With effective tax reform (closing loopholes and lowering rates on incomes below $250K — 98% of American households), and a foreign policy that avoids unnecessary wars that cost trillions of dollars, we should be able to get a better handle on debt and deficits.

Btw, it looks like I was wrong about the interest rate paid to the Trust Fund for the money that's moved from one government account to another. You had asked:

Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the interest on the SS funds being borrowed?

It comes from general revenues. And the rate paid in the latest round of borrowing appears to be 1.875% (Nominal Interest Rates on Special Issues) I could be wrong. I'm sure an expert on the federal budget like you could inform me on this.

About half the national debt is held by various government retirement accounts, principally the SS Trust Fund. That certainly does mean that we will need to manage our affairs responsibly. But where else should that money be invested?

>>The electorate got it this past election, when will you?

You like that line, don't you? Republicans have a majority in the House because of severe gerrymandering that likely will not survive the 2020 census. There's some chance they will lose the majority in the Senate in 2016 when the seats being contested will favour the Democrats, as they favoured Republicans in 2014. I suppose you want to use that line as often as you can while it lasts.

I'm a committed liberal and strong Democrat, but I can analyze economic data without being influenced by that. Sometimes that means I like the numbers, and sometimes it means I don't like them. But my preferences don't change them.

Otoh, you decide how to interpret them based on yer partisan and ideological bias. Case in point: I posted the figure you get comparing the CPS number from Jan 2009 to today — 6.3 million. That's the same one you get from comparing that ugly mass of figures you posted. But as someone who understands a little bit about the way the labor market and the broader economy operate, I realize that the 4.2 million jobs lost in the first eleven months of Obama's first term, according to that survey (4.3 million if you use the CES data), cannot properly be accounted for by his economic policies. The Great Recession was not something that was going to turn around in a few months. It took a couple of years. This was the problem with the Great Depression. The two events cannot properly be compared to the business cycle recessions we experienced between the Second World War and 2008. Do you not understand that?

>>Looks like 6 million to me at a cost of 8.2 trillion dollars added to the debt

You have repeatedly made this argument — that the figures for the debt can somehow be directly related to the number of jobs added during the recovery. I can say I don't expect you'll be hearing from the Nobel Committee for that particular "insight." The debt figures are the result of many things, including tax policy, federal spending, actions by the Federal Reserve, the international marketplace, etc. Of course, the US labor market is similarly affected by a great many factors, including decisions made by businesses and individuals about hiring and working.

All a president can do, and be held responsible for, is getting things moving in the right direction and keeping that going. It is indisputable that this has occurred under Obama. A steady recovery in the labor market, steady GDP growth, a steady decline in deficits. It looks like it's gonna keep on going. We'll see what effect that has on the elections.

>>this is the worst recovery in the history of our nation

Again, you fail to account for the fact that this was a near-collapse of the financial sector, not a business cycle recession. Apples and oranges. Obama's policies helped us avoid another Great Depression that involved severe unemployment and led to a world war.

>>You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance buying what you want to believe. Some people will never get it and you appear to be in that group

Look in the mirror. That's what's there to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, grew up in Ohio and Indiana, only moved to TX in 1992. Was always a conservative and the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have absolutely no conservative principles. The Democrat Party left me. Check with JFK and find out the difference.

You don't have to grow up in the South to hold to Southern conservative values and voting patterns, Ohio and Indiana have lots of conservatives, you admit to "always being a conservative"....which is exactly what I'm saying.
 
Hmm...don't the vast majority of small businesses create lower wage jobs? I believe the gap is @ 22% since small businesses have less capital.

You are forgetting that the business owner is substantially increasing their earning potential over what they would get working to put food on someone elses table.
 
I figure I do a decent job of it. I've been reading the monthly reports from BLS for fifteen years.

>>BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury are the official sites for data and you ignore them all

Ignore? I posted links to the data on employment. That comes from the BLS. I help collect it. As far as the debt figures go, yes, there is arguably a problem with borrowing from Social Security. My solution to that would be to allow the economy to continue to recover for another year or two, and then do what Bill Clinton did in 1993 when he raised the top income tax rate by a few points. With effective tax reform (closing loopholes and lowering rates on incomes below $250K — 98% of American households), and a foreign policy that avoids unnecessary wars that cost trillions of dollars, we should be able to get a better handle on debt and deficits.

Btw, it looks like I was wrong about the interest rate paid to the Trust Fund for the money that's moved from one government account to another. You had asked:



It comes from general revenues. And the rate paid in the latest round of borrowing appears to be 1.875% (Nominal Interest Rates on Special Issues) I could be wrong. I'm sure an expert on the federal budget like you could inform me on this.

About half the national debt is held by various government retirement accounts, principally the SS Trust Fund. That certainly does mean that we will need to manage our affairs responsibly. But where else should that money be invested?

>>The electorate got it this past election, when will you?

You like that line, don't you? Republicans have a majority in the House because of severe gerrymandering that likely will not survive the 2020 census. There's some chance they will lose the majority in the Senate in 2016 when the seats being contested will favour the Democrats, as they favoured Republicans in 2014. I suppose you want to use that line as often as you can while it lasts.

I'm a committed liberal and strong Democrat, but I can analyze economic data without being influenced by that. Sometimes that means I like the numbers, and sometimes it means I don't like them. But my preferences don't change them.

Otoh, you decide how to interpret them based on yer partisan and ideological bias. Case in point: I posted the figure you get comparing the CPS number from Jan 2009 to today — 6.3 million. That's the same one you get from comparing that ugly mass of figures you posted. But as someone who understands a little bit about the way the labor market and the broader economy operate, I realize that the 4.2 million jobs lost in the first eleven months of Obama's first term, according to that survey (4.3 million if you use the CES data), cannot properly be accounted for by his economic policies. The Great Recession was not something that was going to turn around in a few months. It took a couple of years. This was the problem with the Great Depression. The two events cannot properly be compared to the business cycle recessions we experienced between the Second World War and 2008. Do you not understand that?

>>Looks like 6 million to me at a cost of 8.2 trillion dollars added to the debt

You have repeatedly made this argument — that the figures for the debt can somehow be directly related to the number of jobs added during the recovery. I can say I don't expect you'll be hearing from the Nobel Committee for that particular "insight." The debt figures are the result of many things, including tax policy, federal spending, actions by the Federal Reserve, the international marketplace, etc. Of course, the US labor market is similarly affected by a great many factors, including decisions made by businesses and individuals about hiring and working.

All a president can do, and be held responsible for, is getting things moving in the right direction and keeping that going. It is indisputable that this has occurred under Obama. A steady recovery in the labor market, steady GDP growth, a steady decline in deficits. It looks like it's gonna keep on going. We'll see what effect that has on the elections.

>>this is the worst recovery in the history of our nation

Again, you fail to account for the fact that this was a near-collapse of the financial sector, not a business cycle recession. Apples and oranges. Obama's policies helped us avoid another Great Depression that involved severe unemployment and led to a world war.

>>You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance buying what you want to believe. Some people will never get it and you appear to be in that group

Look in the mirror. That's what's there to be seen.

Learn how to use the quote function. Until then I am done with you
 
You are forgetting that the business owner is substantially increasing their earning potential over what they would get working to put food on someone elses table.
But your point was that you wanted to see wages increase in macro sense and this would be done by increasing the number of small businesses. If the only person seeing income increases is the owner, you are not creating much of increase in wages in the macro, you are doing what you lamented, the increase in the creation of lower wage jobs...that don't have to have the larger min wages, that are not full time, that do not have ins benefits. Small bus is great, but it has to be anchored to and in support of larger business.
 
But your point was that you wanted to see wages increase in macro sense and this would be done by increasing the number of small businesses. If the only person seeing income increases is the owner, you are not creating much of increase in wages in the macro, you are doing what you lamented, the increase in the creation of lower wage jobs...that don't have to have the larger min wages, that are not full time, that do not have ins benefits. Small bus is great, but it has to be anchored to and in support of larger business.

Huh? Not all businesses are mom and pop hamburger stands or gas stations. They can be construction companies, logging companies, trucking companies, small manufacturing companies, etc etc etc. Those are all good paying jobs being created. Thats a LOT of bread being won for a lot of families.
 
Huh? Not all businesses are mom and pop hamburger stands or gas stations. They can be construction companies, logging companies, trucking companies, small manufacturing companies, etc etc etc. Those are all good paying jobs being created. Thats a LOT of bread being won for a lot of families.
Now you are flip-flopping your argument, I already pointed out that the vast majority of jobs created by SB are lower paying jobs, the gap is @ 22%. You countered by saying it creates richer owners, sidestepping the wage gap which is due to lower capital levels. I'm afraid we are done.
 
Now you are flip-flopping your argument, I already pointed out that the vast majority of jobs created by SB are lower paying jobs, the gap is @ 22%. You countered by saying it creates richer owners, sidestepping the wage gap which is due to lower capital levels. I'm afraid we are done.

So what? Would you rather have someone making $10 an hour at Walmart or $10 an hour working as a secretary at a small business??? Id rather have small businesses expand and more families enjoy wealth than fewer. If the business is successful what do you care? The community benefits from that business being around. Im sure all the workers in those $40k+ jobs in small businesses like putting clothes on the kids back.
 
So what? Would you rather have someone making $10 an hour at Walmart or $10 an hour working as a secretary at a small business??? Id rather have small businesses expand and more families enjoy wealth than fewer. If the business is successful what do you care? The community benefits from that business being around. Im sure all the workers in those $40k+ jobs in small businesses like putting clothes on the kids back.
A new Kauffman Foundation study shows that small businesses have historically paid workers significantly less than large firms, with small firms closing the gap to its slimmest margin in 2001, when their employees earned on average 78 percent of the salaries paid to workers at large firms. But the gap has been growing steadily ever since, and by 2011, that figure dropped to 66 percent.

Big firms pay 50 percent higher wages than small businesses, study shows - The Washington Post

Again, your point was that Obama has "created" so many low wage jobs (as opposed to the Bush Recession causing so many good paying state and local govt jobs to be eliminated) and your cure is to have more SB jobs that pay less than larger firms and only enrich the owners.
 
Again, your point was that Obama has "created" so many low wage jobs (as opposed to the Bush Recession causing so many good paying state and local govt jobs to be eliminated) and your cure is to have more SB jobs that pay less than larger firms and only enrich the owners.

Why wouldnt I want more people to be rich? I think we need MORE rich people, not fewer.
 
Learn how to use the quote function. Until then I am done with you

I can't think of a better reason to continue to post that way. But don't let me discourage you from posting in response to me. Another thing I can't think of … is someone more easily defeated in a debate. Not because you disagree with me. I'm sure there are many valid ways to counter my arguments. You just do a really lousy job of it. Yer too busy slamming me as a "blind liberal" who "can't do any research." I "need to grow up." I won't say that I don't descend to that level of worthless comment. But I'm confident that I don't start it.

Tell me WHY Obama should be held responsible for the job losses in 2009. WHY should the money in government retirement accounts not be used to purchase Treasury bonds? WHY is Obama responsible for the big increase in the national debt when federal spending has been growing so slowly by historical standards?

federal_spending_by_pres_Reagan_Obama.jpg
 
I think we need MORE rich people, not fewer.

I think we need fewer poor people. I figure an upper-middle-class lifestyle is just fine. Perhaps I'm not ambitious enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom