• 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 Jobs Up 290,000, but Jobless Rate Rises to 9.9 %

Didn't they just extend benefits?

I believe they did but some of the unemployed used up all their benefits including extensions and have had their unemployment benefits cut off and dropped out of the labor market. they apparently now are coming back into the market. Now that is my speculation.
 
LOL, now that is funny and typical. Can you tell me how many people lost their unemployment benefits?

Jobless claims were down 7,000 month over month.
 
I believe they did but some of the unemployed used up all their benefits including extensions and have had their unemployment benefits cut off and dropped out of the labor market.

Was it you who stated previously that the labor pool increases as unemployment benefits expire? Can you explain this process to me in greater detail?
 
Was it you who stated previously that the labor pool increases as unemployment benefits expire? Can you explain this process to me in greater detail?

People drop in and out of the labor market. As long as people are getting unemployment benefits they remain in the labor market but once those benefits cease they have a choice to make. Some drop out, others remain looking for jobs. Those that drop our of the market are no longer counted in the number of unemployed but are counted in the discouraged category Eventually they will jump back into the market for various reasons. That increases the labor force.
 
People drop in and out of the labor market. As long as people are getting unemployment benefits they remain in the labor market but once those benefits cease they have a choice to make. Some drop out, others remain looking for jobs. Those that drop our of the market are no longer counted in the number of unemployed but are counted in the discouraged category Eventually they will jump back into the market for various reasons. That increases the labor force.

Care to explain this statement:
The increase in labor force however is due to a number of factors including graduation but also probably to unemployment insurance running out as well.

So my question is, how can the labor force increase when unemployment insurance expires?

Discouraged workers enter the marketplace once again (making them less than discouraged)? Perhaps, but why did you fail to mention it until pressed? I had to point out that those on the "teet" are still in the labor force.
 
Care to explain this statement:


So my question is, how can the labor force increase when unemployment insurance expires?

Discouraged workers enter the marketplace once again (making them less than discouraged)? Perhaps, but why did you fail to mention it until pressed? I had to point out that those on the "teet" are still in the labor force.

Well, by golly, you got me. That was an error, I meant that the labor market decreases when people drop out and grows when they jump back in. You are indeed a legend in your own mind, happy now.

I made a mistake, I apologize, now sue me. Forgot as a typical book smart liberal one has to be extremely specific in dealing with your posts. Any word or any mistake then becomes the issue instead of the thread topic or the actual economic conditions. I will try and be more careful in the future.
 
Well, by golly, you got me. That was an error, I meant that the labor market decreases when people drop out and grows when they jump back in. You are indeed a legend in your own mind, happy now.

I made a mistake, I apologize, now sue me. Forgot as a typical book smart liberal one has to be extremely specific in dealing with your posts. Any word or any mistake then becomes the issue instead of the thread topic or the actual economic conditions. I will try and be more careful in the future.

I am not a liberal, so please do not label me as one because you disagree with me, or because i found inconsistencies in your statements. Given my history in this forum, one can accurately state that i am about as unbiased in regards to the political economy as there is.
 
I am not a liberal, so please do not label me as one because you disagree with me, or because i found inconsistencies in your statements. Given my history in this forum, one can accurately state that i am about as unbiased in regards to the political economy as there is.

I don't see that unbiased posting on your part, not when you post the opinions of biased economists who have an agenda. A truly unbiased poster would offer information from both sides. You have not.

I will admit that I am a partisan poster, I am a partisan conservative, not a Republican and not a Democrat but a Conservative. As stated I used to vote always with the Democrats and did so up to 1980 when all of a sudden the lightbulb went off. I had been supporting an ideology based upon lies, feel good rhetoric and promoting spending in the name of compassion instead of getting compassionate spending. Whether it be the Great Society, FDR's New Deal, the War on Drugs all the words were right but the results never supported the spending. Reagan changed me completely and I haven't looked back since.

Here is something you really need to think about

A Stunning Senior Moment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently, a self-important college freshman attending a recent football game took it upon himself to explain to a senior citizen sitting next to him why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his generation.

'You grew up in a different world, actually an almost primitive one' the student said, loud enough for many of those nearby to hear. 'The Young people of today grew up with television, jet planes, space travel, man walking on the moon. Our space probes have visited Mars. We have nuclear energy, ships and electric and hydrogen cars, cell phones. Computers with light-speed processing... And more.'

After a brief silence the senior citizen responded as follows:

'You're right, son. We didn't have those things when we were young ... so we invented them. Now, you arrogant little sh#*, what are you doing for the next generation?'
 
Jobless claims were down 7,000 month over month.

I think that's the initial unemployment claims for April 24 - May 1. SA Initial claims were down 19000 from April 3.

The advanced insured unemployment rate for April 24th is 3.8%, which would be down .1% from April 17, and down .2% from April 10 and down .1% from April 3. They have not published anything more recent for this category. So for roughly the month we have a drop in .1% of insured unemployment.

Continued Claims:

April 3 : 4,686,000
April 24th (advanced number): 4,594,000

Edit: So roughly 92000 claims expired in April.

ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report

Report r539cy, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor
 
Last edited:
Sure, it's stablized, and there are companies in better position to expand and take advantage of a more-talented-than-normal available pool of candidates, but the real recovery won't occur until business feels relatively safe from the buffoons in Washington and what they might pull next.

You will blame literally everything on the government wont you? It's raining outside, GOVERNMENT DID IT.
 
You will blame literally everything on the government wont you? It's raining outside, GOVERNMENT DID IT.

Replace the word "GOVERNMENT" with "BUSH" and go back in history 2 or 3 years... de ja vu. Why so surprised when the tables are turned?

But hey, if this really IS good news, I'll take any I can get. Unless we stop spending, it's all a temporary feel good measure anyway. Kinda like getting those regular injections of morphine be being told your pain will increase and you'll be dead in 48 hours... the morphine's a welcome respite.
 
Last edited:
Replace the word "GOVERNMENT" with "BUSH" and go back in history 2 or 3 years... de ja vu. Why so surprised when the tables are turned?

But hey, if this really IS good news, I'll take any I can get. Unless we stop spending, it's all a temporary feel good measure anyway. Kinda like getting those regular injections of morphine be being told your pain will increase and you'll be dead in 48 hours... the morphine's a welcome respite.

Isn't it amazing, Bush was responsible for everything that happened during his 8 years and is still responsible for everything happening now during the first two years of Obama? Not sure exactly what Obama did in the Senate but I do know what he is doing now as President, not a lot of difference. He blamed Bush then and still blames Bush. Obama remains in campaign mode which just goes to show he has zero leadership skills.
 
8 million people lost their jobs and all we're supposed to get pumped because a little more than a quarter-of-a-million jobs have been created? I think I'll save my energy for some really encouraging news.
 
Isn't it amazing, Bush was responsible for everything that happened during his 8 years and is still responsible for everything happening now during the first two years of Obama? Not sure exactly what Obama did in the Senate but I do know what he is doing now as President, not a lot of difference. He blamed Bush then and still blames Bush. Obama remains in campaign mode which just goes to show he has zero leadership skills.

In any event, Bush is responsible for whatever he is responsible for.
 
8 million people lost their jobs and all we're supposed to get pumped because a little more than a quarter-of-a-million jobs have been created? I think I'll save my energy for some really encouraging news.

and many of those temporary census jobs.

the economy is going to improve this year. in spite of Washington, not because of it.
 
:rofl

You conservative ideologues - all of you -

What do you Think (its a rhetorical question, I know that none of you actually think)?!! That a recovery is going to start and instantly all the jobs that were lost for 2 + years are going to come back in a month or two?

You're minds are going to explode if the recovery of the labor market picks up even more steam. I know, I know, it sucks to have a recovery starting to have a truly positive effect on the middle class just as we approach the midterm elections, but, them's the breaks, you know.:shrug: I don't know what to say. Does "I'm sorry for your loss" fit? When you say your prayers at night, do you ask God to remember his good Christian Republicans and to make sure that the Greek meltdown affects the United States until at least October 31st?

... "nonfarm payroll employment
has expanded by 573,000, with 483,000 jobs added in the private sector. The vast majority of job growth occurred during the last 2 months."
~85% of the new jobs created are in the private sector. YAY! Employers are starting to see opportunity to make money, and hiring workers to do it for them.

Here is the jobs summary from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
In April, nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000. Sizable employment gains oc-
curred in manufacturing, professional and business services, health care, and in
leisure and hospitality. Federal government employment increased due to the hiring
of temporary workers for Census 2010. Since December, nonfarm payroll employment
has expanded by 573,000, with 483,000 jobs added in the private sector. The vast
majority of job growth occurred during the last 2 months. (See table B-1.)

Manufacturing added 44,000 jobs in April. Since December, factory employment has
risen by 101,000. Over the month, gains occurred in several durable goods indus-
tries, including fabricated metals (9,000) and machinery (7,000). Employment also
grew in nondurable goods manufacturing (14,000).

Mining added 7,000 jobs in April, with most of the increase in support activities
for mining. Since last October, mining has added 39,000 jobs.

In April, construction employment edged up (14,000), following an increase of 26,000
in March. Over the month, nonresidential building and heavy construction added 9,000
jobs each.

Employment in professional and business services rose by 80,000 in April. Temporary
help services continued to add jobs (26,000); employment in this industry has in-
creased by 330,000 since September 2009. Employment also rose over the month in ser-
vices to buildings and dwellings (23,000) and in computer systems design (7,000).

In April, health care employment grew by 20,000, including a gain of 6,000 in hospi-
tals. Over the past year, health care employment has increased by 244,000.

Employment rose by 45,000 in leisure and hospitality over the month. Much of this
increase occurred in accommodation and food services, which added 29,000 jobs. Food
services employment has risen by 84,000 over the past 4 months, while accommodation
has added 18,000 jobs over the past 3 months.

Federal government employment was up in April, reflecting the hiring of 66,000 tem-
porary workers for the decennial census.

Over the month, employment changed little in wholesale trade, retail trade, informa-
tion, and financial activities.

Employment in transportation and warehousing fell by 20,000 in April, reflecting a
large decline in courier and messenger services.

In April, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased
by 0.1 hour to 34.1 hours. The manufacturing workweek for all employees increased by
0.2 hour for the second straight month to 40.1 hours, and factory overtime was up by
0.1 hour over the month. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory em-
ployees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 33.4 hours in April.
(See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings of all employees in the private nonfarm sector increased by
1 cent to $22.47 in April. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have in-
creased by 1.6 percent. In April, average hourly earnings of private-sector production
and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents to $18.96. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised from -14,000
to +39,000, and the change for March was revised from 162,000 to 230,000.
 
:rofl

You conservative ideologues - all of you -

What do you Think (its a rhetorical question, I know that none of you actually think)?!! That a recovery is going to start and instantly all the jobs that were lost for 2 + years are going to come back in a month or two?

You're minds are going to explode if the recovery of the labor market picks up even more steam. I know, I know, it sucks to have a recovery starting to have a truly positive effect on the middle class just as we approach the midterm elections, but, them's the breaks, you know.:shrug: I don't know what to say. Does "I'm sorry for your loss" fit? When you say your prayers at night, do you ask God to remember his good Christian Republicans and to make sure that the Greek meltdown affects the United States until at least October 31st?

~85% of the new jobs created are in the private sector. YAY! Employers are starting to see opportunity to make money, and hiring workers to do it for them.

Here is the jobs summary from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Does it bother you that we again have over 15 million unemployed people and over 1.2 million discouraged workers?

When Obama signed the stimulus plan and proposed spending 842 billion dollars what were your expectations? Don't you think spending that amount of money should have generated better results than we are seeing? When is enough enough for a liberal?

1 1/2 years into the Obama Administration we have greater unemployment, greater growth in govt., continuing growth in our debt, and a President who refuses to take responsibility but instead remains in campaign mode blaming everyone else for his own failures.
 
Does it bother you that we again have over 15 million unemployed people and over 1.2 million discouraged workers?
Yes, but I have no expectation that those jobs are going to come back overnight. It is precisely because of those people that I am glad to see the job market moving in a new direction. That's where getting those people relief starts.
When Obama signed the stimulus plan and proposed spending 842 billion dollars what were your expectations? Don't you think spending that amount of money should have generated better results than we are seeing? When is enough enough for a liberal?
I expected about what has happened. I believe that we were headed for the Great Depression all over again, or worse, and that has been avoided. I believe that the government spending in bailouts and stimulus are the reasons it was avoided. I also agree that we were between a rock and a hard place, with regard to deficit spending and rising debt: We had no choice to make it all worse, but why were we in that position in the first place? Why were we fighting a war that was causing us to deficit spend? Was that war justified? If you're a Republican, you have to say 'yes', I know. I just disagree, and I think the stimulus spending was FAR more justified, worthwhile, and has had more valuable results.

As for expecting more from that amount of stimulus: Yes, I think there are better ways it might have been used to stimulate the economy, but they would have been politically unfeasible. For example, I think we could have simply given a one time windfall to the poorest Americans. Anyone who would have had to spend the money right away, rather than save it. I believe this would have stimulated private enterprise to meet the more robust demand from that sector, and the good effects would have rippled through the economy. But, can you imagine the outrage, the cries of socialism! Well we already have that, but they would have been even more shrill.

1 1/2 years into the Obama Administration we have greater unemployment, greater growth in govt., continuing growth in our debt <snip silly blame game partisan hackery stuff>
So, if McCain (or any other Republican) had been elected, you think that the massive increases in unemployed each month would have stopped at the end of January 2009? Or do you concede that they would have naturally continued on for a while afterward? How many jobs do you think would have been created in the last six months, exactly?

I contend that it would have been about the exact same amount. The reason I believe this is because, quite frankly, I think that any Republican would have followed nearly the same policies as Obama has; because most Republican politicians understand what really works, even if their followers don't. Bush certainly showed that he understood bubble economics, in the end. With the election of Obama, however, they get to pretend that they share their followers' simplistic thinking on the matter and bash Obama for doing what they would have been forced to do themselves.

And by the way, while I don't blame Obama for our current job situation, I likewise don't blame Bush. Err at least not just Bush. Several administrations have caused the environment that set us up for this catastrophe. However, that said, I do think a Democrat is far more likely to do what is necessary, Now, to try and prevent the situation in the future.
 
Dezaad;1058737045]Yes, but I have no expectation that those jobs are going to come back overnight. It is precisely because of those people that I am glad to see the job market moving in a new direction. That's where getting those people relief starts.

It has been 1 1/2 years since the stimulus was signed into law and only 1/3 of it has been spent. Obama lied to the American people and his supporters give him a pass.

there is no question that a stimulus was needed but not this Democrat constituent bailout bill and slush fund.

I expected about what has happened. I believe that we were headed for the Great Depression all over again, or worse, and that has been avoided. I believe that the government spending in bailouts and stimulus are the reasons it was avoided. I also agree that we were between a rock and a hard place, with regard to deficit spending and rising debt: We had no choice to make it all worse, but why were we in that position in the first place? Why were we fighting a war that was causing us to deficit spend? Was that war justified? If you're a Republican, you have to say 'yes', I know. I just disagree, and I think the stimulus spending was FAR more justified, worthwhile, and has had more valuable results.

That is a biased, partisan point of view that is naive at best. Not many other than the true diehard Obama supporters expected so little from so much. You bought the rhetoric and continue to buy the rhetoric. We weren't headed for a depression as TARP prevented that. The Stimulus did nothing but stimulate debt, massive growth of govt., and create a liberal slush fund.

We had a lot of choice, Obama lied to the American people, it is that simple. A true stimulus plan would have been short term, targeted, and provided immediate benefit to the American people. None of that occurred.

As for expecting more from that amount of stimulus: Yes, I think there are better ways it might have been used to stimulate the economy, but they would have been politically unfeasible. For example, I think we could have simply given a one time windfall to the poorest Americans. Anyone who would have had to spend the money right away, rather than save it. I believe this would have stimulated private enterprise to meet the more robust demand from that sector, and the good effects would have rippled through the economy. But, can you imagine the outrage, the cries of socialism! Well we already have that, but they would have been even more shrill.

There you go again, thinking with your heart and not your brain. The poor don't create jobs, the middle class do. The poor don't pay any taxes now, the middle class do. Giving tax cuts to the taxpayers would put that money into circulation right now and a rate cut would have continued on for years. Happens every time. As it is we are actually worse off today than we were when the stimulus passed, almost 3 trillion more in debt.

So, if McCain (or any other Republican) had been elected, you think that the massive increases in unemployed each month would have stopped at the end of January 2009? Or do you concede that they would have naturally continued on for a while afterward? How many jobs do you think would have been created in the last six months, exactly?

I believe had McCain signed the 842 billion stimulus plan it would have been structured differently and more than a third would have been spent.

There is no question that unemployment is a lagging indicator but nothing Obama has done really promoted job growth anywhere but the govt, and all that does is increase debt. Any revenue generated by a govt. employee is offset by the taxes that have to be paid to support that govt. employee.

I
contend that it would have been about the exact same amount. The reason I believe this is because, quite frankly, I think that any Republican would have followed nearly the same policies as Obama has; because most Republican politicians understand what really works, even if their followers don't. Bush certainly showed that he understood bubble economics, in the end. With the election of Obama, however, they get to pretend that they share their followers' simplistic thinking on the matter and bash Obama for doing what they would have been forced to do themselves.

Do you even know what you wrote? You don't know that Republicans would have followed the same policies as Obama. Aside from a necessary stimulus plan, Obama did the exact opposite of Reagan and GW Bush and got the similar liberal economic results, basically nothing positive.

And by the way, while I don't blame Obama for our current job situation, I likewise don't blame Bush. Err at least not just Bush. Several administrations have caused the environment that set us up for this catastrophe. However, that said, I do think a Democrat is far more likely to do what is necessary, Now, to try and prevent the situation in the future.

What the Democrats have done is what they always do, promote massive growth in govt. which totally ignores the foundation upon which this country was built. History shows that govt. isn't the answer because govt. is the problem. Politicians are more interested in keeping their job instead of doing their job.

The growth in govt. is unsustainable as we are seeing in Greece, Italy, Spain, and all those European socialist models that Obama envisions this country should be.

Seems to me that you really don't understand the role of govt and the role of private industry in our economy. I suggest you take a history, civics, and economics course to find out how wrong you really are.
 
It has been 1 1/2 years since the stimulus was signed into law and only 1/3 of it has been spent. Obama lied to the American people and his supporters give him a pass.

What you want him to spend more?
 
What you want him to spend more?

How about spending what he asked for and got approved instead of creating a re-election slush fund?

What a short memory you have and it only has been 1 1/2 years since he asked for the money. What was his request for and what commitment did he make?
 
How about spending what he asked for and got approved instead of creating a re-election slush fund?

What a short memory you have and it only has been 1 1/2 years since he asked for the money. What was his request for and what commitment did he make?

Oh so you do want him to spend spend spend. And you claim to be a conservative. LOL
 
Oh so you do want him to spend spend spend. And you claim to be a conservative. LOL

For years I am sure you called Bush a liar and now you give Obama a pass. As usual you divert from the issue again and the promises and commitments that Obama made when he proposed and signed the stimulus plan
 
For years I am sure you called Bush a liar and now you give Obama a pass. As usual you divert from the issue again and the promises and commitments that Obama made when he proposed and signed the stimulus plan

For years I'm sure you supported Bush's spend, spend, spend and you still do support spend, spend, spend, with Obama...LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom