Gallup: Unemployment Rate Jumps from 7.7% to 8.9% in 30 Days

Dapper Andy said:

Many of these businesses did hire. They just hired part time employees.

Others just stretched the employees they had.
Yeah but we both know that's B.S. You would be out of business almost immediately if you suddenly had to compensate your employees considerably more with no way of recouping that expense.

Click to expand...

Suddenly? As in the middle of a contract? Yeah possibly.
For the purpose of this conversation, we were discussing an 18 month notice at a bare minimum.
I would simply start bidding jobs higher, but so would my competitors.

Edit: To expand on this, while I am sure there are some, I can not think of a business model that differs so drastically from my own they they are completely incapable of simply raising their prices to offset any increase in expenses. After all, the important thing here is that their competitors are in the same boat.
The only situation I can think of, is if their competition is International.

Painter said:

I am a Commercial Painting Contractor in the state of Florida.
And I hire based on whether or not I have things to paint. If I need another painter I will hire one regardless of what the government does. And if I do not, then I will not.

Click to expand...

Do you advertise?

I've never known a business owner who didn't factor in taxes and government regulation/expenses

Not one

Bronson said:

Do you advertise?

I've never known a business owner who didn't factor in taxes and government regulation/expenses
Not one

Click to expand...

All of the expenses you mention are "factors" to my bottom line.
But why would I not hire a painter if I need a painter?
Or why would I hire a painter if I did not need one?
This would either result in me painting it myself, working weekends, and working after dark, or it would result in me having to find busy work for people I don't need.
Why would I hire based on expense rather than based on need?

I think you confuse the consideration of business expansion with normal business operations.
For example, my big concern is worker's comp rates, not taxes or health care. Worker's comp rates make me think twice before taking on contracts that are larger than the scope of my experience. But they do not effect my need or lack there of for normal operations.

Painter said:

All of the expenses you mention are "factors" to my bottom line.
But why would I not hire a painter if I need a painter?
Or why would I hire a painter if I did not need one?
This would either result in me painting it myself, working weekends, and working after dark, or it would result in me having to find busy work for people I don't need.
Why would I hire based on expense rather than based on need?

I think you confuse the consideration of business expansion with normal business operations.
For example, my big concern is worker's comp rates, not taxes or health care. Worker's comp rates make me think twice before taking on contracts that are larger than the scope of my experience. But they do not effect my need or lack there of for normal operations.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you just contradicted what you said previously

Taxes and expenses are NEVER the slightest consideration.

Click to expand...

Do you advertise?

What business owner doesn't want his business to grow?

Painter said:

I would simply start bidding jobs higher, but so would my competitors.

Click to expand...

OK but the question was what you would do if you weren't able to recoup the additional expenses.

You might be able to raise prices but not everyone can. Most of these chains are in business because they're significantly cheaper then their competitors. Walmart, Home Depot, Applebees, etc. just can't raise their prices and expect to stay in business very long. You might be OK with these "evil" corporations going out of business but surely you can appreciate their own sense of survival.

Bronson said:

Bush passed Obamacare?

Who knew

Click to expand...

Did unemployment start under Obama? Who knew. People were having trouble finding work BEFORE Obama was president.

Which Republican voted for Obamacare?

Obama's economic policies are directly responsible. All of his promises turned out to be lies. According to his own economic team we should be below 6% unemployment right now.

Click to expand...

Did Unemployment start just under Obama? No. Again, this is nothing new and it has been getting worse for YEARS before Obama.

TheNextEra said:

Did unemployment start under Obama? Who knew. People were having trouble finding work BEFORE Obama was president.

Click to expand...

Yea and people were having trouble finding work during The Great Depression too. FDR's failed policies made sure of that. In fact his failed policies extended the misery, just like Obama's failed policies are making it worse now.

Unemployment is going up under Obama. Not down.

President Obama's economic policies have failed. The people who believed they were voting for a Socialist Hope and Change utopia were delusional. Obama is nothing more than a used car salesmen. Still giving speeches and campaigning, pretending like he has nothing to do with any of this. His supporters continue to pimp his snake oil with no shame.

Did Unemployment start just under Obama? No. Again, this is nothing new and it has been getting worse for YEARS before Obama.

Click to expand...

Reagan inherited what some consider worse economic circumstances and at this time in his presidency a million jobs had been created in one month. Unemployment went from 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan.

The President's economic policies matter. Obama's economic policies are a massive failure.

Bronson said:

Yea and people were having trouble finding work during The Great Depression too. FDR's failed policies made sure of that. In fact his failed policies extended the misery, just like Obama's failed policies are making it worse now.

Unemployment is going up under Obama. Not down.

President Obama's economic policies have failed. The people who believed they were voting for a Socialist Hope and Change utopia were delusional. Obama is nothing more than a used car salesmen. Still giving speeches and campaigning, pretending like he has nothing to do with any of this. His supporters continue to pimp his snake oil with no shame.



Reagan inherited what some consider worse economic circumstances and at this time in his presidency a million jobs had been created in one month. Unemployment went from 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan.

The President's economic policies matter. Obama's economic policies are a massive failure.

Click to expand...

You are proving my point, that unemployment has been rising under Bush AND Obama. I've already said Obama is a lousy president, but the decline in workforce has been going on for longer than Obama was president.

Only partisan hacks try to blame ONE president on ALL the problems in America.

Bronson said:

Sorry but you just contradicted what you said previously

Click to expand...

No, only if taken out of context.
The first statement was in relation to hiring for an existing business model.
The second as in relation to profit.
The third, (about workers comp), was in relation to expanding outside of the scope of experience. Such as a business that typically does 4 story commercial bidding on a 22 story high rise.

Dapper Andy said:

OK but the question was what you would do if you weren't able to recoup the additional expenses.

You might be able to raise prices but not everyone can. Most of these chains are in business because they're significantly cheaper then their competitors. Walmart, Home Depot, Applebees, etc. just can't raise their prices and expect to stay in business very long. You might be OK with these "evil" corporations going out of business but surely you can appreciate their own sense of survival.

Click to expand...

I did not realize "that" was the question.
You have a legitimate point for the most part, however you might want to check into the profit Walmart is raking in if they are your example. Walmart could literally double the pay of every single employee and barely be affected. Some of it's primary owners are of the richest people on the entire planet.
Additionally, Walmart makes this huge profit in part because YOU and I pay for their employees welfare and food stamps. Another issue entirely.

Painter said:

No, only if taken out of context.
The first statement was in relation to hiring for an existing business model.
The second as in relation to profit.
The third, (about workers comp), was in relation to expanding outside of the scope of experience. Such as a business that typically does 4 story commercial bidding on a 22 story high rise.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to take you out of context. I'll go ahead and quote you completely

I can't speak for other types of business, or any big business with 50+ employees for that matter. But for my small business, if I need another employee, I hire one. And if I do not need another employee, I do not hire one.
Taxes and expenses are NEVER the slightest consideration.
I do not hire someone just to have them around, because I like them, or in advance of having a need for them. Either I need more people or I do not.
I've never understood the argument about taxes and such vs hiring.
The same happens in the reverse too... If my taxes are cut I will simply have more money, but I am not going to hire an additional employee just to sit around and talk to me. Either I have work for them or I don't. And If I do have work for them, they will be making me money regardless of what my taxes and expenses are, because my competitors will have those same expenses.
I will not argue that it is this way for all business. But it certainly is for mine.

Click to expand...

The context of this has to do with Obamacare and it's effect on businesses.

Can you elaborate what your specific position is on this? Are you trying to claim Obamacare has no effect on business behavior in regards to hiring? I've never known a business (especially a small one) that didn't pay very close attention to what taxes and regulations the Government are either passing or thinking of passing. Especially if I want my business to grow and prosper.

You want your business to grow and prosper right?

Bronson said:

I'm not trying to take you out of context. I'll go ahead and quote you completely



The context of this has to do with Obamacare and it's effect on businesses.

Can you elaborate what your specific position is on this? Are you trying to claim Obamacare has no effect on business behavior in regards to hiring? I've never known a business (especially a small one) that didn't pay very close attention to what taxes and regulations the Government are either passing or thinking of passing. Especially if I want my business to grow and prosper.

You want your business to grow and prosper right?

Click to expand...

This is starting to become redundant.
You proved my point by quoting me.
It is crystal clear that my first statement regarding expense was about hiring.

You did not quote the second or third but the next was about expense as it relates to profit.

And now your trying to pretend that I was making broad statements when I was in fact talking about my own small business and even made disclaimers to this fact. Hell, you even quoted my disclaimer, then pretended it did not exist.

Painter said:

I did not realize "that" was the question.

Click to expand...

I specified the condition clearly enough.

You have a legitimate point for the most part, however you might want to check into the profit Walmart is raking in if they are your example. Walmart could literally double the pay of every single employee and barely be affected. Some of it's primary owners are of the richest people on the entire planet.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely nonsense.

Additionally, Walmart makes this huge profit in part because YOU and I pay for their employees welfare and food stamps. Another issue entirely.

Click to expand...

Walmart's profits have nothing to do with welfare and food stamps. They and their employees agree on pay within the guidelines of the law. I would certainly do away with welfare and food stamps, or at least severely modify both, but that has nothing to do with Walmart.

cpwill said:

Underemployed, eh? Wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that companies across America are reducing hours and only creating part-time jobs in order to avoid costly Obamacare mandates?

Click to expand...

Plus the fact that people are being forced to take jobs for which they are overqualified in order to make some money that otherwise, they would not have, or that unemployment has run out for.

Dapper Andy said:

That's absolutely nonsense.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? check this out then:
The Richest People in America - Forbes
4 of Walmart's owners rank #6, #7, #8, and #9 for the top wealthy in America.

Dapper Andy said:

Walmart's profits have nothing to do with welfare and food stamps.

Click to expand...

Getting a bit off topic now, but it has everything to do with it.
The only reason Corporations get away with paying such low pay that can not support anyone in the slightest, is that we have welfare and food stamp programs that pick up the slack. If their employees had to live behind the store and steal for food, that would not last long.
You can not be for low pay and for no welfare without being for societal collapse. If you want to get the working poor off welfare, then you must be for a living wage. And if you are not for a living wage, you must be for more welfare. Can't have it both ways, not in practical reality.

Painter said:

Oh yeah? check this out then:
The Richest People in America - Forbes
4 of Walmart's owners rank #6, #7, #8, and #9 for the top wealthy in America.

Click to expand...

Am I going to go through this BS every time I respond to you?

I was clearly commenting on your statement that Walmart could double each employee's wage while barely be affected.

Getting a bit off topic now, but it has everything to do with it.
The only reason Corporations get away with paying such low pay that can not support anyone in the slightest, is that we have welfare and food stamp programs that pick up the slack. If their employees had to live behind the store and steal for food, that would not last long.
You can not be for low pay and for no welfare without being for societal collapse. If you want to get the working poor off welfare, then you must be for a living wage. And if you are not for a living wage, you must be for more welfare. Can't have it both ways, not in practical reality.

Click to expand...

That's just liberal bull****.

People got by just fine before you decided Walmart or I was responsible for other people.

Painter said:

Didn't businesses get another full year extension for this? I would not expect them to lower hours a year and a half in advance.

Anyhow, I am not even sure you are wrong. I just wanted to say one thing to this...
The only people I know of personally that have had their hours cut recently were affected by the Sequester. (3 people)

Click to expand...

Businesses were already gearing up for it before the extension was announced. My local supplier is an O'Reilly store. The manager there was hiring part timers last month and reducing full time people to part time. There are now 2 full time positions and 30 part timers in that store. This was not his idea, it was a corporate decision. the idea behind it is that they want to put a stake in the ground and establish themselves as the primary job by setting up work schedules now rather than wait for everybody else to do it and have to find people who have available work time around their other job. In the end traditional homes (you remember those, they consisted of a woman and man married, possibly with children) will likely consist of 3 part time jobs and no health insurance. Since part time jobs typically pay less than full time, many people will have 50 hours a week in 2 part time jobs with extra commute times between the two in order to take home what they did last year with a 40 hour a week full time job, and still no health insurance. Indeed in order for that local store to keep key employees while cutting their hours their hourly wage was not reduced... but there has been a pay increase freeze put in place for the next 2 years. Yeah Obama!

Didn't see that coming? Bull****. They knew this was going to happen from the beginning because contrary to popular belief they are not stupid. They intentionally redistributed available work hours while causing reduction in employer provided benefits in order to grow government dependency. And the current batch of idiot children barely old enough to vote re elected them thinking it wasn't going to affect them. HAHAHAHA, welcome to your future, wage slaves. Good luck with those student loans...

Painter said:

This is starting to become redundant.
You proved my point by quoting me.
It is crystal clear that my first statement regarding expense was about hiring.

You did not quote the second or third but the next was about expense as it relates to profit.

And now your trying to pretend that I was making broad statements when I was in fact talking about my own small business and even made disclaimers to this fact. Hell, you even quoted my disclaimer, then pretended it did not exist.

Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult for you to have a conversation?

I didn't pretend anything. I'm asking. You've made specific statements. When pressed to clarify, you're pushing back. Not answering any questions.

What point are you trying to make? Every business (especially small) factors in taxes and government regulations when deciding whether to expand.

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Umm ... the BLS also tracks 8 years and up. That's just not the official unemployment rate. Factor out 16-7 year olds, and the unemployment rate drops, according to BLS data.

At any rate, like it or not, the BLS and not Gallup is the official source for these stats.

Like it or not, Gallup does not use the same standards as the BLS and there's no data to indicate that Gallup is more accurate.

Like it or not, Gallup's non-seasonal data includes college students leaving their summer jobs to return to school.

Like it or not, even Gallup admits their data cannot be compared to the BLS's data.

Like it or not, no matter how much y'all fish for the highest unemployment rate figures you can find, the official unemployment rate is 7.4%. 5% lower than when Obama started.

Click to expand...

Like it or not, I was not arguing with you.

Like it or not, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.

Like it or not, what I said is still true.

Like it or not, I'm done with trying to talk to you. :beam:

cpwill said:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Underemployed, eh? Wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that companies across America are reducing hours and only creating part-time jobs in order to avoid costly Obamacare mandates?

Click to expand...

Cpwill, why do you bother with Gallup?

Has the past major polls they did all show raging problems with their methodology? Compared to the rest, Gallup is an outright joke. Didn't Nate Silver remove them from his calculations because they are so wildly unreliable?

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Umm ... the BLS also tracks 8 years and up. That's just not the official unemployment rate. Factor out 16-7 year olds, and the unemployment rate drops, according to BLS data.

At any rate, like it or not, the BLS and not Gallup is the official source for these stats.

Like it or not, Gallup does not use the same standards as the BLS and there's no data to indicate that Gallup is more accurate.

Like it or not, Gallup's non-seasonal data includes college students leaving their summer jobs to return to school.

Like it or not, even Gallup admits their data cannot be compared to the BLS's data.

Like it or not, no matter how much y'all fish for the highest unemployment rate figures you can find, the official unemployment rate is 7.4%. 5% lower than when Obama started.

Click to expand...

That's like.... almost 0.1% per year!

And it was under 6 for 80% of Bushes term until the left took both houses of congress too.

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Umm ... the BLS also tracks 8 years and up. That's just not the official unemployment rate. Factor out 16-7 year olds, and the unemployment rate drops, according to BLS data.

At any rate, like it or not, the BLS and not Gallup is the official source for these stats.

Like it or not, Gallup does not use the same standards as the BLS and there's no data to indicate that Gallup is more accurate.

Like it or not, Gallup's non-seasonal data includes college students leaving their summer jobs to return to school.

Like it or not, even Gallup admits their data cannot be compared to the BLS's data.

Like it or not, no matter how much y'all fish for the highest unemployment rate figures you can find, the official unemployment rate is 7.4%. 5% lower than when Obama started.

Click to expand...

CalGun said:

And it was under 6 for 80% of Bushes term until the left took both houses of congress too.

Click to expand...

It was 4.2% when Bush and Republicans took power in 2000.

We can play that game all day long. It's probably a better idea to discuss the policies which have resulted in the various changes, rather than timing.

IDK the timing of democrats in control of congress tells us a lot.

Slyfox696 said:

It was 4.2% when Bush and Republicans took power in 2000.

We can play that game all day long. It's probably a better idea to discuss the policies which have resulted in the various changes, rather than timing.

Click to expand...

Seems to me the government proffered unemployment stats are about as accurate and realistic as its Consumer Price Index. They are both smoke and mirrors, NOT connected to reality. Propaganda for the gullible.

CalGun said:

IDK the timing of democrats in control of congress tells us a lot.

Click to expand...

Tells me they came in after Republicans did all the damage. *eyeroll*

What it REALLY tells me is you don't really seem to want to be objective on this topic.