Printable View
8.1%
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
We add only 96,000 jobs and yet suddenly another 368,000 "quit looking for work" so the unemployment number can drop from 8.3% to 8.1%?
What a bunch of crap.
There are 89 million people in the US that supposedly aren't in the workforce.
Labor participation dropped to 63.5%, the lowest in 30 years.
unemployment goes down?
BULLSHIT!
hilarious
and the figure would be even more astonishing if it also includes those who're under-employed imho. of college graduates from 06 onward, only a half are now employed at full time jobs while the others are either working part-timely or completely unemployed imho
sad times.
The private sector continues FAILING to overcome the Banksters Great Depression.
Repug blind, rigid ideology: govt can't create jobs or wealth.
nothing hilarious about it, if ur unemployed and not registered with the SS program, htf do they know ur unemployed, then there are some with savings in the bank who cant qualify for unemployment benefits that doesnt add to the unemployment rate...
Growth in Food Services and Drinking Places Employment as a Share of Nonfarm Employment Growth
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/graphi...=Google+Reader
Bad Jobs on the Rise
The decline in the economy’s ability to create good jobs is related to deterioration in the bargaining power of workers, especially those at the middle and the bottom of the pay scale. The restructuring of the U.S. labor market – including the decline in the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage, the fall in unionization, privatization, deregulation, pro-corporate trade agreements, a dysfunctional immigration system, and macroeconomic policy that has with few exceptions kept unemployment well above the full employment level – has substantially reduced the bargaining power of U.S. workers, effectively pulling the bottom out of the labor market and increasing the share of bad jobs in the economy.
In this paper, we define a bad job as one that pays less than $37,000 per year (in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars); lacks employer-provided health insurance; and has no employer-sponsored retirement plan. By our calculations, about 24 percent of U.S. workers were in a bad job in 2010 (the most recently available data). The share of bad jobs in the economy is substantially higher than it was in 1979, when 18 percent of workers were in a bad job by the same definition. The problems we identify here are long-term and largely unrelated to the Great Recession. Most of the increase in bad jobs – to 22 percent in 2007 – occurred before the recession and subsequent weak recovery.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/public...=Google+Reader
Union busting works!
right-to-work states have lower avg wages than other states.
VRWC/ALEC/globalization devastating The Mythical American Dream
Time to make a change.
I'm Yonivore and I approved this message.
change to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I think the first thing he'll change is lifting the moratorium on Gulf drilling, actually stop blocking the XL Pipeline, and abating regulations that are driving the coal industry out of business. Then, he'll call the dogs off of their fracking witch hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
You'll see positive employment numbers in pretty short order.
Change to the awesome shape this country was in when Bush left office, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Which of their policies assure a comeback?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
And what needs to comback? the 1% and corps are doing extremely well.
what are the plans to solve the ongoing residential and commercial real estate crisis?
or is Yoni's politics nothing but Blind Faith?
Trickle down economics, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Cutting taxes on the rich has always been the antidote this country needs.
None of them; but neither do Obama'sQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Thanks, presumably, to Obama - so why do you focus so much attention on the Republican's pandering to that group?Quote:
And what needs to comback? the 1% and corps are doing extremely well.
I haven't heard any; and what Obama and co. has tried has failed.Quote:
what are the plans to solve the ongoing residential and commercial real estate crisis?
Not just Yoni; just about ALL who have chosen a side. If OUR guy wins things will get better; if THEIR guy wins things will be the WORST EVER; END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOWWWWW IT!!!!! (we've all seen, and many believe, this rhetoric spewing from both sides - several here certainly believe that about the "other" side; I could name names, but you all know who you are)Quote:
or is Yoni's politics nothing but Blind Faith?
In the end; nothing changes; two sides of the same coin, after all. It, literally, doesn't matter which of the two politicians running for president win. Choose your side; argue vehemently for it, and against the other; YOU are part of the problem (a useful idiot), not the solution.
yep, since ST Ronnie cut (his) capital gains to 15% 30+ years ago, trickle down has assured that real household incomes have remained essentially flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward
dubya's tax cuts for the rich and estate taxes saw almost no job growth 2001-2008, lowes job growth since 1945.
you do realize that the pipeline concerns were first raised the Governor of Nebraska.... right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
so Romney will disregard Nebraska's concerns and build it anyway...ooookQuote:
OMAHA, Neb. - The company that wants to build a pipeline to transport crude oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries said Wednesday it has revised its proposed new route through Nebraska to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.
The latest proposed Keystone XL pipeline route is TransCanada's second attempt to satisfy state environmental regulators. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality said in July that the initial revised route crossed land that could erode easily and passed near unconfined aquifers that supply drinking water to residents and livestock.The new TransCanada proposal tweaks that April plan, making the route veer east shortly after entering the state to avoid more of the sensitive areas in Keya Paha County, east again around the town of Clarks and west around the town of Western to avoid drinking water well fields.
Nebraska regulators said they would review the new proposal and hold a public hearing on it before submitting a recommendation to the governor, possibly by the end of the year. The governor will decide whether to approve the new route for the pipeline.
Environmental groups have long opposed the pipeline project because of concerns that it could contaminate underground and surface water supplies, increase air pollution around refineries and harm wildlife.
Bold Nebraska's Jane Kleeb said the latest new route doesn't go far enough to address her group's concerns about potential erosion of the Sandhills and groundwater contamination, so she believes state and federal officials should block the pipeline.
"The route still crosses the aquifer and it still crosses sandy soil, so all of the same concerns remain," Kleeb said.
TransCanada spokesman Grady Semmens said only 36 miles of the 275 miles of pipeline in Nebraska would cross sandy soils, and the new route entirely avoids the area Nebraska defined as the Sandhills.
The pipeline is designed to carry oil from Canada across Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. TransCanada also has proposed connecting it to the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota.
by Josh Funk - Sept. 5, 2012 06:34 PM
Associated Press
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...#ixzz25nV0VOUo
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...#ixzz25nUWLhZd
The Real Estate market is turning around for the first time in years and jobs in the area are growing. Whatever Obama has done to stimulate that industry, it's a lot better than what Bush did seeing that Bush's policies led to the biggest Real Estate crash ever.
:lol "Drill Baby, Drill!" is still what Republicans think will fix this economy
You picked the least significant of the three but, it's still important.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
The biggest employment gains will be realized in lifting the moratorium on Gulf Drilling and stopping the assault on coal. I'm sure Romney will work with the local States through which the pipeline travels.
Then, Romney should look at the various policies, in the current administration, he determines to be stifling economic growth and start lifting them. Instead of "unchaining Wall Street," lifting the oppressive boot of government that is causing business to park their investment dollars due to the uncertainty of what Obamacare and other costly measures, promised by Obama, in a second term.
He could work with Congress -- hopefully all Republican but, that may not be necessary, to get Obamacare repealed. If you recall, a few of the Democrats had to be bribed into voting for that piece of shit; I believe the two most prominent examples were given names like "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase." Romney could begin by rescinding any executive waivers granted to gain support and see if those companies and States will pressure Congress to reverse the madness.
I think he should then revamp the Department of Energy to stop the black hole of "investing in green energy."
Those are just a few things he could do to turn things around fairly quickly.
You need to research who was in charge of much of the mortgage industry when the shit hit the fan. You'll see names like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, the idiot that also built the wall between the FBI and Intelligence before 9-11, Jamie Gorelick, and yes, even Barack Obama. You'll also encounter entities such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Countrywide Mortgage, ACORN. And, then, you'll see Democrat legislation such as the 1996 amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward
You'll also see that President Bush tried, multiple times, to bring some sanity to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but, each time, he was shot down by Democrats in Congress. The videos of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Jamie Gorelick claiming there were no fiscal problem with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are legendary.
Real estate crisis, blah blah blah. Culture trumps ideology. The root cause was corruption and it was bipartisan. Corrupt governments and corrupt systems mean that countries fail. When democracy becomes this broken-down and inefficient it needs to be suspended for a little while. You have to hit the reset button and wait for the computer to reboot. Under my plan, we will move the needle on culture back towards national greatness.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Drilling for oil in the Gulf is going to solve the unemployment crisis singlehandedly. Habeeb it. :lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Meh. It is simply the way unemployment is measured, and the way it has been measured for quite some time.
Why does it concern you?
:sleepQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Yes, the obvious answer for the problems of democracy is to get rid of democracy. :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Homeland Security
Fucking dolt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Coal is being killed by the success of gas drilling, and the plummeting price of natural gas.
Even if you got rid of all the requirements for pollution controls that makes coal power plants expensive, the fuel will still end up being the kicker, because THAT is the largest compenent of the NPV costs for new power plants.
Unless you want to pick winners and losers..
Are coal jobs worth more than natural gas jobs? Is that what you are saying?
You want government intervention in the market to save the coal jobs over the natural gas jobs?
Pot meet KettleQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Ouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I am, in constrast to hackjobs like Yoni, more than willing and able to point out the flaws in the Democratic party, and when Democrats fuck up.
If you would like, hell, I'll even find one or two things and start threads on them.
I might be a bit pissed off, and have a definite viewpoint, but please don't insult me like that.
Yonivore is 100% hack all the time, every time, on every issue. Predictable and dishonest and misleading if he thinks he can make his case by doing so and get away with it.
Do you really think I have so little disregard for the truth as to be as bad as Yonivore?
Meh, it won't be the end of the world if Romney gets elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
We will muddle through regardless of how incompetant his administration will be, just as we muddled through Obama's and Bush's.
There have been a couple of threads here about just how undeducated about economics both ends of the spectrum can be when you get some hot button issue.
I think the real delusion is the mindless cynicism that tries to equate both sides as equal somehow.
Republicans are driving out moderates, and actively punishing them.
Democrats aren't, that I am yet aware of.
Fell free to provide examples of the Democrats driving as hard to the left as the Republicans are driving to the right, if you want to support your "no difference" thesis.
I suppose that nominating John McCain and Mitt Romney in consecutive Presidential elections could be seen as "driving to the right" from the perspective of a treasonous fucking communist.
Did you miss the first 2 years of the Obama administration? Did you miss the results of the 2010 election?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I would not consider their nominations to be "driving to the right".Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeland Security
Swing and miss, jackboot. Truncheon 101 is thataway, your backswing needs work....>>>>>>>
I would consider the unseating of a lot of establishment Republicans by tea party zealots to be driving to the right, as well as some of the more strident bullshit that seems to be seeing the light of day.
No, I did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
What specifically are you referring to?
It's okay guys because Obama is president.
Your claim that dems aren't driving out moderates.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Removing establishment politicians can be a good thing. We have had about 15-20 years of suck. Maybe it is time for new blood from both parties?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I get the whole tea party politicians are crazy. But for the most part, the actual crazy ones don't seem to win. For example, Ted Cruz was the "Tea Party" candidate. If you look at Dewherst and Cruz with any honesty at all, they are the identical candidate. That is why people didn't rush out and vote for Dewherst. Its voting for the same person.
The real crazy people like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin don't win.
More like America's "GO BACK TO 2008 TEAM"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Homeland Security
hooohummm...
Since President Obama's economic policies ended the George W. Bush gifted Great Recession, halted staggering monthly job losses that approached 800,000, and returned the nation to positive job growth in record time he has enjoyed a job creation rate that exceeds the 1st term job creation record of ANY Republican President in history.
Below is a table which shows job creation by President for ALL terms served. Reagan's record in his first term in office was 109,000 per month. Reagan inherited stellar job creation from President Carter and cut it in nearly in half. President Obama inherited the deepest drop in job loss since the Great Depression and has since September of 2010 outperformed every Republican on record.
When examining the record of job creation we must look where President Obama started out to fully understand how far he has taken us as a nation down the road to recovery.
Democratic Record:
Truman +86,500
Kennedy +100,000
Johnson +191,666
Carter +216,666
Clinton +241,666 ----------------------
+174,192 Jobs gained per month
Republican Record:
Eisenhower +36,458
Nixon +117,708
Reagan +167,708
G. H. Bush +52,000
G. W. Bush +19,895
-----------------
+78,754 Jobs gained per month
read full article: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com...-creation.html
nothing to see here folks, move along...
States of Depression
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/op...sion.html?_r=1Quote:
One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.
Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.
Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.
And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.
Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.
Under President Obama, however, the dire fiscal condition of state and local governments — the result of a sustained slump, which in turn was caused largely by that private debt explosion before 2008 — has led to forced spending cuts. The fiscal straits of lower-level governments could and should have been alleviated by aid from Washington, which remains able to borrow at incredibly low interest rates. But this aid was never provided on a remotely adequate scale.
This policy malpractice is doing double damage to America. On one side, it’s helping lose the future — because that’s what happens when you neglect education and public investment. At the same time, it’s hurting us right now, by helping keep growth low and unemployment high.
We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.
And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.
One implication of this comparison is that conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be.
More important, however, there is now an easy answer to anyone asking how we can accelerate our economic recovery. By all means, let’s talk about visionary ideas; but we can take a big step toward full employment just by using the federal government’s low borrowing costs to help state and local governments rehire the schoolteachers and police officers they laid off, while restarting the road repair and improvement projects they canceled or put on hold.
rhetoric...
1). Public sector (government) employment increased under Bush by just over 4%, and has declined under President Obama by approx. 3%.
2). Private sector employment under Bush declined by approx. 1% over 4 years. Yet in just 2.5 years since the Great Recession bottomed out after President Obama's economic policies took hold have increased by approx. 4%.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6It2jD8hJ7...ersusObama.jpg
This graph again documents the typical historical record of comparing Republican Economic results against Democratic economic results. Republicans overspend and under perform. As I've stated repeatedly before only two things grow when Republican economic principles are in place, namely unemployment and the national debt. A snapshot look at this comparison shows:
Willard Romney has stated he wants to re-implement the Bush economic policies, the same policies that greased the skids for the 2nd greatest economic decline in American history. Romney wants bring his MBA education and experience to shape the American economy. We have had two other Presidents with such experience and education, Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. How'd that work out?
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html
Republicans want to run the economy into the ground with spreading Democracy overseas and building 1 billion dollar embassies while Democrats want to run the economy into the ground with giving women free abortions, free babies, free birth control, free tampons, and giving any American that is a part of a minority group everything from cradle to grave. That pretty much sums it up.
the key number in public sector losses is 300K teachers fired, mostly fired in Repug states, which is nothing but All Politics, All The Time (education be damned).
Pretty simple, but wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
Repugs want to protect and enrich the 1% and UCA.
I'm not sure what the Dems want to do, but whatever, the Repugs will stop them.
shit just bounces back after hitting the ground and it has nothing to do with whatever obama did imho. the real estate bubble had existed since long before bush took office and it just happened to blow out under bush's administration, which had just as little to do with bush's fault as the 9/11 attack tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by Edward
"the real estate bubble had existed since long before bush took office"
LONG before?
You Lie, and nearly all of the bubbles, housing and credit, happened on Repug watch.
Dubya even shut down Spitzer and 19 states that tried to get predatory lending, a huge factor in the buble, stopped.
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/
I still don't get why everyone is so obsessed with "jobs". It's a wrong metric anyway.
Half Of America’s Unemployed Workers Are Collecting No Unemployment Benefits
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...oyment0912.png
While it is natural to assume that most unemployed workers are eligible for UI benefits, at most, only two‐thirds of all unemployed workers received state or federal UI benefits at any time during the economic downturn. Today, less than half the nation’s 12.8 million unemployed workers receive some form of UI. Approximately 3.2 million collect state UI benefits, covering the first 26 weeks of unemployment, while an additional 2.3 million job seekers receive federal UI under the EUC08 program.
This is occurring because federal benefits phase out as states’ jobless numbers decline. Because states are seeing their jobs numbers improve — to levels that are by no means adequate — federal benefits are phasing out. That leaves workers with only 26 weeks of state benefits to use, which leaves them 13 weeks shy of the average duration of unemployment.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...efits-half-no/
Facts show Democrats are job creators
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76338.html
Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i6Z8zEz5YBL0.jpg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ite-house.html
I'm doing pretty good though.
your fooled if you give him credit for the job creation measured by only quantity rather than quality. the fact is, most jobs created during obama's administration are shitty ones that most people don't want to take, but sometimes have to take because of living pressure. while the number of jobs overall has been increasing, the decent jobs are gradually disappearing and the middle class is shrinking as a result. it's like converting a $100 cash into a handful of cashes of smaller values, don't get yourselves deluded into thinking obama has done something to "create" any jobs tbh
I try to tip 20% on all those jobs Obama has created unless they give really shitty service.
Establishment Republicans being replaced by other establishment Republicans who pretend they're outsiders hardly represents a shift to the right, tbh....Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Blaming Obama for corporations killing, exporting well-paid jobs? GMAFB
The shittier the jobs and salaries, the more $Bs for mgmt and investors.
The more the temp/contract/outsourced jobs, less "wasted" on salaries, benefits, the more $Bs for mgmt and investors.
Wanna get a huge bonus? Layoff Ks or 10Ks of people.
I didn't know you were suppose ti tip government employees, and why should I? They always give bad service.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
the obvious Repug strategy has been/is to maintain/worsen the economy and jobs, the all round pain (for the 99%), as bad a possible for Nov 2012
Obstruct and Exploit
Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.
There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you'd never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy "works," that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.
But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president's policies have failed.
Think of it as a two-part strategy.
First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy,
then exploit the economy's weakness for political gain.
If this strategy sounds cynical, that's because it is. Yet it's the G.O.P.'s best chance for victory in November.
But are Republicans really playing that cynical a game?
You could argue that we're having a genuine debate about economic policy, in which Republicans sincerely believe that the things Mr. Obama proposes would actually hurt, not help, job creation. However, even if that were true, the fact is that the economy we have right now doesn't reflect the policies the president wanted.
Anyway, do Republicans really believe that government spending is bad for the economy? No.
Right now Mitt Romney has an advertising blitz under way in which he attacks Mr. Obama for possible cuts in defense spending - cuts, by the way, that were mandated by an agreement forced on the president by House Republicans last year. And why is Mr. Romney denouncing these cuts? Because, he says, they would cost jobs!
This is classic "weaponized Keynesianism" - the claim that government spending can't create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it's the lifeblood of the economy. And no, it doesn't make any sense.
What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so he's had his chance.
The short answer is, you've got to be kidding.
As anyone who was paying attention knows, the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes - but that doesn't change the reality that for most of Mr. Obama's time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the president's plans but by Republican stonewalling.
The most important consequence of that stonewalling, I'd argue, has been the failure to extend much-needed aid to state and local governments. Lacking that aid, these governments have been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers and other workers, and those layoffs are a major reason the job numbers have been disappointing. Since bottoming out a year after Mr. Obama took office, private-sector employment has risen by 4.6 million; but government employment, which normally rises more or less in line with population growth, has instead fallen by 571,000.
Put it this way: When Republicans took control of the House, they declared that their economic philosophy was "cut and grow" - cut government, and the economy will prosper. And thanks to their scorched-earth tactics, we've actually had the cuts they wanted. But the promised growth has failed to materialize - and they want to make that failure Mr. Obama's fault.
Now, all of this puts the White House in a difficult bind. Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness.
And what happens if the strategy of obstruct-and-exploit succeeds? Is this the shape of politics to come? If so, America will have gone a long way toward becoming an ungovernable banana republic.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...&sub=Columnist
Palin won Governor.Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
Bachmann... wins reelction to Congress consistantly.
You just dont encounter the word "Truncheon" every day.:toast:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Economy adds 114k jobs in September and unemployment rate drops to 7.8%. Romney can't use the old unemployment has stayed above 8% for x months anymore. CC is likely to stroke out.
Not stroking out, just have zero faith in their numbers. You want to celebrate a mythical 7.8% unemployment, be my guest.
189,000 jobs are added in August and the unemployment is 8.1%
Only 166,000 jobs added in September and the unemployment drops to 7.8%?
:lmao
Published on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 8:15 AM ET
September 2012 ADP National Employment Report
®
Employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 162,000 from August to
September, on a seasonally adjusted basis. The estimated gains in previous months were revised
lower: The July increase was reduced by 17,000 to an increase of 156,000, while the August
increase was reduced by 12,000 to an increase of 189,000.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector expanded 144,000 in September, down from
175,000 in August. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector added 18,000 jobs in
September. Manufacturing employment rose 4,000, while construction employment rose 10,000,
the strongest since March when mild winter weather was boosting construction activity. The
financial services sector added 7,000 jobs in September, marking the fourteenth consecutive
monthly gain.
Employment on large payrolls—those with 500 or more workers—increased 17,000 and
employment on medium payrolls—those with 50 to 499 workers—rose 64,000 in September.
Employment on small payrolls—those with up to 49 workers—rose 81,000 that same period. Of
the 64,000 jobs created on medium-sized payrolls, 10,000 jobs were created by the goodsproducing sector and 54,000 jobs were created by the service-providing sector.
For more information, please visit the methodology section of the ADP National Employment
Report website at http://ADPemploymentreport.com/methodology.aspx.
According to the labor department report, U6 is unchanged at 14.7%.
No celebration here. I have little faith in the numbers as well. I just find it amusing that Romney lost his 8% talking point. Now he has to talk about the shrinking workforce, which is a much more difficult concept for the uneducated masses that may actually vote for this moron to grasp :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
:lmao
Quote:
Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric caused a stir after the numbers were released, tweeting "Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can't debate so change numbers."
So do you think they actually modified the way they do the numbers this month in an effort to manipulate the electorate? Is this your conspiracy theory
... famous for having converting GE into a financial machine, gutting much of its technical prowess and killing 1000s of GE jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
It's funny how Republicans cheer for the economy to do poorly under Democratic leadership and get pissed whenever an unemployment number that's been calculated the same way for decades goes down. Would you have preferred it went up? Stayed the same?
Some of it is subconscious and some of it is deliberate, but it's clear Republicans in this country care more about Obama failing than America thriving.
What kind of bullshit accusation is that? Nobody is cheering the awful job numbers. It's a fucking national tragedy that 15% of the people in the US are unemployed or underemployed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
Boy, that was convenient.
That's great if completely unsurprising. At the same time, how do you reconcile that with the rhetoric that the GOP, it's flagship station at FOX, and their presidential candidate in particular decrying the economy on the basis of said figures. You also completely unsurprisingly give them a pass by ignoring that but I was wondering specifically what your stance was. Do you:Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
A) Understand feel that they are full of shit and willingly unrepresentative.
B) Feel they have a good point even it completely contradicts your statement of above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718Quote:
The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number.
The falling jobless rate had been a function as much of the continued shrinking in the labor force as it was an increase in new positions.
But the government said the total number of jobs employed surged by 873,000, the highest one-month jump in 29 years. The total of unemployed people tumbled by 456,000.
Underemployed? This word has made a comeback during the Obama years..lol
So are you insinuating that Ms. Solis misrepresented data?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
How can their report say the economy added 114,000 jobs from August to September, yet also say that from August to September 873,000 more people had jobs?
It's the defacto employment descriptor, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
But, I suppose alot hinges on the definition of underemployed. That seems to be fairly plastic term.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
I think the numbers are suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
No shit. Retail and food service hires two people and gives them each 30 hours a week and no benefits instead of the "old" way of hiring one person for 40 hours a week with benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
The Obama years are really the Banksters' Great (Jobs) Depression years.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Zero hedge calling it "Complete preelection 'massaging' farce"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...xpectations-82
The data points come from specific sources. They are not subjective ie they count actual data like unemployment filing and tax withholdings.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
So what figures do you think that they are lying about?Quote:
Who is counted as employed?
Employed persons consist of:
All persons who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.
All persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-owned enterprise operated by someone in their household.
All persons who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs, whether they were paid or not.
Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:
On vacation
Ill
Experiencing child-care problems
Taking care of some other family or personal obligation
On maternity or paternity leave
Involved in an industrial dispute
Prevented from working by bad weather
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
Workers expecting to be recalled from layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).
Do you feel that they are falsifying survey data or government figures?
Care to post something that's not a blog with contributors named testosteronepit and tylerdurden?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
That's the way the corporations want it. with 37 straight quarters of international trade deficits and govt policies that encourage US companies to offshore (aka "globalize") jobs and bring back the products tarriff free can be corrected, but UCA will block any such corrections.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Most of recently created jobs are in the sub $20/hour range, some near $10/hour, NOT quality middle class jobs. They same was true with 10Ms jobs created in the 1990s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesregrevtec.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by First Link from Google Search of "BLS unemplyment revision"
That was so difficult to find.
Big Picture Time!
The Betrayal of America's Middle Class Was a Choice, Not an Accident
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11...d-james-steele
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona..._United_States
That's a cool link, WH.:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
counting casual and part time jobs as full time jobs...lol watta joke
Kind of feel sorry for Obama. IF these numbers haven't been manipulated in some way - they APPEAR, just based on the convenience of them, that they HAVE been manipulated in some way. THAT seems to be the story; "These don't add up"..."How convenient"....etc.......
Makes them look desperate.
Now, I'm gonna call my (must be previously) unemployed friends. Since several of them must have jobs; THEY can buy tonight for a change.
Is someone with a part time job employed or unemployed?Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY
Cool or really depressing :cry ?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
in the simplistic unemployment rate, and new jobs number, there's almost never any mention of wage level for new jobs
The low-wage jobs explosion
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/31/news...obs/index.html
During recovery, most new jobs offer low wages
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_1...fer-low-wages/
Isn't it always like that? I thought that was why the number gets adjusted seasonally.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I'm well aware of why the number shrunk. That was my point. Romney now has to make the more difficult argument of explaining the shrinking labor force and he can no longer use the unemployment rate above 8% meme. Seems like you get that. Now it is just DarrinS and Jack Welch that seem to think Obama is directly manipulating the numbers in an effort to win at all costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Is there some sort of certificate that could prove these numbers? I heard conservatives were big into certificates.
Quote:
The Labor Department, based on a broad survey of employers, said 114,000 jobs were added in September.
But the unemployment rate itself is based on a separate "household survey," which showed a whopping 873,000 new jobs in September.
"This must be an anomaly," former Congressional Budget Office director Doug Holtz-Eakin said in a snap analysis of the numbers. "It is out of line with any of the other data.."
Holtz-Eakin noted the household survey is smaller, suggesting it is not as reliable. He called estimate of 873,000 new jobs "implausible."
Quote:
Liberal economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called the September rate drop "almost certainly a statistical fluke."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Here is an interesting search though that offers some more detailed insights:
http://www.npr.org/templates/archive...ngId=127414874
Very interesting bit by a rather sophisticated simulation from Moody's analytics:
Even If You're All-Powerful, It's Hard To Fix The Economy
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...e-economy#more
Doesn't matter which guy gets the President nod.Quote:
Zandi is the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, and he built his model to predict what's going to happen in the real world. When he plugs what he thinks is going to happen in the real world, his model spits out a pretty grim result: Four years from now, the unemployment rate will be 6.6 percent. That's lower than today, but still much higher than the 5 percent rate that was typical before the recession.
...
"What's happening is the economy is reaching its new limits," Zandi says.
This is something I hadn't really appreciated before. When you go through a really big, catastrophic recession, it's not always possible to fix things.
Millions of people lost their jobs in the recession. At the same time new high school and college grads started looking for jobs.
The economy just can't grow fast enough to absorb the backlog. Zandi says we'll have an extra million people looking for jobs, and unable to find them.
"We dug ourselves a huge hole," Zandi says, "Its gonna take a generation to get completely out of it."
If you are concerned about "jobs", you should simply flip a coin and vote by that outcome.
Luckily there are a lot other things that presidents can do that matter. Supreme court justices, for example.
"The economy just can't grow fast enough to absorb the backlog"
backlog? how about just adding enough jobs to keep up with population growth?
If Gecko/Ryan get in + a Repug Congress, their promised austerity will make the jobs and depression worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE
lol your next post about it being a fluke.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
lol rooting for failure
lol you fail