216,000 jobs created in February

[Conservative]

Gallup is unimpressed....

U.S. Unemployment Up in February

wanna bet the BLS has it going down again?

 

[Si modo]

And, what's the net gain?

It was in the OP.

Well, it sure doesn't include those who are STILL unemployed yet are dropped out of the count.

They are no less unemployed.

And, what is the balance over the last year, two years, three years?

We'll know more about that tomorrow when the BLS report comes out. But seeing as the beginning of the year is traditionally a time for net job losses, starting out the year with two months of job gains probably means we're doing better than last year.

We'll see. Of course, with ALL those who are involuntarily unemployed not being counted, I'm not sure how much the BLS numbers will mean.

 

[Mr Natural]

With cheap, plentiful overseas labor doing the jobs that Americans used to do and make a decent buck at, it's doubtful we'll ever see 4% unemployment ever again.

Welcome to the realities of the 21st century.

 

[pinqy]

Gallup is unimpressed....

U.S. Unemployment Up in February

Gallup is also not particularly accurate and cannot seasonally adjust.

 

[Syphon]

We will hit another recession before things are even considered "ok." I wonder what that recession will look like when we don’t even have a economy worth a shit, yet we get another recession.

What will be more fun for the non partisan bias hacks out there is to watch the Progressives blame it all on Republicans by claiming Reps didn’t let the Dems do anything since Obama took office… Never answering how things were “getting better” despite Reps cock blocking everything Obama and Dems tried to do…

Dems are just as much hacks as the Reps, always blaming the other side while destroying the country together.

if the GOP really didnt like the Dem policies, then they should have just let them run with it for 4 years. then they would really be able to say "i told you so." but instead they took the obstructionist route which makes them look like there are in fact inhibiting growth. they would have either come out on top and retaken all of government back or they would have to blow sand because their policies dont work.

the same thing with the budget. if the GOP really wants a balanced budget, why dont they propose one. then the people can see all the cuts that would need to be make in order to balance the budget. let the people decide if thats what they are willing to do.

Bush and his Reps were Progressive liberals... They grew Government at every turn, they lost big time in the elections for it. Then Dems came into power claiming they would stop Bush, that they would not allow the spending and wars annnnnnnd BAM, Dems helped Bush spend even more because they knew most people are to stupid to realize congress plays a role in things meaning a bad economy would help Dems in 2008.

Now, the issue of course is that Reps won back the house and a fair amount of the Senate because Dems with a Dem President just kept spending as well as keeping or expanding every single Bush policy.

So at best the Reps that were re-elected were doing the bidding of the people. And as I said before, how can Dems blame Reps for obstructing EVERYTHING but then claim it was their policies (that were obstructed lol) that saved us? You want it both ways, because you're an inferior hack.

I blame Bush and the Reps because their policy is/was bad. I blame Dems because their policy is the same as Bush/Reps.... Bad. You see it as Dems good Reps evil, you're small minded and a fool.

We will enter another recession, I hope Obama is in office, it will be fun watching you spin so fast that you pass out from your own stupidity.

Also Rand Paul and 6 others in the Senate put up a balanced budget, but Obama was in favor of a budget that got us downgraded and pushed for it.... Then you blame Reps, as always.

Rand Paul put forth a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, not an acutal balanced budget.

and youre analysis of me is quite off. im actually an independent although i lean Dem. the reason i lean towards the Dems is that GOP policy does not favor the middle class. Since GWB took office the GOP mantra of Reagans low taxes and low regulation will spur economic success has been in place. Now Clinton did sign the repeal of Glass Steagall, but it was put forth by a GOP congress. This was a terrible idea and was one of several factors that led to the financial collapse. Medicare Part D was a good idea, but too bad no one decided to pay for it. The Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 were terrible ideas since they were not paid for either. But then again the GOP believes you dont have to pay for tax cuts with a decrease in spending. Then we have the mismanaged wars. once we decided to go to war with Iraq the GWB administration did not draw up an effective plan for after the initial invasion. They did not plan to fight a guerrilla warfare, IED, suicide bomber type of fight. they also did not have a plan for installing a working democracy. what did this lead to, a country in ruin. we didnt raise taxes or issue war bonds to pay for the war either. it was paid for with borrowed money from China mostly. Medicare D, the tax cuts and the wars and the biggest drivers of our current deficits and debt. then we can move on to how the rest of our allies viewed us. the world view of america declined while GWB was in the oval office. countries did not want to support US causes and we were on basically a go it alone mission. Britain provided some support but the US took the brunt of the cost of the wars as well as the responsibility to try and stabilize the middle east. all of this cost money and lives. much of it unneeded.

now lets look at the current GOP candidates.

Newt promises an unrealistic $2.50 gas, yet doesnt tell anyone how hes gonna change the price of a commodity.
Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard and close every foreign base across the world which would save money, but you would increase unemployment among military families due to reductions.
Santorum wants to use his religion to dictate policy. i.e. prayer in school, no more evolution only creationism, outlaw contraception, repeal row v. wade.
Romney can not present a consistent message on anything. He is for the mass mandate, but against the fed mandate. he was for roe v. wade, now hes against roe v. wade. his job creation record in mass was terrible. he said GM should have gone bankrupt and got no government aid.

all the GOP candidates want to bomb Iran, and said Syria. but apparently helping Libya was a terrible idea. They think we can drill out way to energy independence, when in reality we can not. the call climate change a myth, making the rest of the world mock and laugh at our inability to analyze scientific data and come to the same conclusions they have. they are for ending the dept of education, energy and the EPA. because that will help us close the education gap, become less dependent on oil and have clean air and water. they want to dismantle Medicare and end Social Security as we know it and make it a private enterprise run by wall street.

the GOP held an extension of unemployment insurance benefits hostage over tax cuts for the wealthy.
the GOP walked away from a $4T grand bargain on deficit reduction and increasing the debt ceiling causing our credit to get downgraded.

many of the GOP ideas are actually closer to socialist ideas than anything the dems have done. fixing gas prices, unilaterally repealing the health care law, unilaterally overturn Roe v. Wade.

what good ideas has any of the current GOP candidates offered that would directly help the middle class and the poor? ole Mitt isnt even worried about the poor, the have a "safety net".

 

[pinqy]

And, what's the net gain?

It was in the OP.

Well, it sure doesn't include those who are STILL unemployed yet are dropped out of the count..

Since it's a count of EMPLOYMENT it doesn't count ANY unemployed. Among ADP's clients, there are now 216,000 more employed (seasonally adjusted) than in January.

What part are you having trouble understanding?

 

[Si modo]

It was in the OP.

Well, it sure doesn't include those who are STILL unemployed yet are dropped out of the count..

Since it's a count of EMPLOYMENT it doesn't count ANY unemployed. Among ADP's clients, there are now 216,000 more employed (seasonally adjusted) than in January.

What part are you having trouble understanding?

What part of the word 'net' confuses you so?

 

[Oldstyle]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

So you take the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression and tack those statistics onto the Republican side of your tally...even though the real estate bubble that burst and led the crash was fully as much the fault of Democratic policies as it was Republican...and then you take the inevitable economic rebound from that downturn and credit it to the Democratic side of the tally? But that's not "spin"?

What has Barack Obama done to grow jobs? What's he done to grow the economy? The fact is, whatever growth we've had over the past three years would have occurred no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office. Giving Barry credit for the stock market rebound is ridiculous. He has no plan to grow jobs. He has no plan to grow the economy. He has no plan to combat higher energy costs and in fact wants to see them get higher. He has no plan to keep manufacturing jobs here in the US. He has no plan to help the housing sector.

The fact is...we've had three years of flowery speeches and further promises of "Hope & Change" with very little to back it up. We're still being told that "green energy" will be what our new economy is going to be based on even as the green energy industries that this Administration has propped up with our tax dollars struggle and go belly up. We've got more people on long term unemployment than at anytime since the Great Depression and this President STILL doesn't have a viable plan to address that. Someone needs to tell Barry that extending unemployment benefits isn't "dealing" with joblessness...it's a bandaid on gaping wound. Pointing fingers at others doesn't solve our problems. Neither does kicking the problem down the road for someone else to deal with. Have you noticed that all of Barry's cost cutting seems to come in the future...or has to be determined by a group other than him? That's lack of leadership...that's an unwillingness to make the tough calls. That's Barry voting "Present" and leaving the hard work to someone else. That's the President you want to elect for another term. Why would we want four more years of hot air and no results?

heres your job creation since the collapse. hmmmmm trending negative under Bush, then all of a sudden it turns around and trends positive under Obama.

wheres that precious GOP jobs bill?

You're kidding...right? There are about 30 of them now sitting on Harry Reid's desk over in the Senate. If you'd REALLY like to see some positive jobs numbers why don't you give the Senate Majority leader a call and tell him to let them come onto the floor? Oh, but wait...it's the "Republicans" that are the obstructionists...right? People like you make me laugh, Syphon.

 

[Oldstyle]

We will hit another recession before things are even considered "ok." I wonder what that recession will look like when we don’t even have a economy worth a shit, yet we get another recession.

What will be more fun for the non partisan bias hacks out there is to watch the Progressives blame it all on Republicans by claiming Reps didn’t let the Dems do anything since Obama took office… Never answering how things were “getting better” despite Reps cock blocking everything Obama and Dems tried to do…

Dems are just as much hacks as the Reps, always blaming the other side while destroying the country together.

if the GOP really didnt like the Dem policies, then they should have just let them run with it for 4 years. then they would really be able to say "i told you so." but instead they took the obstructionist route which makes them look like there are in fact inhibiting growth. they would have either come out on top and retaken all of government back or they would have to blow sand because their policies dont work.

the same thing with the budget. if the GOP really wants a balanced budget, why dont they propose one. then the people can see all the cuts that would need to be make in order to balance the budget. let the people decide if thats what they are willing to do.

Did you sleep through the whole part where the GOP tried to pass a balanced budget amendment? The Democrats voted that down. God forbid we should do something like have to balance a budget! Gosh, that might mean the Obama Administration would have to submit one that wasn't a complete farce.

 

[Syphon]

So you take the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression and tack those statistics onto the Republican side of your tally...even though the real estate bubble that burst and led the crash was fully as much the fault of Democratic policies as it was Republican...and then you take the inevitable economic rebound from that downturn and credit it to the Democratic side of the tally? But that's not "spin"?

What has Barack Obama done to grow jobs? What's he done to grow the economy? The fact is, whatever growth we've had over the past three years would have occurred no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office. Giving Barry credit for the stock market rebound is ridiculous. He has no plan to grow jobs. He has no plan to grow the economy. He has no plan to combat higher energy costs and in fact wants to see them get higher. He has no plan to keep manufacturing jobs here in the US. He has no plan to help the housing sector.

The fact is...we've had three years of flowery speeches and further promises of "Hope & Change" with very little to back it up. We're still being told that "green energy" will be what our new economy is going to be based on even as the green energy industries that this Administration has propped up with our tax dollars struggle and go belly up. We've got more people on long term unemployment than at anytime since the Great Depression and this President STILL doesn't have a viable plan to address that. Someone needs to tell Barry that extending unemployment benefits isn't "dealing" with joblessness...it's a bandaid on gaping wound. Pointing fingers at others doesn't solve our problems. Neither does kicking the problem down the road for someone else to deal with. Have you noticed that all of Barry's cost cutting seems to come in the future...or has to be determined by a group other than him? That's lack of leadership...that's an unwillingness to make the tough calls. That's Barry voting "Present" and leaving the hard work to someone else. That's the President you want to elect for another term. Why would we want four more years of hot air and no results?

heres your job creation since the collapse. hmmmmm trending negative under Bush, then all of a sudden it turns around and trends positive under Obama.

wheres that precious GOP jobs bill?

You're kidding...right? There are about 30 of them now sitting on Harry Reid's desk over in the Senate. If you'd REALLY like to see some positive jobs numbers why don't you give the Senate Majority leader a call and tell him to let them come onto the floor? Oh, but wait...it's the "Republicans" that are the obstructionists...right? People like you make me laugh, Syphon.

read GOP.gov and tell which one will actually create jobs. i read them all and even posted about it on a different thread. eliminate EPA regulations for clean air, eliminate SEC regulations. same old GOP ideas. do some research and tell us all which one will actually create jobs.

 

[Avorysuds]

if the GOP really didnt like the Dem policies, then they should have just let them run with it for 4 years. then they would really be able to say "i told you so." but instead they took the obstructionist route which makes them look like there are in fact inhibiting growth. they would have either come out on top and retaken all of government back or they would have to blow sand because their policies dont work.

the same thing with the budget. if the GOP really wants a balanced budget, why dont they propose one. then the people can see all the cuts that would need to be make in order to balance the budget. let the people decide if thats what they are willing to do.

Bush and his Reps were Progressive liberals... They grew Government at every turn, they lost big time in the elections for it. Then Dems came into power claiming they would stop Bush, that they would not allow the spending and wars annnnnnnd BAM, Dems helped Bush spend even more because they knew most people are to stupid to realize congress plays a role in things meaning a bad economy would help Dems in 2008.

Now, the issue of course is that Reps won back the house and a fair amount of the Senate because Dems with a Dem President just kept spending as well as keeping or expanding every single Bush policy.

So at best the Reps that were re-elected were doing the bidding of the people. And as I said before, how can Dems blame Reps for obstructing EVERYTHING but then claim it was their policies (that were obstructed lol) that saved us? You want it both ways, because you're an inferior hack.

I blame Bush and the Reps because their policy is/was bad. I blame Dems because their policy is the same as Bush/Reps.... Bad. You see it as Dems good Reps evil, you're small minded and a fool.

We will enter another recession, I hope Obama is in office, it will be fun watching you spin so fast that you pass out from your own stupidity.

Also Rand Paul and 6 others in the Senate put up a balanced budget, but Obama was in favor of a budget that got us downgraded and pushed for it.... Then you blame Reps, as always.

Rand Paul put forth a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, not an acutal balanced budget.

and youre analysis of me is quite off. im actually an independent although i lean Dem. the reason i lean towards the Dems is that GOP policy does not favor the middle class. Since GWB took office the GOP mantra of Reagans low taxes and low regulation will spur economic success has been in place. Now Clinton did sign the repeal of Glass Steagall, but it was put forth by a GOP congress. This was a terrible idea and was one of several factors that led to the financial collapse. Medicare Part D was a good idea, but too bad no one decided to pay for it. The Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 were terrible ideas since they were not paid for either. But then again the GOP believes you dont have to pay for tax cuts with a decrease in spending. Then we have the mismanaged wars. once we decided to go to war with Iraq the GWB administration did not draw up an effective plan for after the initial invasion. They did not plan to fight a guerrilla warfare, IED, suicide bomber type of fight. they also did not have a plan for installing a working democracy. what did this lead to, a country in ruin. we didnt raise taxes or issue war bonds to pay for the war either. it was paid for with borrowed money from China mostly. Medicare D, the tax cuts and the wars and the biggest drivers of our current deficits and debt. then we can move on to how the rest of our allies viewed us. the world view of america declined while GWB was in the oval office. countries did not want to support US causes and we were on basically a go it alone mission. Britain provided some support but the US took the brunt of the cost of the wars as well as the responsibility to try and stabilize the middle east. all of this cost money and lives. much of it unneeded.

now lets look at the current GOP candidates.

Newt promises an unrealistic $2.50 gas, yet doesnt tell anyone how hes gonna change the price of a commodity.
Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard and close every foreign base across the world which would save money, but you would increase unemployment among military families due to reductions.
Santorum wants to use his religion to dictate policy. i.e. prayer in school, no more evolution only creationism, outlaw contraception, repeal row v. wade.
Romney can not present a consistent message on anything. He is for the mass mandate, but against the fed mandate. he was for roe v. wade, now hes against roe v. wade. his job creation record in mass was terrible. he said GM should have gone bankrupt and got no government aid.

all the GOP candidates want to bomb Iran, and said Syria. but apparently helping Libya was a terrible idea. They think we can drill out way to energy independence, when in reality we can not. the call climate change a myth, making the rest of the world mock and laugh at our inability to analyze scientific data and come to the same conclusions they have. they are for ending the dept of education, energy and the EPA. because that will help us close the education gap, become less dependent on oil and have clean air and water. they want to dismantle Medicare and end Social Security as we know it and make it a private enterprise run by wall street.

the GOP held an extension of unemployment insurance benefits hostage over tax cuts for the wealthy.
the GOP walked away from a $4T grand bargain on deficit reduction and increasing the debt ceiling causing our credit to get downgraded.

many of the GOP ideas are actually closer to socialist ideas than anything the dems have done. fixing gas prices, unilaterally repealing the health care law, unilaterally overturn Roe v. Wade.

what good ideas has any of the current GOP candidates offered that would directly help the middle class and the poor? ole Mitt isnt even worried about the poor, the have a "safety net".

#1 Rand Paul's balanced budget = you fail. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vDNmE_M7E]03/17/11: Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan - YouTube[/ame]


#2 Ron Paul does not want to bomb Iran = you lied

#3 Ron Paul wants the powers of the Federal Government confined by the constitution, he is the furthest from socialist = you lied again.

#4 You still have not shown us 1 repeal of the evil Bush era policies that favor the rich and destroy the middle class that Obama did with his super majority in the House and Senate = you fail again.

I don’t care what way you “lean,” you’re a Dem through and through. You just lied on near every point you made, I proved you wrong even with video.

 

[Syphon]

We will hit another recession before things are even considered "ok." I wonder what that recession will look like when we don’t even have a economy worth a shit, yet we get another recession.

What will be more fun for the non partisan bias hacks out there is to watch the Progressives blame it all on Republicans by claiming Reps didn’t let the Dems do anything since Obama took office… Never answering how things were “getting better” despite Reps cock blocking everything Obama and Dems tried to do…

Dems are just as much hacks as the Reps, always blaming the other side while destroying the country together.

if the GOP really didnt like the Dem policies, then they should have just let them run with it for 4 years. then they would really be able to say "i told you so." but instead they took the obstructionist route which makes them look like there are in fact inhibiting growth. they would have either come out on top and retaken all of government back or they would have to blow sand because their policies dont work.

the same thing with the budget. if the GOP really wants a balanced budget, why dont they propose one. then the people can see all the cuts that would need to be make in order to balance the budget. let the people decide if thats what they are willing to do.

Did you sleep through the whole part where the GOP tried to pass a balanced budget amendment? The Democrats voted that down. God forbid we should do something like have to balance a budget! Gosh, that might mean the Obama Administration would have to submit one that wasn't a complete farce.

not an amendment. present a real balanced budget. let the people see what they will have to give up in order to have a balanced budget

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Unemployment is about to go up to 8.6%, 9.1% gallup.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

Doesn't mean shit if you loose 300,000 jobs.

I love how when we have a republican president the focus is on how many jobs were lost (in the media), but when we have a democrat president the emphasis is on how many jobs were gained.

216,000 jobs gained vs 300,000 jobs lost is still a loss of 84,000 jobs, however the media only reports the jobs gained and fail to mention the jobs lost in order to portray Obamafucks policies as effective..

The deception in the media is downright disgusting.

 

[Avorysuds]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

Doesn't mean shit if you loose 300,000 jobs.

I love how when we have a republican president the focus is on how many jobs were lost (in the media), but when we have a democrat president the emphasis is on how many jobs were gained.

216,000 jobs gained vs 300,000 jobs lost is still a loss of 84,000 jobs, however the media only reports the jobs gained and fail to mention the jobs lost in order to portray Obamafucks policies as effective..

The deception in the media is downright disgusting.

I agree. Under Bush you lose 700k jobs but you still create jobs, just less than the amount that are lost. Under Obama they don't look at the jobs lost because they would still have a net loss.

 

[pinqy]

Well, it sure doesn't include those who are STILL unemployed yet are dropped out of the count..

Since it's a count of EMPLOYMENT it doesn't count ANY unemployed. Among ADP's clients, there are now 216,000 more employed (seasonally adjusted) than in January.

What part are you having trouble understanding?

What part of the word 'net' confuses you so?

Nothing. The plus 216,000 IS the NET. In January, ADP clients had 110,033,000 employees. In February, they had 110,249,000. Definition of unemployment is entirely irrelevent. X people left employment: laid off, quit, retired, died, went to jail, joined the military, etc. X + 216,000 were hired. Net change: 216,000.

 

[Si modo]

Since it's a count of EMPLOYMENT it doesn't count ANY unemployed. Among ADP's clients, there are now 216,000 more employed (seasonally adjusted) than in January.

What part are you having trouble understanding?

What part of the word 'net' confuses you so?

Nothing. The plus 216,000 IS the NET. In January, ADP clients had 110,033,000 employees. In February, they had 110,249,000. Definition of unemployment is entirely irrelevent. X people left employment: laid off, quit, retired, died, went to jail, joined the military, etc. X + 216,000 were hired. Net change: 216,000.

 

[pinqy]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

Doesn't mean shit if you loose 300,000 jobs.

I love how when we have a republican president the focus is on how many jobs were lost (in the media), but when we have a democrat president the emphasis is on how many jobs were gained.

216,000 jobs gained vs 300,000 jobs lost is still a loss of 84,000 jobs, however the media only reports the jobs gained and fail to mention the jobs lost in order to portray Obamafucks policies as effective..

The deception in the media is downright disgusting.

216,000 IS THE NET CHANGE. How hard is that to understand?
From the ADP press release
January 2012, Total nonfarm private employment:110,033,000
February 2012, Total nonfarm private employment: 110,249,000
Net change.

 

[pinqy]

What part of the word 'net' confuses you so?

Nothing. The plus 216,000 IS the NET. In January, ADP clients had 110,033,000 employees. In February, they had 110,249,000. Definition of unemployment is entirely irrelevent. X people left employment: laid off, quit, retired, died, went to jail, joined the military, etc. X + 216,000 were hired. Net change: 216,000.

What part is unclear? Feel free to give a counter example of how you think it works.

 

[Avorysuds]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

Doesn't mean shit if you loose 300,000 jobs.

I love how when we have a republican president the focus is on how many jobs were lost (in the media), but when we have a democrat president the emphasis is on how many jobs were gained.

216,000 jobs gained vs 300,000 jobs lost is still a loss of 84,000 jobs, however the media only reports the jobs gained and fail to mention the jobs lost in order to portray Obamafucks policies as effective..

The deception in the media is downright disgusting.

216,000 IS THE NET CHANGE. How hard is that to understand?
From the ADP press release
January 2012, Total nonfarm private employment:110,033,000
February 2012, Total nonfarm private employment: 110,249,000
Net change.

You do realize that 300-400k people stop looking for work many months right? They are counted as jobs created in the sense that it brings the UE rate down. Now if these people were not dropped off the ass end and counted as a positive (lol) then the amount of people on UE would be fucking massive, like holy fucking shit wow massive. Now consider that every month these people are "replaced" with a new load of 300+k people dropping off the ass end.

UE could very well be in the 12-18% but you can’t get a clear picture when the FED drops TRILLIONS on the markets at random making numbers go up when they should be going down. There are and will be huge side effects to buying your way out of bad looking numbers for political gain.