Another Good Month On The Jobs Front...unemployment Drops To 5.9%

[Dad2three]

FACTS behind the Obama economy
( according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics )



Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.


When the recession began, 16.9 percent worked part time. Today, the share of workers with part-time jobs is 19.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Acording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - the average work week has gone from over 38 hours in 1964 to under 34 hours in 2013 — a drop of almost 12 percent. These are labor facts that show the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may be effecting employment.


A STAGNANT ECONOMY

In September, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in September at 7.1 million.


Where is the improvement? Where is this growing stronger economy? The facts from the Department of Labor just don't show evidence of one.... sorry liberals.



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Part-time employment rising as full-time jobs decline - TheGazette

Jul 14 2014

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000




Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic


The easiest way to fact-check the claim that part-time work is rising is to measure Americans working part-time who want to work full time—i.e. "for economic reasons." It turns out that the entire increase in part-time employment happened before Obamacare became a law in 2010

Three thoughts for the road:

1) Most people working part-time want to work part-time because they're in school, or they're raising kids, or they consider themselves mostly retired. Don't pay attention to anybody who's using the number of stay-at-home dads and moms to argue that Obamacare is destroying full-time work.

2) Last fall, the Fed produced a useful document explaining that "current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less."

3) If you insist on being a pessimist, here's a very smart way to express fear about the future of part-time work, also from the Fed. There are some industries, such as hotels, food service, and retail, that have historically had shorter workweeks and more part-time workers. If those sectors continue to grow faster than the overall economy (because other sectors, like government and manufacturing, are shrinking), then we should expect part-time work to remain elevated. Indeed, the relative strength of those industries today is one reason why part-time work hasn't declined even faster than it has.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic



The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic

DUBYA LOST OVER 1,000,00+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS, OBAMA HAS OVER 10,000,000 PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS SINCE OBAMACARES PASSED FEB 2010, A NET OF ALMOST 7,000,000 SINCE HE BECAME PREZ

Put in any year you want and hit go at BLS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Andylusion]

both of you are becoming obnoxious. I'm done with this thread. Try not to ruin every thread you join guys.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

FACTS behind the Obama economy
( according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics )



Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.


When the recession began, 16.9 percent worked part time. Today, the share of workers with part-time jobs is 19.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Acording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - the average work week has gone from over 38 hours in 1964 to under 34 hours in 2013 — a drop of almost 12 percent. These are labor facts that show the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may be effecting employment.


A STAGNANT ECONOMY

In September, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in September at 7.1 million.


Where is the improvement? Where is this growing stronger economy? The facts from the Department of Labor just don't show evidence of one.... sorry liberals.



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Part-time employment rising as full-time jobs decline - TheGazette

Jul 14 2014

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000

I's simply would rather just get down to the point and let the facts of the data speak for itself without looking to ideological "blog hype". It's the only unbiased view worth depending upon.... without the added opinions of excuses.

 

[Faun]

Can you say...."baby boomers?"....idiot.

Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came back
Ass hat.

They haven't retired?? Imbecile, there were almost 3 million baby boomers who retired last year alone. You really are as dumb as they come. But then again, you are a Bush voter.

You're really stupid to keep coming back for this ass beating you're getting. MOST have not retired link was posted dumb ass. you are dismissed.

You posted no such link that said "MOST" Boomers have not retired. It actually said "A quarter of Boomers postponed their plans to retire during the past year." A QUATER/25% is hardly "MOST", in fact it isn't even "MOST" of half, it is exactly half of half. You seem to have trouble with thew meaning of very simple words like "MORE" and "MOST."

This was the link YOU posted:
Baby Boomer Retirement Confidence Slips Again Signs of Optimism Spotted newsroom IRI

We've been through this before dumb ass bitch, You have been proven wrong
Yada yada yada yada yada so on and so forth You are dead ass wrong. the end.

You're not capable of proving anyone wrong. The claim you failed to prove wrong is that there are more people working now than when Bush left office. All you have posted in rebuttal is the LFPR, which in no way, disproves that claim. While at the same time, that claim was proven with BLS employment stats. At this point, you're nothing but entertainment value.

 

[Faun]

Oh, look, here's the link going back to 2001....

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

sad you have to lie.

Says the one that can not prove their original comments that started all this.

I have just proven that you posted a lie, as you should have been able to easily prove your comments.

You are liar and a far left hack..

It's well established that Hoover lost private sector jobs as the Great Depression saw unemployment skyrocket on his watch from 3% to over 20%. But you're right in that BLS data only goes as far back as 1948. So according to BLS stats, George Bush is the only president recorded to lose private sector jobs.

Ain't ya proud? LOL

Also the way we count unemployment is different now then back in those days, you can thank the far left Congress and Clinton for that one.

See all this to get you admit the truth..

Why do the far left insist on doing this?

Did this make FDR president in 1948? Did it make any other president lose private sector jobs by the time they left office?

You're sinking lol

I am? I showed how Duhbya (your guy) is the only president to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

 

[Kosh]

Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came back
Ass hat.

They haven't retired?? Imbecile, there were almost 3 million baby boomers who retired last year alone. You really are as dumb as they come. But then again, you are a Bush voter.

You're really stupid to keep coming back for this ass beating you're getting. MOST have not retired link was posted dumb ass. you are dismissed.

You posted no such link that said "MOST" Boomers have not retired. It actually said "A quarter of Boomers postponed their plans to retire during the past year." A QUATER/25% is hardly "MOST", in fact it isn't even "MOST" of half, it is exactly half of half. You seem to have trouble with thew meaning of very simple words like "MORE" and "MOST."

This was the link YOU posted:
Baby Boomer Retirement Confidence Slips Again Signs of Optimism Spotted newsroom IRI

We've been through this before dumb ass bitch, You have been proven wrong
Yada yada yada yada yada so on and so forth You are dead ass wrong. the end.

You're not capable of proving anyone wrong. The claim you failed to prove wrong is that there are more people working now than when Bush left office. All you have posted in rebuttal is the LFPR, which in no way, disproves that claim. While at the same time, that claim was proven with BLS employment stats. At this point, you're nothing but entertainment value.

The irony of those comments from the far left...

 

[Faun]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

So when the article you linked stated...

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS​

...you really have no idea what that means.

 

[Kosh]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

So when the article you linked stated...

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS​

...you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

 

[pinqy]

...

you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally make the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

 

[Faun]

Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.

731,000 were part time jobs? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

July/2013: 28,184,000
July/2014: 28,070,000

That's a DECREASE of 114,000 private sector job over the 12 month period ending in July.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Kosh]

...

you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

 

[Faun]

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

So when the article you linked stated...

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS​

...you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

If you did, you would understand that the current U3 is what the U5 was prior to the [Effects on indicator U-5], and the U5 is higher than the U3.

 

[pinqy]

...

you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

 

[Kosh]

Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.

731,000 were part time jobs? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

July/2013: 28,184,000
July/2014: 28,070,000

That's a DECREASE of 114,000 private sector job over the 12 month period ending in July.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

So when the article you linked stated...

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS​

...you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

If you did, you would understand that the current U3 is what the U5 was prior to the [Effects on indicator U-5], and the U5 is higher than the U3.

Once again the far left shows they can not understand simple things, even with charts.

But then you can not defeat programmed far left religious dogma..

 

[pinqy]

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

So when the article you linked stated...

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS​

...you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

If you did, you would understand that the current U3 is what the U5 was prior to the [Effects on indicator U-5], and the U5 is higher than the U3.

Other way around. The effects of the change made the U-3 higher than when it was the U-5

 

[Kosh]

...

you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

 

[Faun]

both of you are becoming obnoxious. I'm done with this thread. Try not to ruin every thread you join guys.

Don't let the door knob hit ya on the way out.

 

[Faun]

Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.

731,000 were part time jobs? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

July/2013: 28,184,000
July/2014: 28,070,000

That's a DECREASE of 114,000 private sector job over the 12 month period ending in July.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I did error in my post as I referred to "part time jobs" as "private sector jobs," but my numbers were of part time jobs which showed what the chart you posted shows.the 12 month period ending in July of part time jobs shows a DECREASE of 114,000 part time jobs, not an increase of 731,000 as was claimed.

 

[Faun]

...

you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

That's speaking of the U6 rate, not the U3 rate. The U3 rate is the effective changes to the U5 rate.



You really have no clue of what you're talking about.

 

[Kosh]

...Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

That's speaking of the U6 rate, not the U3 rate. The U3 rate is what effective changes were to the U5 rate.

Once again you show the A typical far left wanting to argue just to argue because you got caught in yet another one of your far left lies.

And it all adds up to the total unemployment right? So if one area is .02 higher and the other area is .5 lower, will the over all numbers be lower or higher?