GDP +3.9%

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, jobs are adjusted for population growth which was around 20 million as I recall. See why we say slow?

No they are not, where on earth did you get that idea?

Since mid-2007 the U.S. population has grown by 17.2 million, according to the Census Bureau, but we have 374,000 fewer jobs since a November 2007 peak and are 10 million jobs shy of where we should be. It is particularly upsetting that our current high unemployment is concentrated in the oldest and youngest workers. Older workers have been phased out as new technologies improve productivity, and young adults who lack skills are struggling to find entry-level jobs with advancement opportunities. In the process, they are losing critical time to develop workplace habits, contacts and new skills.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/mort...-time-scandal-of-part-time-america-1405291652

That doesn't answer my question. Where did you get the idea that "jobs are adjusted for population growth"?

for unemployment to stay at 5% you have to have enough new jobs to compensate for population growth. Econ 101. See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

 

[pinqy]

dear, jobs are adjusted for population growth which was around 20 million as I recall. See why we say slow?

No they are not, where on earth did you get that idea?

Since mid-2007 the U.S. population has grown by 17.2 million, according to the Census Bureau, but we have 374,000 fewer jobs since a November 2007 peak and are 10 million jobs shy of where we should be. It is particularly upsetting that our current high unemployment is concentrated in the oldest and youngest workers. Older workers have been phased out as new technologies improve productivity, and young adults who lack skills are struggling to find entry-level jobs with advancement opportunities. In the process, they are losing critical time to develop workplace habits, contacts and new skills.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/mort...-time-scandal-of-part-time-america-1405291652

That doesn't answer my question. Where did you get the idea that "jobs are adjusted for population growth"?

for unemployment to stay at 5% you have to have enough new jobs to compensate for population growth. Econ 101. See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

1. That still doesn't have a anything to do with your claim that "jobs are adjusted." I'm not even sure what you mean, though I do know that no adjustments are made for population.

2. The unemployment rate is not based on the population. It's unemployed / (employed + unemployed) so for the unemployment rate to stay the same, then the percent change in the number of unemployed must be the same as the change in the sum of employed plus unemployed (aka the Labor Force)

 

[Toro]

Special Ed telling an econometrician he doesn't understand economics.

lol

 

[william the wie]

Special Ed telling an econometrician he doesn't understand economics.

lol

This is news?

 

[pinqy]

dear, jobs are adjusted for population growth which was around 20 million as I recall. See why we say slow?

No they are not, where on earth did you get that idea?

Since mid-2007 the U.S. population has grown by 17.2 million, according to the Census Bureau, but we have 374,000 fewer jobs since a November 2007 peak and are 10 million jobs shy of where we should be. It is particularly upsetting that our current high unemployment is concentrated in the oldest and youngest workers. Older workers have been phased out as new technologies improve productivity, and young adults who lack skills are struggling to find entry-level jobs with advancement opportunities. In the process, they are losing critical time to develop workplace habits, contacts and new skills.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/mort...-time-scandal-of-part-time-america-1405291652

That doesn't answer my question. Where did you get the idea that "jobs are adjusted for population growth"?

for unemployment to stay at 5% you have to have enough new jobs to compensate for population growth. Econ 101. See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

Let's do math:
September 2013
Population 246,168,000
Employed 144,270,000 (58.6% of population)
Unemployed 11,203,000
Labor Force 144,270,000+11,203,000=155,473,000
Unemployment rate 11,203,000/155,473,000=7.2%

October 2013
Population 246,381,000 change + 213,000, 0.1%
Employed 143,485,000 change -785,000, -0.5% (58.2% population)
Unemployed 11,140,000 change -63,000, -0.6%
Labor Force 143,485,000+11,140,000=154,625,000
Unemployment rate 11,140,000/154,625,000=7.2%

Employment in no way kept up with population…employment-population ratio went way down…yet the UE rate was unchanged.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. That still doesn't have a anything to do with your claim that "jobs are adjusted."

of course it does. if unemployment dropped 50% because of a depression it would be one thing, but if it dropped 50% because the population dropped 50% it would be quite another. See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

 

[pinqy]

1. That still doesn't have a anything to do with your claim that "jobs are adjusted."

of course it does. if unemployment dropped 50% because of a depression it would be one thing, but if it dropped 50% because the population dropped 50% it would be quite another. See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

And still that's not jobs being adjusted.
Again, describe the process of jobs being adjusted due to change in population: unemployment is irrelevant to that claim.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. That still doesn't have a anything to do with your claim that "jobs are adjusted."

of course it does. if unemployment dropped 50% because of a depression it would be one thing, but if it dropped 50% because the population dropped 50% it would be quite another. See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

And still that's not jobs being adjusted.
Again, describe the process of jobs being adjusted due to change in population: unemployment is irrelevant to that claim.

When people make the claim that under Obama's great liberal stewardship there are fewer full time jobs they mean after you adjust for population growth. Its much like when they say the govt was smaller in 1790 than now. They could mean literally or after you adjust for population and/or inflation.

Nice try at distracting us from Obama's liberal performance which would be worst in American History were it not for the Great Depression which has been great for Obama leaving him as second worst liberal in our history rather than first!

 

[pinqy]

1. That still doesn't have a anything to do with your claim that "jobs are adjusted."

of course it does. if unemployment dropped 50% because of a depression it would be one thing, but if it dropped 50% because the population dropped 50% it would be quite another. See what happens when a liberal tries to think?

And still that's not jobs being adjusted.
Again, describe the process of jobs being adjusted due to change in population: unemployment is irrelevant to that claim.

When people make the claim that under Obama's great liberal stewardship there are fewer full time jobs they mean after you adjust for population growth. Its much like when they say the govt was smaller in 1790 than now. They could mean literally or after you adjust for population and/or inflation.

Except nobody does that. We just look at employment as a percent of the population. No economist would say there are fewer full time jobs now than January 2009 (because it's not true), but we would point out that in January 2009, 49.3% of the population was employed full time and in October 2014, it was 48.1%.

The numbers are adjusted for seasonal variation. For example, the actual change in non-farm payroll jobs was 1,064,000, but because jobs always go up in October, it was adjusted down to 214,000.

Or, to keep with full time jobs, the actually recorded number of 120,176,000 was seasonally adjusted down to 119,632,00 nothing to do with population

 

[pinqy]

Nice try at distracting us from Obama's liberal performance which would be worst in American History were it not for the Great Depression which has been great for Obama leaving him as second worst liberal in our history rather than first!

My point is that you have, many many times, made blatently false claims about the economy and how things are calculated. I don't care for such dishonesty, and it is dishonesty in that even if you sincerely believe what you say, you are factually wrong and if you had made any effort at all to check your facts, you would have found out the truth. Disregard for the truth, as you've just shown here with your claim that the jobs numbers are adjusted (as oppposed to the reality of using ratios) is no different than deliberate lies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My point is that you have, many many times, made blatently false claims about the economy and how things are calculated.

dear, I claim what everyone claims, namely, that Barry's economy sucks as measured by full time jobs, unemployment, and declining income, and this is with the Republican fracking revolution!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My point is that you have, many many times, made blatently false claims about the economy and how things are calculated.

dear, I claim what everyone claims, namely, that Barry's economy sucks as measured by full time jobs, unemployment, and declining income, and this is with the Republican fracking revolution!
If Barry had is way with fracking, cap & trade, and single payer we'd have a liberal/soviet depression now.
[/QUOTE]

 

[SteadyMercury]

My point is that you have, many many times, made blatently false claims about the economy and how things are calculated. I don't care for such dishonesty, and it is dishonesty in that even if you sincerely believe what you say, you are factually wrong and if you had made any effort at all to check your facts, you would have found out the truth. Disregard for the truth, as you've just shown here with your claim that the jobs numbers are adjusted (as oppposed to the reality of using ratios) is no different than deliberate lies.

Amen.

All EdwardBaiamonte does is shamelessly lie, lie, lie.

Gets caught and does it again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, I claim what everyone claims, namely, that Barry's economy sucks as measured by full time jobs, unemployment, and declining income, and this is with the Republican fracking revolution!
If Barry had is way with fracking, cap & trade, and single payer we'd have a liberal/soviet depression now.

 

[SteadyMercury]

dear, I claim what everyone claims

Hey that is neat, a lie about your lies!

You claim unemployment is 12%. Lie, proven to you repeatedly.
You claim there are fewer full time jobs. Lie, proven to you repeatedly.

All you do is lie, because you lack the IQ to carry an argument without lying. It is pathetic.

Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You claim unemployment is 12%. Lie,

2013
2014 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.2 12.0 11.8 11.5

- See more at: U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

see why we say the liberal will always be ignorant?

 

[pinqy]

dear, I claim what everyone claims, namely, that Barry's economy sucks as measured by full time jobs, unemployment, and declining income, and this is with the Republican fracking revolution!.

I'm ignoring income because you never specify if you mean wages & salaries or total income, or individual or household or nominal or real.

 

[Toro]

dear, I claim what everyone claims, namely, that Barry's economy sucks as measured by full time jobs, unemployment, and declining income, and this is with the Republican fracking revolution!
If Barry had is way with fracking, cap & trade, and single payer we'd have a liberal/soviet depression now.

Too stupid! Because you hate Wall Street, you hate freedom and America, and we'd have an economy back to the Stone Age!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Too stupid! Because you hate Wall Street, you hate freedom and America, and we'd have an economy back to the Stone Age!

dear, if you have evidence that I hate freedom, America and Wall Street please present it or admit you lack the IQ to defend what you say. Thanks

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm ignoring income because you never specify if you mean wages & salaries or total income, or individual or household or nominal or real.

Census on Obama's 1st Term: Real Median Income Down $2,627 ...
cnsnews.com/.../census-obama-s-1st-term-real-median-income-down-2627- people-poverty
‎
Sep 17, 2013 ... During the four years that marked President Barack Obama's first term in office, the real median income of American households dropped by