No Change in Unemployment so far.

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Oct 3, 2009
3,384
228
83
My theory is why more jobs were added is the fact that unemployment benefits in most states are running out so more people go looking for work when that happens. That could explain new hires and the "those that have given up" catagory being converted to the "those that started to seek employment" catagory which explains the jump in unpemployed people.
 
Even if the spin given is all correct, that people are encouraged by the job market and re-entering it, it still shows we are in a very weak recovery, despite having spent an unprecedented amount of money to counter the recession.
This should make all the neo-Keynesians out there STFU. But of course it wont.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Even if the spin given is all correct, that people are encouraged by the job market and re-entering it, it still shows we are in a very weak recovery, despite having spent an unprecedented amount of money to counter the recession.
This should make all the neo-Keynesians out there STFU. But of course it wont.

Whats worse is that they will claim that the government created those private sector jobs or was responsible for them. The truth is that all private sector jobs are created by people of this country through their own property that they have.
 
Last edited:
U6 Unemployment increased from 16.9% to 17.1% - this figure includes discouraged workers who are not looking.

The total # of Unemployed has increased, not decreased. This is why Obama has a slush fund. The gubmint will hire a bunch of temp workers to cook the statistics. Watch for a pop in May with the a bunch more census workers.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
U6 Unemployment increased from 16.9% to 17.1% - this figure includes discouraged workers who are not looking.

The total # of Unemployed has increased, not decreased. This is why Obama has a slush fund. The gubmint will hire a bunch of temp workers to cook the statistics. Watch for a pop in May with the a bunch more census workers.

I don't trust the numbers either because I haven't seen an ounce of mass hiring that normally comes with 300K job creation but I haven't seen any direct proof that the numbers are being crunched so it is just suspicion right now.
 
The BLS itself reported the increase in U6 from 16.9% to 17.1%. The actual figure is probably more like 22% using Shadow Stats methodology.

Economic growth is half of what it needs to be to generate net job creation that lowers unemployment. Temp census jobs aren't going to do that. Another bad indicator is that there is still way too much slack in the labor markets. Wages are still flat, and there is risk we will see actual wage deflation - the new jobs are lower paying service sector ones.

We have a long way to go to climb out of this mess. The more weight Obama piles on the shoulders of small businesses (in particular - they create most new jobs), the longer it will take to recover.
 
My theory is why more jobs were added is the fact that unemployment benefits in most states are running out so more people go looking for work when that happens. That could explain new hires and the "those that have given up" catagory being converted to the "those that started to seek employment" catagory which explains the jump in unpemployed people.

290,000 jobs created in the last quarter. Best numbers on job creation since 2006.
 
My theory is why more jobs were added is the fact that unemployment benefits in most states are running out so more people go looking for work when that happens. That could explain new hires and the "those that have given up" catagory being converted to the "those that started to seek employment" catagory which explains the jump in unpemployed people.

290,000 jobs created in the last quarter. Best numbers on job creation since 2006.

2006 was close to the beginning of the recession. Given the massive amount of money the gov't has spent you would expect job creation to be much larger, especially by this point.
 
The BLS itself reported the increase in U6 from 16.9% to 17.1%. The actual figure is probably more like 22% using Shadow Stats methodology.

Economic growth is half of what it needs to be to generate net job creation that lowers unemployment. Temp census jobs aren't going to do that. Another bad indicator is that there is still way too much slack in the labor markets. Wages are still flat, and there is risk we will see actual wage deflation - the new jobs are lower paying service sector ones.

We have a long way to go to climb out of this mess. The more weight Obama piles on the shoulders of small businesses (in particular - they create most new jobs), the longer it will take to recover.
The universally accepted measure of unemployment is U3 which is the official unemployment rate. In both good times and bad, U4, U5, & U6 will always run much higher than U3. The only reason to use U4, U5, or U6 instead of the official rate is to exaggerate the unemployment problem. It that is your attention, have at it, however it only misleads those that don't understand what you are doing.
 
U6 Unemployment increased from 16.9% to 17.1% - this figure includes discouraged workers who are not looking.
Why do you continue to misrepresent the U6? You're lying by omission. If you're just talking about adding discouraged workers, then talk about the U4. By not saying what else the U6 includes gives the false impression that just adding discouraged workers raises the UE rate from 9.9 to 17.1. Since you do know the different components, I can only conclude that you're deliberately lying.

The total # of Unemployed has increased, not decreased.
No one is saying anything different...the UE level clearly rose. So did the Employment level.

The gubmint will hire a bunch of temp workers to cook the statistics.
Neither BLS nor the Census hire temp workers to handle any of the statistics. Not even normal data collection. And there is strict monitoring of new employees to make sure they're not curbstoning or otherwise mucking with the numbers.
 
My theory is why more jobs were added is the fact that unemployment benefits in most states are running out so more people go looking for work when that happens. That could explain new hires and the "those that have given up" catagory being converted to the "those that started to seek employment" catagory which explains the jump in unpemployed people.

290,000 jobs created in the last quarter. Best numbers on job creation since 2006.

2006 was close to the beginning of the recession. Given the massive amount of money the gov't has spent you would expect job creation to be much larger, especially by this point.
Eric Cantor's got THE ANSWER!!!!

“....to get, to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again

:woohoo:

323.png
 
Mr. Shaman, I just gotta say this. All topics aside. You kinda come across as a huge douche bag. I mean whats with the colored letters and always having the text centered? I'm sure I'm not the first to comment on it. But for real dude, anyone who puts that much effort into an internet message board needs some new friends.

Nothing personal. I'm just saying......wtf dude???
 
Mr. Shaman, I just gotta say this. All topics aside. You kinda come across as a huge douche bag. I mean whats with the colored letters and always having the text centered? I'm sure I'm not the first to comment on it. But for real dude, anyone who puts that much effort into an internet message board needs some new friends.

Nothing personal. I'm just saying......wtf dude???
Was that supposed to qualify as an endorsement for Cantor's moment-of-clarity
389.gif
???

:eusa_eh:
 
The Problem is we spent 850 BILLION dollars to buy a none recovery and are suppose to be happy that things are not getting worse at least? Please.

There were several ways that money could have been spent, or NOT SPENT that would have stimulated Job Growth far more effectively than what they did.

But then Stimulating JOB growth was not the Goal of their Stimulus. The Goal was to bail out Failing State Medicare Budgets, and Pay off Democrat Supports with Union Jobs. When only 25% OF AMERICANS are in a union.
 
My theory is why more jobs were added is the fact that unemployment benefits in most states are running out so more people go looking for work when that happens. That could explain new hires and the "those that have given up" catagory being converted to the "those that started to seek employment" catagory which explains the jump in unpemployed people.

Actually, there is quite a big change.

When Bush left office, the US was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a week.

Democrats couldn't really do anything about it. They only had 49 votes in this senate and in the Senate, 41 will beat 59 everytime.
 
My theory is why more jobs were added is the fact that unemployment benefits in most states are running out so more people go looking for work when that happens. That could explain new hires and the "those that have given up" catagory being converted to the "those that started to seek employment" catagory which explains the jump in unpemployed people.

Actually, there is quite a big change.

When Bush left office, the US was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a week.

Democrats couldn't really do anything about it. They only had 49 votes in this senate and in the Senate, 41 will beat 59 everytime.

Funny all those years under Bush when the Republicans had 1 vote majorities you guys did not feel the same way.
 
Mr. Shaman, I just gotta say this. All topics aside. You kinda come across as a huge douche bag. I mean whats with the colored letters and always having the text centered? I'm sure I'm not the first to comment on it. But for real dude, anyone who puts that much effort into an internet message board needs some new friends.

Nothing personal. I'm just saying......wtf dude???

Kinda???? :lol: Understatement of the year!
 
My theory is why more jobs were added is the fact that unemployment benefits in most states are running out so more people go looking for work when that happens. That could explain new hires and the "those that have given up" catagory being converted to the "those that started to seek employment" catagory which explains the jump in unpemployed people.

Actually, there is quite a big change.

When Bush left office, the US was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a week.

Democrats couldn't really do anything about it. They only had 49 votes in this senate and in the Senate, 41 will beat 59 everytime.

Funny all those years under Bush when the Republicans had 1 vote majorities you guys did not feel the same way.

Which is why the Bush tax cuts for the rich are expiring. They passed under "reconciliation".

Then of course, there was the "patriot" card. You know, "You are with us or with the terrorists". That has always worked well. Especially since the Democrats are such a diverse group, unlike the Republicans who march in lockstep.
 
The Problem is we spent 850 BILLION dollars to buy a none recovery and are suppose to be happy that things are not getting worse at least? Please.

There were several ways that money could have been spent, or NOT SPENT that would have stimulated Job Growth far more effectively than what they did.

But then Stimulating JOB growth was not the Goal of their Stimulus. The Goal was to bail out Failing State Medicare Budgets, and Pay off Democrat Supports with Union Jobs. When only 25% OF AMERICANS are in a union.

Only 12% of America entire workforce belongs to a Union. Not 25% of all Americans.

Just sayin'
 

Forum List

Back
Top