No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[JRK]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all
how can this be with the claim people out of work, part time etc... going down?

 

[JRK]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ingrich-says-more-people-have-been-put-food-/
explain this
I think I should add that I never blamed this on Obama nor GWB
BHO has failed on the way he hasdealt with this, yes, but the root cause no president could have stopped

Explain to me how the number is accurate as far as the 12 month part time etc... number is going down when these numbers continue to climb?
common sense

 

[JRK]

Wow, this conversation is WAY off in the weeds.

No one disputes the numbers are weak. The question is why. Is it because Obama inherited a massive, unprecedented disaster that could take several more years to fix, or is it because his "socialist" policies slowed the recovery?

That's about it. Pick yer poison. The partisans already have (of course), let's see what most of America does.

.

Hey, I am not the one who has claimed there has been millions of jobs created, the left has
How can you create a job that was there in 2008 and does not exist today?
I get sick and tired of that lie
Obama nor GWB had anything to do with these events, Greed at all levels did

My issue is with the way BHO has dealt with these matters (or has failed to) and the way the new norm is 8.4% UE and to fix it is 200k people going back to work
(per month)
Thats the norm for a 5% UE rate, not 8.4

When UE got to 6% after 9-11 enron, etc... the world had come to an end, now "8.4%" UE (not the real#) is the new norm
Doo Doo Economics Blog: Obama Lies About Creating 3 Million Jobs

 

[8537]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all
how can this be with the claim people out of work, part time etc... going down?

Incomes have fallen for a decade. That's the result. What you think that has to do with the number of people working part time etc...I have no idea.

 

[pinqy]

Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
Do your DD on these issues doc
He did change the way UE calc
Its just info

Let's look at those claims:

The U3 rate is the percentage of the "participating labor force" that is unemployed. That is all well and good, except that the Obama labor department has decided that it will simply manipulate the definition of "labor force" to suit its own needs. And what the Obama administration has done is simply shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes.

Except that's not true. The definition of Labor Force hasn't changed. The Labor Force has decreased, but that's because, well, it's decreased. The Labor Force is available labor: people working or trying to work. People are asked if they're working...if yes, they're Employed, if not, they're asked if they're looking for work and if they could take a job if offered. If both of those are yes, they're Unemployed. If not, then they're not in Labor Force.

And that's all by response to the survey...there's no "manipulation." Fewer people have been looking for work, and that's how it is. Sure "IF" there were more people looking for work, the UE rate would be higher. But that's kind of a tautology. The definitions haven't changed, there's no discretion for clasification.

I did a thread with full explanations: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/210865-who-should-be-consiered-unemployed.html

 

[JRK]

Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
Do your DD on these issues doc
He did change the way UE calc
Its just info

Let's look at those claims:

The U3 rate is the percentage of the "participating labor force" that is unemployed. That is all well and good, except that the Obama labor department has decided that it will simply manipulate the definition of "labor force" to suit its own needs. And what the Obama administration has done is simply shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes.

Except that's not true. The definition of Labor Force hasn't changed. The Labor Force has decreased, but that's because, well, it's decreased. The Labor Force is available labor: people working or trying to work. People are asked if they're working...if yes, they're Employed, if not, they're asked if they're looking for work and if they could take a job if offered. If both of those are yes, they're Unemployed. If not, then they're not in Labor Force.

And that's all by response to the survey...there's no "manipulation." Fewer people have been looking for work, and that's how it is. Sure "IF" there were more people looking for work, the UE rate would be higher. But that's kind of a tautology. The definitions haven't changed, there's no discretion for clasification.

I did a thread with full explanations: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/210865-who-should-be-consiered-unemployed.html

thats an opinion, that some people dis agree with. lowering the number of available workers has a cause and effect
Your post is a good definition of the event, again not every-one agrees with your "opinion"

 

[JRK]

230k
Jan revised up 60k
gallup dis agrees

 

[pinqy]

Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
Do your DD on these issues doc
He did change the way UE calc
Its just info

Let's look at those claims:

The U3 rate is the percentage of the "participating labor force" that is unemployed. That is all well and good, except that the Obama labor department has decided that it will simply manipulate the definition of "labor force" to suit its own needs. And what the Obama administration has done is simply shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes.

Except that's not true. The definition of Labor Force hasn't changed. The Labor Force has decreased, but that's because, well, it's decreased. The Labor Force is available labor: people working or trying to work. People are asked if they're working...if yes, they're Employed, if not, they're asked if they're looking for work and if they could take a job if offered. If both of those are yes, they're Unemployed. If not, then they're not in Labor Force.

And that's all by response to the survey...there's no "manipulation." Fewer people have been looking for work, and that's how it is. Sure "IF" there were more people looking for work, the UE rate would be higher. But that's kind of a tautology. The definitions haven't changed, there's no discretion for clasification.

I did a thread with full explanations: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/210865-who-should-be-consiered-unemployed.html

thats an opinion, that some people dis agree with. lowering the number of available workers has a cause and effect
Your post is a good definition of the event, again not every-one agrees with your "opinion"

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. That's how the survey and the calculations work. If the number of available workers goes down (and the labor force has increased the last two months) it's because the people are saying they're not trying to get a job. Nobody is lowering the numbers, the numbers go up or down based on the survey response.

 

[8537]

Household data: +428,000

 

[G.T.]

ok so how is "jrk" NOT "healthmyths" ???

 

[pinqy]

230k
Jan revised up 60k
gallup dis agrees

There's no statistically significant difference between the Gallup and BLS numbers. And you have to look at the differences in methodology.

 

[JRK]

Let's look at those claims:
Except that's not true. The definition of Labor Force hasn't changed. The Labor Force has decreased, but that's because, well, it's decreased. The Labor Force is available labor: people working or trying to work. People are asked if they're working...if yes, they're Employed, if not, they're asked if they're looking for work and if they could take a job if offered. If both of those are yes, they're Unemployed. If not, then they're not in Labor Force.

And that's all by response to the survey...there's no "manipulation." Fewer people have been looking for work, and that's how it is. Sure "IF" there were more people looking for work, the UE rate would be higher. But that's kind of a tautology. The definitions haven't changed, there's no discretion for clasification.

I did a thread with full explanations: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/210865-who-should-be-consiered-unemployed.html

thats an opinion, that some people dis agree with. lowering the number of available workers has a cause and effect
Your post is a good definition of the event, again not every-one agrees with your "opinion"

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. That's how the survey and the calculations work. If the number of available workers goes down (and the labor force has increased the last two months) it's because the people are saying they're not trying to get a job. Nobody is lowering the numbers, the numbers go up or down based on the survey response.

What ever you say bud, there are some who feel for good reason there cooking the books, it is again helped the UE rate, that is without question
The fact of it is that is the market just opened, I have to go as pre market was flat

 

[JRK]

230k
Jan revised up 60k
gallup dis agrees

There's no statistically significant difference between the Gallup and BLS numbers. And you have to look at the differences in methodology.

Why is that and why is it some including my-self feel the way BHO changed the number we score the rate against is a political event, as the jobs created number is as it relates to the whole
Concern rises at US long-term jobless - FT.com

 

[8537]

230k
Jan revised up 60k
gallup dis agrees

There's no statistically significant difference between the Gallup and BLS numbers. And you have to look at the differences in methodology.

why is it some including my-self feel the way BHO changed the number we score the rate against is a political event.

That's how you "feel"? Do you have any rationale or evidence to justify this "Feeling"? Or is it just the usual sense that Obama is evil and therefore he must be lying?

 

[JRK]

Though the labor force participation rate actually increased to 63.7 percent in February, it remains near historic lows. Those not looking for jobs are simply not counted in the official jobless rate. The rate is thus treated with skepticism as an accurate gauge for measuring the job market's health.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in recent remarks to Congress that the current rate "no doubt understates the weakness in the labor market in some broad sense."

News Headlines

 

[JRK]

There's no statistically significant difference between the Gallup and BLS numbers. And you have to look at the differences in methodology.

why is it some including my-self feel the way BHO changed the number we score the rate against is a political event.

That's how you "feel"? Do you have any rationale or evidence to justify this "Feeling"? Or is it just the usual sense that Obama is evil and therefore he must be lying?

as far as my evidence its all thru this post, see the link I have to CNBC just above. Why is it you libs think hate has anything to do with honest debate?
If you lower the number of people that you score the UE rate against its going to be lower, and as the CNBC link here-in brings to light that number is at historic lows, how can that be when were at near record hi's with people out of work?
Its just information dude chill out with the hate comments. Obama lie?

No, all of his comments on GM were spot on as well as how many jobs "he" has created

We are millions short where we were in 2008 as far as people working, we are just putting people back to work, how can that be a created job?

GM? my god they still owe us billions

 

[pinqy]

Though the labor force participation rate actually increased to 63.7 percent in February, it remains near historic lows. Those not looking for jobs are simply not counted in the official jobless rate. The rate is thus treated with skepticism as an accurate gauge for measuring the job market's health.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in recent remarks to Congress that the current rate "no doubt understates the weakness in the labor market in some broad sense."

News Headlines

And? The UE rate is designed for a specific purpose: to measure the percent of available labor not working. If you're not trying to get a job, you're not available for work. It's a measure of how easy/difficult it is to get a job if you look for one.

During recessions and bad times, this doesn't fully capture the whole picture. Which is why seperate counts are made of people who say they want a job (whether or not they're available), and people who might theoretically start looking for work (the Marginally Attached/discouraged).

That's not manipulation or fudging, it's consistant methodology.

 

[8537]

why is it some including my-self feel the way BHO changed the number we score the rate against is a political event.

That's how you "feel"? Do you have any rationale or evidence to justify this "Feeling"? Or is it just the usual sense that Obama is evil and therefore he must be lying?

as far as my evidence its all thru this post, see the link I have to CNBC just above.

That link doesn't say anything about the Obama administration changing the way the figures or calculated, politicizing the numbers or cooking the books.

Why is it you libs think hate has anything to do with honest debate?

You're not engaging in honest debate. You're sharing how you "Feel" with a wholly unsubstantiated claim.

If you lower the number of people that you score the UE rate against its going to be lower, and as the CNBC link here-in brings to light that number is at historic lows, how can that be when were at near record hi's with people out of work?

The labor force participation rate is going to decline for a decade or more - that's not an economic problem, it's simple demographics.

Its just information dude chill out with the hate comments.

 

[pinqy]

If you lower the number of people that you score the UE rate against its going to be lower,

But nobody is lowering the number. The number goes up or down based on reality....nobody's "doing" anything to it.

And the Labor Force is INCREASING, not decreasing. From Jan to Feb, Employment went up 428,000 and Unemployment went up 48,000 meaning the Labor Force went up 476,000

 

[Mr. Shaman]

2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

This link is 8 months old
We are still negative from 2008 in people working. How can the Libs state there has been 1 job created?

Tooooooooooooooooo easy......

We've (actually) been.....

....keeping-track.

NEXT??!!!​