Surprise >.. NOT unemployment readjusted now up to 8.3

[Amelia]

You celebrate people being too depressed to even look for work?

Don't answer. That was a rhetorical question. I already know that you do.

I celebrate 147,000 new jobs

Did you celebrate when Bush was losing 770,000 jobs a month?

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

Are you using current data? I thought the number had finally turned into a net gain a couple of months ago.

 

[J.E.D]

I celebrate 147,000 new jobs

Did you celebrate when Bush was losing 770,000 jobs a month?

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

I just gotta see the link on that one

Yeah right? Even if his numbers are accurate, he leaves out a couple of important facts.

1) Bush's jobs record (even if the 7 million number is believable -- I've always heard it was closer to 3 or 4 million) is the worst of any president in recent history.

2) The fact is, when Obama took office, we were in the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. We lost millions of jobs even before his inaugaration. And because of his policies, we gained those jobs back -- and yes, those jobs do count. That with his leadership we are now (and have been) at a net gain on jobs is something to be applauded.

 

[J.E.D]

BTW, this thread is a major, MAJOR fail.

 

[mudwhistle]

147k jobs were created but 350k left the work force. Seems we're going in reverse here.

He jacked down government unemployment but he hasn't announced the expected lay-offs that are sure to come when he starts gutting defense.

So this really doesn't matter a damn. He simply playing with the numbers.

so a net loss of 203,000 jobs. And that is with the holidays (retail) and the season in Florida starting...

The 350k that left the work force didn't lose jobs, they are no longer looking for positions. There was a net gain of 147k jobs.

The numbers, as always, are seasonally adjusted as well. You guys are reminded of this every month.

We are reminded that more people evaporate or become a burden on society than get jobs every month.

 

[mudwhistle]

Some economists say they need to scrap the current way of measuring unemployment because it doesn't take into account income which is going down.

If a worker is only working 30 hours a week they still count them as full-time workers but they also count overtime as another job created.

Gallup.Com - The Behavioral Economy by Dennis Jacobe: Time to Replace the Unemployment Rate

Full time is 35 or more hours, not 30. Overtime is not counted as a seperate job, that doesn't even make any sense.

Since when has 35 hours been full time employment? Almost every company only starts paying benefits after they work 40 hours.

Then there's the discouraged worker that falls out of the UE3 rolls and and into the UE4 rolls which isn't counted in the 7.7% unemployment rate. 350 thousand of them became discouraged workers last month. Now that's something Obama can pound his chest over. In 1967 they could only find 500,000 of them. 2009 they only found 750,00 of them. Aren't we going in the wrong direction when all of these people are becoming discouraged?

Notice how the great unemployment rate was all during the Bush years.....up until 07 when the Dems took congress back. Then all of the sudden everything went to shit. It really got bad when Obama won the White House. Unemployment skyrocketed under the Dems. Unemployment didn't start going back down till the GOP won the House back. Obama's agenda was officially put on hold and no more Obamacare bills or stimulus bills were passed.

 

[edthecynic]

You celebrate people being too depressed to even look for work?

Don't answer. That was a rhetorical question. I already know that you do.

I celebrate 147,000 new jobs

Did you celebrate when Bush was losing 770,000 jobs a month?

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 137,778,000
employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 142,187,000 employed for an increase of 5,409,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,023,000 to 12,049,000 an increase of 6,026,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 615,000 over his 8 years.

Obama started with 142,187,000 and is at 143,262,000 for a gain of 1,075,000. The unemployed during the same period went from 12,049,000 to 12,029,000 a decrease of 20,000 for a net job increase of 1,095,000.

 

[mudwhistle]

I celebrate 147,000 new jobs

Did you celebrate when Bush was losing 770,000 jobs a month?

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 136,181,000 employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 140,436,000 employed for an increase of 4,255,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,647,000 to 13,009,000 an increase of 6,362,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 2,107,000 over his 8 years.

Most of those losses under the Democrat controlled congress.

The president doesn't make the laws, he just signs them. Which is why a Dem congress and a Dem white house is the worst of both worlds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You celebrate people being too depressed to even look for work?

Don't answer. That was a rhetorical question. I already know that you do.

I celebrate 147,000 new jobs

Did you celebrate when Bush was losing 770,000 jobs a month?

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

You're using total employment/unemployment, not non-farm payrolls that normal people use.

Using your numbers though, note that in January 2001 5,956,000 were unemployed, while in January 2009 11,616,000 were unemployed. That's about double.

 

[mudwhistle]

I celebrate 147,000 new jobs

Did you celebrate when Bush was losing 770,000 jobs a month?

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

You're using total employment/unemployment, not non-farm payrolls that normal people use.

Using your numbers though, note that in January 2001 5,956,000 were unemployed, while in January 2009 11,616,000 were unemployed. That's about double.

No shit......and I told you why too, but you keep ignoring it.

 

[edthecynic]

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 136,181,000 employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 140,436,000 employed for an increase of 4,255,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,647,000 to 13,009,000 an increase of 6,362,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 2,107,000 over his 8 years.

Most of those losses under the Democrat controlled congress.

The president doesn't make the laws, he just signs them. Which is why a Dem congress and a Dem white house is the worst of both worlds.

So tell us specifically what law or laws did the Dems pass over the GOP filibusters and Bush's vetos, and the dates of their signing, that caused the downturn from the GOP policies that were already in effect.


The answer, or lack thereof, should be very revealing!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 136,181,000 employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 140,436,000 employed for an increase of 4,255,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,647,000 to 13,009,000 an increase of 6,362,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 2,107,000 over his 8 years.

Most of those losses under the Democrat controlled congress.

The president doesn't make the laws, he just signs them. Which is why a Dem congress and a Dem white house is the worst of both worlds.

So tell us specifically what law or laws did the Dems pass over the GOP filibusters and Bush's vetos, and the dates of their signing, that caused the downturn from the GOP policies that were already in effect.


The answer, or lack thereof, should be very revealing!!!

One of the biggest laws they passed was a hike in minimum wage. They were allowed to shove it through by attaching it to an Iraq war funding bill. Democrats also extended unemployment benefits. These two bills did a lot of the damage. When the problems that they wrought became apparent they refused to act.

Bush implored the Dems not to pass protest bills but meaningful legislation that would fix the problems that we faced. Instead the Dems passed transgender discrimination laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Jesus fucking Christ people! The economy is improving. It's Christmas. Celebrate both the economy improving and the Hallmark Holiday known as Christmas. Spend goddammit!!!!! We are a consumer driven economy.

 

[edthecynic]

Most of those losses under the Democrat controlled congress.

The president doesn't make the laws, he just signs them. Which is why a Dem congress and a Dem white house is the worst of both worlds.

So tell us specifically what law or laws did the Dems pass over the GOP filibusters and Bush's vetos, and the dates of their signing, that caused the downturn from the GOP policies that were already in effect.


The answer, or lack thereof, should be very revealing!!!

One of the biggest laws they passed was a hike in minimum wage. They were allowed to shove it through by attaching it to an Iraq war funding bill. Democrats also extended unemployment benefits. These two bills did a lot of the damage. When the problems that they wrought became apparent they refused to act.

Bush implored the Dems not to pass protest bills but meaningful legislation that would fix the problems that we faced. Instead the Dems passed transgender discrimination laws.

The Dems could not shove anything through the GOPs filibuster power and Bush's veto pen especially the .70 increase in minimum wage in 2007 and 2008. To get the law passed the Dems had to allow more Bush tax cuts that he demanded and the GOP Senate backed up with a filibuster of the bill without Bush's tax cuts. And unemployment benefits get extended only when unemployment exceeds a certain level first, so their extension is the result of established GOP policy and not the cause of unemployment.


But at least you tried to answer, I'll give you that much.

 

[Amelia]

Jesus fucking Christ people! The economy is improving. It's Christmas. Celebrate both the economy improving and the Hallmark Holiday known as Christmas. Spend goddammit!!!!! We are a consumer driven economy.

The economy is not improving. It is stagnant. We're about to go off the fiscal cliff. We're in danger of a double dip recession. And you probably laughed at Bush for telling people to go out and spend during his first term.

So you go spend. I'll be more prudent with my strained resources. And let's hope the fracking boom just gives us a lot of economic growth without destroying the environment because with Obama in charge it's our only hope for not entering a full blown depression.



And I guess you were being ironic with your blasphemy but it was still very disrespectful. I thought Liberals were proud of being respectful of others' religions.

 

[pinqy]

Some economists say they need to scrap the current way of measuring unemployment because it doesn't take into account income which is going down.

If a worker is only working 30 hours a week they still count them as full-time workers but they also count overtime as another job created.

Gallup.Com - The Behavioral Economy by Dennis Jacobe: Time to Replace the Unemployment Rate

Full time is 35 or more hours, not 30. Overtime is not counted as a seperate job, that doesn't even make any sense.

Since when has 35 hours been full time employment? Almost every company only starts paying benefits after they work 40 hours.

Since at least 1948. It's pretty much always been the government definition for labor force statistics.

Then there's the discouraged worker that falls out of the UE3 rolls and and into the UE4 rolls which isn't counted in the 7.7% unemployment rate.

What do you mean by "rolls?" You don't think there's an actual list of all people, do you?

350 thousand of them became discouraged workers last month.

Absolutely untrue. The Labor Force went down 350,000, but to say all of them became discouraged is ridiculous. For one, 122,000 of the drop was from Employed, and you can't go from Employed to Discouraged. For 2, you're claiming that ALL of the drop was due to people stopping because they thought they couldn't find work? Not one stopped looking to look after the kids or go to school or was sick or pregnant or decided they didn't need a job after all? Well, let's look at the database: Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Discouraged October 2012: 813,000
Discouraged November 2012: 979,000
Change of 166,000. Not good (though the margin of error is huge) but less than half of what you're claiming. Why can't you use the real numbers instead of making false claims?

Now that's something Obama can pound his chest over. In 1967 they could only find 500,000 of them.

I think you typoed on the year. Discouraged weren't measured in 1967.

2009 they only found 750,00 of them. Aren't we going in the wrong direction when all of these people are becoming discouraged?

Average in 2009 was 778,000, average in 2010 was 1,173,000, average in 2011 was 989,000 and average in 2012 (excepting December) is 894,000. Seems the right direction to me. Unless December's number is greater than 1,068, then average in 2012 will still be lower than 2011.

 

[rightwinger]

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 136,181,000 employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 140,436,000 employed for an increase of 4,255,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,647,000 to 13,009,000 an increase of 6,362,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 2,107,000 over his 8 years.

Most of those losses under the Democrat controlled congress.

The president doesn't make the laws, he just signs them. Which is why a Dem congress and a Dem white house is the worst of both worlds.

Which laws were passed by the Democratic congress that caused an economic collapse. Bush vetoed any relevant legislation

Bush is guilty for what he didn't do. As the economy started it's collapse, Bush took a hands off approach.....let deregulation work it's course. As it became evident we were in a historic recession approaching a depression, Bush responded with bandaids.
It was not till after Obama had won the election that Bush started serious economic reform

 

[elvis]

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 136,181,000 employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 140,436,000 employed for an increase of 4,255,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,647,000 to 13,009,000 an increase of 6,362,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 2,107,000 over his 8 years.

Most of those losses under the Democrat controlled congress.

The president doesn't make the laws, he just signs them. Which is why a Dem congress and a Dem white house is the worst of both worlds.

Which laws were passed by the Democratic congress that caused an economic collapse. Bush vetoed any relevant legislation

Bush is guilty for what he didn't do. As the economy started it's collapse, Bush took a hands off approach.....let deregulation work it's course. As it became evident we were in a historic recession approaching a depression, Bush responded with bandaids.
It was not till after Obama had won the election that Bush started serious economic reform

Another hack troll post. Find out where Obama is so you face that direction when you pray to him.

 

[rightwinger]

Most of those losses under the Democrat controlled congress.

The president doesn't make the laws, he just signs them. Which is why a Dem congress and a Dem white house is the worst of both worlds.

Which laws were passed by the Democratic congress that caused an economic collapse. Bush vetoed any relevant legislation

Bush is guilty for what he didn't do. As the economy started it's collapse, Bush took a hands off approach.....let deregulation work it's course. As it became evident we were in a historic recession approaching a depression, Bush responded with bandaids.
It was not till after Obama had won the election that Bush started serious economic reform

Another hack troll post. Find out where Obama is so you face that direction when you pray to him.

Nothing of value to add to the discussion....thanks for playing

 

[elvis]

Which laws were passed by the Democratic congress that caused an economic collapse. Bush vetoed any relevant legislation

Bush is guilty for what he didn't do. As the economy started it's collapse, Bush took a hands off approach.....let deregulation work it's course. As it became evident we were in a historic recession approaching a depression, Bush responded with bandaids.
It was not till after Obama had won the election that Bush started serious economic reform

Another hack troll post. Find out where Obama is so you face that direction when you pray to him.

Nothing of value to add to the discussion

True. Hack trolls like you bring nothing of value to the discussion.

 

[Papageorgio]

I celebrate 147,000 new jobs

Did you celebrate when Bush was losing 770,000 jobs a month?

When he took office in Jan, 2001 there were 135,999,000 employed. When he left office his last full month, Dec., 2008 143,338,000 were employed. That was a gain of 7 million, 339 thousand jobs. Today, 4 years later under Obama employment is at 143,262,000, a net loss of 76,000 jobs since Obama took office 4 years ago.

When Bush took office the end of Jan 2001 there were 137,778,000
employed and when he left office the end of Jan 2009 there were 142,187,000 employed for an increase of 5,409,000. However during that same period the unemployed went from 6,023,000 to 12,049,000 an increase of 6,026,000 jobs lost giving a net job loss of 615,000 over his 8 years.

Obama started with 142,187,000 and is at 143,262,000 for a gain of 1,075,000. The unemployed during the same period went from 12,049,000 to 12,029,000 a decrease of 20,000 for a net job increase of 1,095,000.

Do you have a link to the numbers? Not that I distrust you, however numbers can be skewed. When you speak of unemployed, are you speaking of those that are still receiving unemployment or the real unemployment, which is much higher.

We need 135,000 new jobs a month to keep pace with unemployment, that means that means we needed to add 6,480,000 jobs just to keep pace, your numbers show 1,075,000 added, that leaves a short fall of 5,405,000 jobs, yet unemployment is going down?

The numbers are not adding up.