Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How dare those evil Boomers retire, don't they know CON$ require them to work till they die???The recovery continues....
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- American employers substantially stepped up their hiring in January, bringing the unemployment rate down for the fifth month in a row.
Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported Friday, marking a pick-up in hiring from December, when the economy added 203,000 jobs.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009.
Job growth was much stronger than expected. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 130,000 jobs added in the month, and that the unemployment rate likely ticked up to 8.6%.
January jobs report: Hiring ramps up, unemployment falls - Feb. 3, 2012
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
And the value of homes is still falling. Maybe when canada invades us, that will change.
No, home values are correcting themselves from an artificially inflated bubble. Laissez faire capitalism run amok. They should have never reached the point they did. Why people couldn't grasp this at the time is beyond me. You were an idiot if you invested in real estate at that time.
You're 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality bub.. it was the constant fucking with markets by the command and control retards who gave us this mess.Liberals amaze me. Jerking off in excitement to 8.3 (recession-level) unemployment.
Great news... but wasn't this supposed to happen like three years ago when we were told we had to spend a gazillion dollars immediately to prevent the world from collapsing.
Oh.... wait...
Great news... but wasn't this supposed to happen like three years ago when we were told we had to spend a gazillion dollars immediately to prevent the world from collapsing.
Oh.... wait...
It did stop the world from collapsing. The stock market had dropped 7000 points, GDP was negative for over a year, unemployment doubled, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. The auto and financial sectors were on the verge of collapse
If President Obama just let it ride, we would have been in a depression. Stimulus and TARP saved us.
Laissez Faire capitalism?
Because it is the same U-3 standard CON$ used for Reagan through Bush II. But all of a sudden you have a Democratic President and it is pure deception to compare Obama to the others using the same U-3 standard. Now dishonest CON$ want to compare Bush II's U-3 rate to Obama's U-6 rate, anything other than that they consider "Liberal media bias" protecting Obama!In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
The recovery continues....
The recovery continues....
So people running out of unemployment insurance, quitting looking for a job and taking part time jobs because they can't find fully time work is something you celebrate?
link doesnt work
Laissez Faire capitalism?
So de-regulation is "fucking with markets"? Okay then. That which we call a rose....
So, you're equal to BOOOOOSH! in the lying out your ass department.Because it is the same U-3 standard CON$ used for Reagan through Bush II. But all of a sudden you have a Democratic President and it is pure deception to compare Obama to the others using the same U-3 standard. Now dishonest CON$ want to compare Bush II's U-3 rate to Obama's U-6 rate, anything other than that they consider "Liberal media bias" protecting Obama!In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
The recovery continues....
So people running out of unemployment insurance, quitting looking for a job and taking part time jobs because they can't find fully time work is something you celebrate?
. Employers have added an average of 201,000 jobs a month in the past three months. That's 50,000 more jobs per month than the economy averaged in each month of 2011.
The Labor Department's January jobs report was filled with other encouraging data and revisions. Hiring was widespread across many high-paying industries. Pay increased for millions of workers. And the economy added 200,000 more jobs last year than initially estimated by government data collectors.
Because it is the same U-3 standard CON$ used for Reagan through Bush II. But all of a sudden you have a Democratic President and it is pure deception to compare Obama to the others using the same U-3 standard. Now dishonest CON$ want to compare Bush II's U-3 rate to Obama's U-6 rate, anything other than that they consider "Liberal media bias" protecting Obama!In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
So, you're equal to BOOOOOSH! in the lying out your ass department.Because it is the same U-3 standard CON$ used for Reagan through Bush II. But all of a sudden you have a Democratic President and it is pure deception to compare Obama to the others using the same U-3 standard. Now dishonest CON$ want to compare Bush II's U-3 rate to Obama's U-6 rate, anything other than that they consider "Liberal media bias" protecting Obama!In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
Glad we could clear that up.
Because it is the same U-3 standard CON$ used for Reagan through Bush II. But all of a sudden you have a Democratic President and it is pure deception to compare Obama to the others using the same U-3 standard. Now dishonest CON$ want to compare Bush II's U-3 rate to Obama's U-6 rate, anything other than that they consider "Liberal media bias" protecting Obama!In all seriousness - a genuine question...
Why do you guys still insist on using this number? (now 8.3%)
Even MSNBC acknowledged last month that the unemployment number is misleading at best, as it does not address the record number of employable people dropping out of the market - as well as removes the context that underemployment is a more serious problem than unemployment.
Please answer this question in a legitimate, specific way.
Exactly that (in bold).
Enough said.
link doesnt work
Try this one...ir worked for me!
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.
link doesnt work
Try this one...ir worked for me!
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.
Who is Tyler Durden and why should we believe him?
