Unemployment Hits 4-Year Low

[Nova78]

$7.50 an hour is not a job, its some fuck stick gettin two for one, most of those jobs are low paying no benefit bull shit

Care to provide anything that supports this claim?

February unemployment numbers: 227K new jobs; no change in unemployment - POLITICO.com

Job Market Recovery Led By Low-Wage Sectors

Economy Creating Mostly Low-Paying Jobs - US News and World Report

Economy Creating Mostly Low-Paying Jobs - US News and World Report

 

[ThinkCritically]

$7.50 an hour is not a job, its some fuck stick gettin two for one, most of those jobs are low paying no benefit bull shit

Care to provide anything that supports this claim?

February unemployment numbers: 227K new jobs; no change in unemployment - POLITICO.com

Job Market Recovery Led By Low-Wage Sectors

Economy Creating Mostly Low-Paying Jobs - US News and World Report

Economy Creating Mostly Low-Paying Jobs - US News and World Report

You make my point precisely! The economy is structurally changing. These unemployment numbers only tell part of the story, and they don't paint a very accurate picture at that.

 

[kaz]

Creating 3.9 million private sector jobs in two years is an improvement no matter how you slice it.

Which equals the 3.9 million shed in the first year and a half of the Obama administration. Celebration of his having now accomplished a net nothing, your liberal standards for yourselves are so high.

I'm going to walk into the grocery store and walk out not having bought anything. That way I'll have the same money as I walked in with, which is a liberal "win."

 

[kaz]

Precisely. The only reason the unemployment rate dropped is because there is a now a record high number of people removed from the labor force. The media is to blame for the manipulation as well for not explaining this to people and just touting the new %.

How exactly do you think they are "removed?"

They removed themselves by stopping looking for a job.

 

[pinqy]

Precisely. The only reason the unemployment rate dropped is because there is a now a record high number of people removed from the labor force. The media is to blame for the manipulation as well for not explaining this to people and just touting the new %.

How exactly do you think they are "removed?"

They removed themselves by stopping looking for a job.

Exactly.

 

[ThinkCritically]

The really import part here is the bigger picture... To put it bluntly... we ain't seen shit yet! And if you are encouraged by these numbers, and you think that the US is going to be the same US that it was during the 50's and 60's you are wrong. The middle class has been getting chipped away at for 40 years now. I won't get into the details as to why that is the case; we can save that for another thread, but its true. Wages have been flat for 40 years and inflation has risen over the past 40 years this equals shrinking middle class.

The labor market is only going to get tighter and tighter and tighter. Time to compete!

 

[Nova78]

The really import part here is the bigger picture... To put it bluntly... we ain't seen shit yet! And if you are encouraged by these numbers, and you think that the US is going to be the same US that it was during the 50's and 60's you are wrong. The middle class has been getting chipped away at for 40 years now. I won't get into the details as to why that is the case; we can save that for another thread, but its true. Wages have been flat for 40 years and inflation has risen over the past 40 years this equals shrinking middle class.

The labor market is only going to get tighter and tighter and tighter. Time to compete!

Its has turned into a big shit sandwich , and sooner or later we will all have to take a bite, wages are going back to the 70's . Some think it is not true because it has not effected there lives yet, when it does they will be in for a rude awakening....the low wages are shrinking the tax base and yet the government just keeps on borrowing and spending more .We our in deep-do-do as a County.

 

[8537]

Creating 3.9 million private sector jobs in two years is an improvement no matter how you slice it.

Which equals the 3.9 million shed in the first year and a half of the Obama administration. Celebration of his having now accomplished a net nothing, your liberal standards for yourselves are so high.

I'm going to walk into the grocery store and walk out not having bought anything. That way I'll have the same money as I walked in with, which is a liberal "win."

The economy was shedding 800,000 jobs per month when he took office. You can't turn that boat in a month. The trend has been upward ever since.

Over Bush's first term the economy shed 913,000 private sector payroll. Over two terms the economy netted a loss of 646,000 private sector payroll.

Over Obama's first term to date, the economy has netted a loss of about 200K and it's trending upward significantly.

 

[DSGE]

The really import part here is the bigger picture... To put it bluntly... we ain't seen shit yet! And if you are encouraged by these numbers, and you think that the US is going to be the same US that it was during the 50's and 60's you are wrong. The middle class has been getting chipped away at for 40 years now. I won't get into the details as to why that is the case; we can save that for another thread, but its true. Wages have been flat for 40 years and inflation has risen over the past 40 years this equals shrinking middle class.

The labor market is only going to get tighter and tighter and tighter. Time to compete!

Wages haven't been flat for 40 years.

Also, if the hugely falling real wage you're suggesting actually happened that would mean much more employment, not less.

 

[kaz]

The economy was shedding 800,000 jobs per month when he took office. You can't turn that boat in a month

He said he could, he said employment wouldn't go above 8% during his presidency. He meant it won't go below 8%...

Over Obama's first term to date, the economy has netted a loss of about 200K and it's trending upward significantly.

So you say, "you can't turn that around in a month" and then jump to that in almost 3 1/2 years he netted a job loss? Aren't we missing a step? Or two? Or...

 

[Avorysuds]

And it is Obama's fault!

Back to being a typical left wing loon idiot I see... Too bad.

 

[8537]

The economy was shedding 800,000 jobs per month when he took office. You can't turn that boat in a month

He said he could, he said employment wouldn't go above 8% during his presidency. He meant it won't go below 8%...

No actually - Obama never said that. His CEA head included it in a report from before he took office that was created when consensus was the economy would shrink about 4% SAAR in Q4 2008. It shrank 9% SAAR.

The downturn was far, far worse than anyone knew at the time.

 

[kaz]

The economy was shedding 800,000 jobs per month when he took office. You can't turn that boat in a month

He said he could, he said employment wouldn't go above 8% during his presidency. He meant it won't go below 8%...

No actually - Obama never said that. His CEA head included it in a report from before he took office that was created when consensus was the economy would shrink about 4% SAAR in Q4 2008. It shrank 9% SAAR.

The downturn was far, far worse than anyone knew at the time.

It was his administration and it was not just "before" he took office. I'd like you to defend W saying that he's not responsible for anything people in his administration says, only himself. His staff, his responsibility. I'm consistent with W, are you?

And you only addressed part of the point. It went above 8%, over three years ago, and stayed there. That BTW is the longest period since WWII that has happened.

And I like the "worse then anyone knew at the time" excuse. Obama can't read the economy, but he knows how to fix it, only it takes over 3 1/2 years (and counting). Wow, an economic guru...

 

[ThinkCritically]

The really import part here is the bigger picture... To put it bluntly... we ain't seen shit yet! And if you are encouraged by these numbers, and you think that the US is going to be the same US that it was during the 50's and 60's you are wrong. The middle class has been getting chipped away at for 40 years now. I won't get into the details as to why that is the case; we can save that for another thread, but its true. Wages have been flat for 40 years and inflation has risen over the past 40 years this equals shrinking middle class.

The labor market is only going to get tighter and tighter and tighter. Time to compete!

Wages haven't been flat for 40 years.

Also, if the hugely falling real wage you're suggesting actually happened that would mean much more employment, not less.

You have perfectly proven my point.....That chart that you posted is a "wage and distribution" chart. Not a "real income" chart. two completely different things.

And yes, if real incomes falls labor should become relatively cheaper thus creating more jobs. But this isn't happening because of a host of other factors that are in effect.

 

[DSGE]

The really import part here is the bigger picture... To put it bluntly... we ain't seen shit yet! And if you are encouraged by these numbers, and you think that the US is going to be the same US that it was during the 50's and 60's you are wrong. The middle class has been getting chipped away at for 40 years now. I won't get into the details as to why that is the case; we can save that for another thread, but its true. Wages have been flat for 40 years and inflation has risen over the past 40 years this equals shrinking middle class.

The labor market is only going to get tighter and tighter and tighter. Time to compete!

Wages haven't been flat for 40 years.

Also, if the hugely falling real wage you're suggesting actually happened that would mean much more employment, not less.

You have perfectly proven my point.....That chart that you posted is a "wage and distribution" chart. Not a "real income" chart. two completely different things.

Yes. Because you said "wages have been flat for 40 years" (when you don't put the 'real' qualifier on the front it's always assumed to be nominal), and then you reinforce that you were talking about nominal wages by talking about inflation "inflation has risen over the past 40 years". Obviously no need to talk about inflation if you're talking about real wages, so clearly you were talking about nominal wages.

Anyway, the real wage hasn't been flat either. Here's wage and salary disbursements deflated by the CPI:

 

[ThinkCritically]

Wages haven't been flat for 40 years.

Also, if the hugely falling real wage you're suggesting actually happened that would mean much more employment, not less.

You have perfectly proven my point.....That chart that you posted is a "wage and distribution" chart. Not a "real income" chart. two completely different things.

Yes. Because you said "wages have been flat for 40 years" (when you don't put the 'real' qualifier on the front it's always assumed to be nominal), and then you reinforce that you were talking about nominal wages by talking about inflation "inflation has risen over the past 40 years". Obviously no need to talk about inflation if you're talking about real wages, so clearly you were talking about nominal wages.

Anyway, the real wage hasn't been flat either. Here's wage and salary disbursements deflated by the CPI:

I apologize for not being clear. The point I was trying to make was that real wages for the middle class have been flat for the past 40 years. The chart you provide is correct, but it doesn't not show the different real wage rates for the middle class. I believe this chart is an aggregate, correct?

Anyways I'm not really trying to argue with you about your knowledge of employment matters. I was simply making the point that the middle class is in for a long downward pressure on their real wage for some time to come.

 

[KissMy]

We actually lost jobs per capita last month. Anyone pounding their chest over those jobs numbers is just a hack.

 

[DSGE]

You have perfectly proven my point.....That chart that you posted is a "wage and distribution" chart. Not a "real income" chart. two completely different things.

Yes. Because you said "wages have been flat for 40 years" (when you don't put the 'real' qualifier on the front it's always assumed to be nominal), and then you reinforce that you were talking about nominal wages by talking about inflation "inflation has risen over the past 40 years". Obviously no need to talk about inflation if you're talking about real wages, so clearly you were talking about nominal wages.

Anyway, the real wage hasn't been flat either. Here's wage and salary disbursements deflated by the CPI:

I apologize for not being clear. The point I was trying to make was that real wages for the middle class have been flat for the past 40 years. The chart you provide is correct, but it doesn't not show the different real wage rates for the middle class. I believe this chart is an aggregate, correct?

Anyways I'm not really trying to argue with you about your knowledge of employment matters. I was simply making the point that the middle class is in for a long downward pressure on their real wage for some time to come.

Well that's not true either. From the excel file here: CBO | Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007

The median inflation adjusted household income has grown 35% from 1979 to 2007. It hasn't been flat, it's grown at 1.2% per year on average. Although I would agree that that's extremely lethargic. The GFC would have dropped the level of income, but it's unlikely to affect its growth rate. Which isn't to say that the fall in the level of incomes wasn't big enough to put a permanent dent in the middle class.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Unemployment numbers are the most abused and manipulated statistics out there. Say for example, unemployment could remain flat, but the bureau of labor would report a decrease in unemployment because over time they quit counting those who have been unemployed past a given time.

The unemployment rate does not include people who want to be unemployed (retirees) nor does it include people who have stopped looking for work. It includes only those actively seeking employment who are not employed.

I don't mean to be a nay sayer but it is important to know how these statistics are compiled. Basically many unemployed people are not counted. A substantial amount.

Well if they aren't counted how do you know how many they are?

I'm sure you already knew all of this, but for the average person who only hears "unemployment is going down" they might mistaken this as an improvement, when in fact it isn't a true indication as to how many people are without jobs.

The average person needs to understand that these types of statistics are only good news when the President is a Democrat.

 

[8537]

He said he could, he said employment wouldn't go above 8% during his presidency. He meant it won't go below 8%...

No actually - Obama never said that. His CEA head included it in a report from before he took office that was created when consensus was the economy would shrink about 4% SAAR in Q4 2008. It shrank 9% SAAR.

The downturn was far, far worse than anyone knew at the time.

It was his administration and it was not just "before" he took office.

Eh, yes it was.

And I like the "worse then anyone knew at the time" excuse. Obama can't read the economy, but he knows how to fix it, only it takes over 3 1/2 years (and counting). Wow, an economic guru...

It wasn't just Obama. No economists, no politicians knew the economy was contracting at 9% SAAR. None. Anywhere. Because the downturn was far worse than any models showed at the time.