US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[sealybobo]

Who the fuck in their right mind would hire someone on the government dole for 99 weeks???????????

NOBODY is presently on UI for 99 weeks.

No shit Sherlock, btw I wonder what happened to all those people who got kicked off the gravey train in 2013?

No you don't. You didn't care then and you don't care now!

You don't want know the truth because you can't handle the truth....

The Unemployment rate dropped like a rock after the Republicans kicked off the 99 weekers.

Went from 7.9% Dec.2013 to 6.6% Jan 2014

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Prove to me it was not a job creation program by the republicans .

First of all, not all states got 99 weeks, only states over a certain % UE. Secondly those states that did have 99 weeks began ending them in early 2012, not Dec 2013. And thirdly the UE rate was already declining steadily before 2012.

In fact, right during the great Bush recession, GOP governor Rick snyder cut unemployment down from 6 weeks to 5. I couldn't believe he did that during a recession.

But all one has to do is look at how he didn't care when he was poisoning flint citizens with led, so why would I think he would care about cutting people off during a great recession his party created on purpose? It's called disaster capitalism.

 

[sealybobo]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America! He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO! Thanks Obama? That's farce of the highest order...

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

 

[sealybobo]

Who the fuck in their right mind would hire someone on the government dole for 99 weeks???????????

NOBODY is presently on UI for 99 weeks.

No shit Sherlock, btw I wonder what happened to all those people who got kicked off the gravey train in 2013?

They got jobs you dumb Republican

Then why were they crying? " Oh boo whoooo woe is us we have to get a job, those nasty republicans "


You know they milked the 99 weeks


.

BULLSHIT!
They "milked" it by spending MORE time looking for work than those who weren't collecting UI.

Unemployment Benefits: Democratic Governors Call On Congress To Keep Benefits

a report, released Thursday, that finds workers who are eligible for benefits search for work more vigorously than workers who are not eligible.

“Since Congress enacted federal unemployment benefits, time spent looking for a job has tripled among the long-term unemployed who are out of work as a result of job loss,” the report says (PDF).

Citing data from the Labor Department’s American Time Use Survey, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee estimate that from 2008 to 2010, the amount of time long-term jobless eligible for benefits spend looking for work increased 203 percent compared with previous years. For workers who are likely ineligible for benefits because their unemployment was not caused by job loss, the amount of time spent search for work increased 120 percent.

Why Some Still Can't Find Jobs As The Economy Nears 'Full Employment'

But the phrase doesn't tell the full story for millions of Americans either still out of work or who are looking for something better than part-time work.

To economists, it's when the number of people seeking jobs is roughly in balance with the number of openings.

Economists say a healthy job market has an unemployment rate somewhere between 4.6 percent and 5 percent. Some people are quitting, some people are getting hired — there's churn but no despair. In December, the national rate was 5 percent and now many predictions have the rate gliding down to 4.6 percent by July. So bingo, we're basically there at full employment. If all goes as expected in 2016, people who want jobs will be able to find them, and employers who need workers will be able to attract them.

 

[Oldstyle]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America! He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO! Thanks Obama? That's farce of the highest order...

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

 

[edthecynic]

Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...

 

[edthecynic]

Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

That may have been the rule before Bush II, but it no longer applies after the Bush II tax cuts.

 

[couch protester]

[

Where do the statistics come from?
Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. This does not include the people who don't file unemployment at Dept of Labor

LIAR!

Delusions of grandeur.

1. 
   But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015
   Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...
   economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-welfare-paints-a-d...

Obviously the government doesn't count these welfare recipients as unemployed if they are only working temporarily 8 hours a week at a Temporary Staffing agency on poverty level. Librats want so bad to believe their hero JObama.

 

[sealybobo]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America! He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO! Thanks Obama? That's farce of the highest order...

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Actually, most normal people understand the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you think conservativonomics work you're more brainwashed than you appear to be. Are you a libertarian?

 

[pinqy]

[

Where do the statistics come from?
Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. This does not include the people who don't file unemployment at Dept of Labor

LIAR!

Delusions of grandeur.

1. 
   But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015
   Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...
   economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-welfare-paints-a-d...

Obviously the government doesn't count these welfare recipients as unemployed if they are only working temporarily 8 hours a week at a Temporary Staffing agency on poverty level. Librats want so bad to believe their hero JObama.

It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

 

[edthecynic]

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015

1. Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...
   economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-welfare-paints-a-d...

Typical dishonest stat. They counted 6 different programs and if one person was eligible for all 6 they were counted as 6 different people. Most poor people were eligible for more than 1 poverty program, in fact, when the Right like to claim that poor people make more than people who work, they count all 6 poverty programs combined.

 

[edthecynic]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

All LIES, get it

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

All LIES, get it

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

 

[couch protester]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

 

[pinqy]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.

No they're not. Where'd you get that nonsense from?

That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.

No.

If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is

14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...

No.

Every month there is a survey. The survey universe are those in the U.S. age 16 and older who are not in the military, or in prison, or in an institution (nursing home, mental health, etc). This is the Population.
Everyone in the Population is either in the Labor Force or is Not in the Labor Force.
The Labor Force is made up of the Employed (working or temporarily absent from a job) and the Unemployed (not working, but available and looking for work)
Everyone else (those not working and either not available or not trying to work) are Not in the Labor Force.

The Unemployment rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force (NOT the population). Meaning the UE rate is Unemployed divided by (Employed plus Unemployed). Those Not in the Labor Force are not part of the UE rate equation.

 

[pinqy]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories.

Actually, the only President under which anyone working was included as Unemployed was FDR (people working in the PWA were classified as Unemployed).

Otherwise, no one classifies someone WHO HAS A JOB as "Unemployed." It's nonsensical.

 

[couch protester]

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015

1. Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...
   economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-welfare-paints-a-d...

Typical dishonest stat. They counted 6 different programs and if one person was eligible for all 6 they were counted as 6 different people. Most poor people were eligible for more than 1 poverty program, in fact, when the Right like to claim that poor people make more than people who work, they count all 6 poverty programs combined.

Show a liberal hard evidence, liberals say its inadmissible, bring a liberal witnesses and the criminal's testimony confession, liberals say it was false witnesses and a forced confession, the jury finds the criminal guilty on 12 charges, the libs say the criminal didn't commit one crime. Democrats love defending their politician criminals like Bill Clinton, Hillary, ISIS, Ted Kennedy, Southern Democrat Ku Klux Klan harassing and hanging blacks in the South for voting Republican and still blacks harassed today by bigots for being an Uncle Tom for voting Republican. No wonder libs condone their criminal behavior, they're the Mafia! You librats learn well from your master Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals


* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

 

[edthecynic]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

All LIES, get it

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Deregulations collapsed our economy!!!! Remember that the next election. Vote democrat!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

All LIES, get it

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".