214,000 Jobs Added in October, UE Rate Down To 5.8%

[peach174]

9 million still out of work

And part time jobs are gay

Who killed the jobs idiot?

Over 10 million jobs have been created or restored under the Obama administration. Bush destroyed 18 million jobs.

Dems who refused to do what Bush wanted destroyed 18 million jobs.

 

[pinqy]

I admit that I said it wrong.
How the Government Measures Unemployment

the employed are:

• All those who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.
• All those who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a business or farm operated by a family member with whom they live.
• All those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, bad weather, labor dispute, or various personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off

The bold part needs to be changed.
What needs to be changed is to count the number of part time workers who want full time work.

You mean like A-25. Persons at work 1 to 34 hours in all and in nonagricultural industries by reason for working less than 35 hours and usual full- or part-time status

No I mean people who could only find part time work who wants full time.

Which was in the table I linked to: 2,414,000 people working part time because they can't find full time work.

 

[edthecynic]

Job creation is not even keeping up with population growth. And if Obama uses an EO to grant Amnesty, population growth will increase and make this anemic job growth even more inadequate.

MopenFail!

Actually job creation is about double what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Actually, that is not true. The population growth in 2013 was slightly under 2,300,000. You do the math and tell me what your answer is.

I'll also add that the job growth under Obola is thoroughly inadequate to recover jobs lost in the recession. If the Labor Force Participation Rate were the same as it was when he took office, 7 Million more people would be in the Labor Force, with 6.5M+ of them actually having jobs.

That 6.5M is the Obama Jobs Deficit. It's shameful.

And then there's the low wage aspect of many of the jobs that the economy is managing to create....

There is no 6.5 million jobs deficit, that is just Right-wing voodoo. But using that "logic" Bush moved 10 million from the labor force to the not in labor force category and he didn't have Boomers retiring, so he left with a 10 million jobs deficit. That is more than shameful.

 

[edthecynic]

When Bush took office, the level of Civilian employment was 137.8M. When he left office, 142.1. What is the net difference between these two figures?

Peak employment under bush was 146.3M, in 2007.

When Obola took office, was 142.1M; it is now 147.3.

You left out that when Bush took office there were 6 million unemployed and when he left there were 12 million unemployed which gives Bush a net LOSS of 1.7 million jobs.
When Obama took office there were 12 million unemployed and now there are 9 million giving Obama a net gain of 8.2 million jobs.

 

[KissMy]

Under Clinton 74.2% of the working age population had a job. By the end of 2009 only 65.3% of the 198.5 million working age population had a job. Bush cost 8.9% lower employment rendering 17.7 million more jobless of those 198.5 million working age people than if they were employed at Clinton levels 74.2%.

Bush cost us 17.7 million jobs. Obama has restored 11 million of those jobs. Obama increased non-farm payroll from 129.7 million to 141 million & total employed to 147 million. The non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is currently only 5.5%

 

[boedicca]

Job creation is not even keeping up with population growth. And if Obama uses an EO to grant Amnesty, population growth will increase and make this anemic job growth even more inadequate.

MopenFail!

Actually job creation is about double what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Actually, that is not true. The population growth in 2013 was slightly under 2,300,000. You do the math and tell me what your answer is.

I'll also add that the job growth under Obola is thoroughly inadequate to recover jobs lost in the recession. If the Labor Force Participation Rate were the same as it was when he took office, 7 Million more people would be in the Labor Force, with 6.5M+ of them actually having jobs.

That 6.5M is the Obama Jobs Deficit. It's shameful.

And then there's the low wage aspect of many of the jobs that the economy is managing to create....

There is no 6.5 million jobs deficit, that is just Right-wing voodoo. But using that "logic" Bush moved 10 million from the labor force to the not in labor force category and he didn't have Boomers retiring, so he left with a 10 million jobs deficit. That is more than shameful.

Actually, it's MATH. Take the current civilian population, apply the Labor Force Participation Rate at the start of Obama's term, and then back out the current unemployment rate. This formula shows a jobs deficit of approximately 6.7M missing jobs.

 

[boedicca]

When Bush took office, the level of Civilian employment was 137.8M. When he left office, 142.1. What is the net difference between these two figures?

Peak employment under bush was 146.3M, in 2007.

When Obola took office, was 142.1M; it is now 147.3.

You left out that when Bush took office there were 6 million unemployed and when he left there were 12 million unemployed which gives Bush a net LOSS of 1.7 million jobs.
When Obama took office there were 12 million unemployed and now there are 9 million giving Obama a net gain of 8.2 million jobs.

When Bush took office, the level of Civilian employment was 137.8M. When he left office, 142.1. What is the net difference between these two figures?

Peak employment under bush was 146.3M, in 2007.

When Obola took office, was 142.1M; it is now 147.3.

You left out that when Bush took office there were 6 million unemployed and when he left there were 12 million unemployed which gives Bush a net LOSS of 1.7 million jobs.
When Obama took office there were 12 million unemployed and now there are 9 million giving Obama a net gain of 8.2 million jobs.

That is incorrect. You are leaving out the people who have dropped out of the labor force, which is hardly a surprise as you progs hate people.

 

[edthecynic]

Job creation is not even keeping up with population growth. And if Obama uses an EO to grant Amnesty, population growth will increase and make this anemic job growth even more inadequate.

MopenFail!

Actually job creation is about double what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Actually, that is not true. The population growth in 2013 was slightly under 2,300,000. You do the math and tell me what your answer is.

I'll also add that the job growth under Obola is thoroughly inadequate to recover jobs lost in the recession. If the Labor Force Participation Rate were the same as it was when he took office, 7 Million more people would be in the Labor Force, with 6.5M+ of them actually having jobs.

That 6.5M is the Obama Jobs Deficit. It's shameful.

And then there's the low wage aspect of many of the jobs that the economy is managing to create....

There is no 6.5 million jobs deficit, that is just Right-wing voodoo. But using that "logic" Bush moved 10 million from the labor force to the not in labor force category and he didn't have Boomers retiring, so he left with a 10 million jobs deficit. That is more than shameful.

Actually, it's MATH. Take the current civilian population, apply the Labor Force Participation Rate at the start of Obama's term, and then back out the current unemployment rate. This formula shows a jobs deficit of approximately 6.7M missing jobs.

A constant LPR is a Right-Wing-nut fairy tale invented AFTER Bush moved 10 million to the not in labor force category. Wing-nuts might have credibility had they invented it for Bush, it still would be a stupid economic indicator, but the wing-nuts would have some minimal credibility had they invented the stupid concept under Bush.

 

[edthecynic]

When Bush took office, the level of Civilian employment was 137.8M. When he left office, 142.1. What is the net difference between these two figures?

Peak employment under bush was 146.3M, in 2007.

When Obola took office, was 142.1M; it is now 147.3.

You left out that when Bush took office there were 6 million unemployed and when he left there were 12 million unemployed which gives Bush a net LOSS of 1.7 million jobs.
When Obama took office there were 12 million unemployed and now there are 9 million giving Obama a net gain of 8.2 million jobs.

When Bush took office, the level of Civilian employment was 137.8M. When he left office, 142.1. What is the net difference between these two figures?

Peak employment under bush was 146.3M, in 2007.

When Obola took office, was 142.1M; it is now 147.3.

You left out that when Bush took office there were 6 million unemployed and when he left there were 12 million unemployed which gives Bush a net LOSS of 1.7 million jobs.
When Obama took office there were 12 million unemployed and now there are 9 million giving Obama a net gain of 8.2 million jobs.

That is incorrect. You are leaving out the people who have dropped out of the labor force, which is hardly a surprise as you progs hate people.

OK, Bush dropped 10 million out of the labor force and he didn't have Boomers retiring.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Job participation rate under Obama is lower than at any time since the Great Depression. But hey.....don't those phony UE numbers make you feel good?


Please note where it was when Bush left office versus now. What a ******* joke.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[TooTall]

Actually job creation is about double what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Actually, that is not true. The population growth in 2013 was slightly under 2,300,000. You do the math and tell me what your answer is.

I'll also add that the job growth under Obola is thoroughly inadequate to recover jobs lost in the recession. If the Labor Force Participation Rate were the same as it was when he took office, 7 Million more people would be in the Labor Force, with 6.5M+ of them actually having jobs.

That 6.5M is the Obama Jobs Deficit. It's shameful.

And then there's the low wage aspect of many of the jobs that the economy is managing to create....

There is no 6.5 million jobs deficit, that is just Right-wing voodoo. But using that "logic" Bush moved 10 million from the labor force to the not in labor force category and he didn't have Boomers retiring, so he left with a 10 million jobs deficit. That is more than shameful.

Actually, it's MATH. Take the current civilian population, apply the Labor Force Participation Rate at the start of Obama's term, and then back out the current unemployment rate. This formula shows a jobs deficit of approximately 6.7M missing jobs.

A constant LPR is a Right-Wing-nut fairy tale invented AFTER Bush moved 10 million to the not in labor force category. Wing-nuts might have credibility had they invented it for Bush, it still would be a stupid economic indicator, but the wing-nuts would have some minimal credibility had they invented the stupid concept under Bush.

I will accept the number 10 million, and the labor participation rate seems to be what is used to determine that number. In Jan 2001 when Bush took office the LPR was 67.2%. and had dropped to 65.7% which is a 2.5% decrease in 8 years. In Nov 2014 the LPR is 62.8%, a 2.9% decrease in less than 6 years.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't know if there is a finer example of how USMB nutters can be "handled" by their masters than this Labor Participation Rate meme.

Once the UE rate began declining....it came like a ******* CHORUS. Every single idiot started screaming about discouraged workers and people giving up. AMERICANS!!!!! Giving up. And that the unemployment situation was ACTUALLY worse during the recovery. Unfuckingbelievable.

Do you personally know a single person under retirement age who lost a job during the recession who became discouraged to the point that they gave up? I don't. You ******* imbeciles. You'll believe anything Heritage tells you ( except when it comes to insurance mandates).

Enough already. The decline in the UE rate is a good thing, assholes.

The decline in labour force participation in the US VOX CEPR s Policy Portal

 

[TooTall]

becas

I don't know if there is a finer example of how USMB nutters can be "handled" by their masters than this Labor Participation Rate meme.

Once the UE rate began declining....it came like a ******* CHORUS. Every single idiot started screaming about discouraged workers and people giving up. AMERICANS!!!!! Giving up. And that the unemployment situation was ACTUALLY worse during the recovery. Unfuckingbelievable.

Do you personally know a single person under retirement age who lost a job during the recession who became discouraged to the point that they gave up? I don't. You ******* imbeciles. You'll believe anything Heritage tells you ( except when it comes to insurance mandates).

Enough already. The decline in the UE rate is a good thing, assholes.

The decline in labour force participation in the US VOX CEPR s Policy Portal

The fact that you don't know any of the people that became discouraged and gave up for work is the meaningless rambling of a ******* imbecile. Read this from he BLS and you may go from being an imbecile to an idiot.

"In October, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for
work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not
counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 770,000 discouraged workers in
October, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million
persons marginally attached to the labor force in October had not searched for
work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities."

Employment Situation Summary

 

[bigrebnc1775]

let's see how many people lost their jobs
Daily Job Cuts - Layoff News Job Layoffs 2014 2013 Bankruptcy Store closings Business Economy News

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh cool! You keyed in on my personal anecdote. Way to go!

Is that number going up or down? The number that the BLS calls discouraged? Answer quick.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Not quick enough!

Drop in U.S. Labor Force Hard to Pin on Discouraged Workers - Bloomberg

Discouraged Workers Are Coming Back - Business Insider

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, that is not true. The population growth in 2013 was slightly under 2,300,000. You do the math and tell me what your answer is.

I'll also add that the job growth under Obola is thoroughly inadequate to recover jobs lost in the recession. If the Labor Force Participation Rate were the same as it was when he took office, 7 Million more people would be in the Labor Force, with 6.5M+ of them actually having jobs.

That 6.5M is the Obama Jobs Deficit. It's shameful.

And then there's the low wage aspect of many of the jobs that the economy is managing to create....

There is no 6.5 million jobs deficit, that is just Right-wing voodoo. But using that "logic" Bush moved 10 million from the labor force to the not in labor force category and he didn't have Boomers retiring, so he left with a 10 million jobs deficit. That is more than shameful.

Actually, it's MATH. Take the current civilian population, apply the Labor Force Participation Rate at the start of Obama's term, and then back out the current unemployment rate. This formula shows a jobs deficit of approximately 6.7M missing jobs.

A constant LPR is a Right-Wing-nut fairy tale invented AFTER Bush moved 10 million to the not in labor force category. Wing-nuts might have credibility had they invented it for Bush, it still would be a stupid economic indicator, but the wing-nuts would have some minimal credibility had they invented the stupid concept under Bush.

I will accept the number 10 million, and the labor participation rate seems to be what is used to determine that number. In Jan 2001 when Bush took office the LPR was 67.2%. and had dropped to 65.7% which is a 2.5% decrease in 8 years. In Nov 2014 the LPR is 62.8%, a 2.9% decrease in less than 6 years.

But Bush's 2.5% drop was for the most part without Boomers retiring!

The not in labor force number is published every month by the BLS.

In Jan 2001 there were 70,088,000 not in labor force and in Jan 2009 there were 80,529,000.

 

[TooTall]

Oh cool! You keyed in on my personal anecdote. Way to go!

Is that number going up or down? The number that the BLS calls discouraged? Answer quick.

"Do you personally know a single person under retirement age who lost a job during the recession who became discouraged to the point that they gave up?"

The number of discouraged workers went from zero that you know to 700,000 that the BLS knows.

 

[TooTall]

Not quick enough!

Drop in U.S. Labor Force Hard to Pin on Discouraged Workers - Bloomberg

Discouraged Workers Are Coming Back - Business Insider

You are finally admitting that there are a lot of discouraged workers that are not looking for work. That is a start.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Not quick enough!

Drop in U.S. Labor Force Hard to Pin on Discouraged Workers - Bloomberg

Discouraged Workers Are Coming Back - Business Insider

You are finally admitting that there are a lot of discouraged workers that are not looking for work. That is a start.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the idea that they are responsible for the drop in the jobless rate. And that there are more of them now. I will also dispute that they are "giving up" as a result of the overall economy being worse. It is better period.

Will you agree that they are not the reason for the reduced jobless rate and that the number of discouraged workers is going down? Are you capable of that much sheer honesty?

Let's see.