Another Good Month On The Jobs Front...unemployment Drops To 5.9%

[Dad2three]

Unemployment decreases and foodstamp recipients increase.

Explain liberals.

OK. Maybe you just don't understand who creates jobs, yet I read it all the time on here. The government does not create jobs. You ever read that before? Or has that changed now?

The government does mandate a minimum wage that they have tried to increase with no success. Did you know that? The government even issues reports on the state of employment within the country.

Did you know that the Republicans in Bush's administration said that if only the job creators (those running private industry making big money) would create lots of jobs IF they could just get their taxes cut. They got the cuts.

Why don't you ask them where are the good paying jobs that wouldn't allow people to qualify for food stamps?

Obama raised taxes and put in many regulations by executive fiat that cost businesses the money they could have given as raises.

LOL, RECORD Corp revenues, lowest tax burden on them in 40+ years AND record low SUSTAINED tax burden on the 'job creators', about HALF the effective rates they paid in the 1940's and 1950's ON MUCH GREATER SHARE OF THE PIE

 

[edthecynic]

It was 4.6 the last time republicans had majority power, which they from 1994 to 2006. Not that rightwinger knew or cared.

How many full time jobs? How many in the private sector?

Yes, statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital.

Rightwinger is just a ******* ignorant hack

Republicans were given an unemployment rate of 4% when they took power. We allowed them to slash taxes and deregulate

Unemployment doubled under republican guidance

Wrong again. Republicans lost power in 2007 and the unemployment rate sky rocketed after Pelosi and her criminals took over power. Especially when the socialists had a super majority and then republicans took over the House.

The democrats still have majority power.

You going to let us know how many of these jobs are fulltime? Does not make a difference?

In recovering economy foodstamp recipients decrease.

Oh never mind. You are stupid.

Weird, you forgetting Dubyas 'home ownership society' ponzi scheme failing about then?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Exactly, Bush made MINORITY home ownership the focus of his 2004 reelection campaign!!!!!

President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership

BUSH: I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.)

 

[Dad2three]

here is a look at job killing regulations...the first big one...obamacare...which is creating the new 29/49 economy...29 hours a week to avoid obamacare,fines....49 employees or fewer to avoid obamacare mandates...

GOP Obama regulations are killing jobs

"Other regulations have far more serious consequences. The EPA has proposed a new rule on emissions from boilers that it admits would cost the private sector billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

"No wonder employers dread what is coming next out of Washington.

"Over-regulation is hurting our economy; unfortunately, the problem is only growing worse. Right now, federal agencies are at work on more than 4,200 new rules, 845 of which affects small businesses, the engine of job creation. More than 100 have an economic impact of more than $100 million each.

Not to mention the regulations that are closing coal fired power plants...that will do more than just kill jobs....when the cold,winter comes people won't have heat...

MORE BULLSHIT

YOUR link:

Sep 24, 2011


FACTS:

October 4, 2011

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs

Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor’s contention that deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak. For some years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has had a program that tracks mass layoffs. In 2007, the program was expanded, and businesses were asked their reasons for laying off workers. Among the reasons offered was “government regulations/intervention.” There is only partial data for 2007, but we have data since then through the second quarter of this year.

The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.


“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment.

MORE:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[pinqy]

I didn't say U-6, I said real under and unemployment.

Which is the U-6 rate.

Incorrect. U-6 does not include the long term discouraged workers who have given up looking for work. They are no longer included in the labor force totals.

Yes it does include discouraged workers, and you know that.

From the BLS:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]

That does not include long term discouraged workers who have given up. They are not part of the labor force.

Another wing-nut who pretends they can't read simple English so they can like with impunity. I clearly marked it in RED so even YOU can't say that you missed it! The O-6 rate INCLUDES discouraged workers!!!!!!
Stop lying!

She clearly wrote "long-term discouraged."
Between 1976 and 1994 Discouraged was only defined as previously looked for work but no longer looking due to belief that no work will be found.

In 1994, a time limit of one year was added to the definition.

So long term discouraged are those who want to work, are available, haven't looked for work in over a year, and stopped looking because they believed they'd be unsuccessful.

It's a useless category and is not measured.

 

[Dad2three]

From CNS News:

A record 92,584,000 Americans 16 and older did not participate in the labor force in September, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.7 percent, a level it has not seen in 36 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.

Six times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but September’s 62.7 percent is the lowest since February of 1978.

The participation rate is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job or actively seeking one. Those not in the labor force are those who not only did not have a job, but they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

- See more at: Great News Unemployment at 5.9 Bad News Record number not in work force wages flat Poor Richard s News

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[TooTall]

The labor participation rate peaked under President Clinton.

So all you RWnuts obsessing on the labor participation rate have to concede that the best president in that regard would be to elect another Bill Clinton.

Clinton had a Republican Congress and an unprecedented boom in the dotcom bubble that went south shortly after he left office. Unlike Obama, Clinton paid attention to the Congress and negotiated and compromised.

 

[Dad2three]

How Are Obama 8217 s Regulations Taking Billions Out of the Pockets of Americans - AskHeritage

Over just the last year, the Obama Administration has added 32 regulations that together impose more than $10 billion in annual costs and $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs. Those regulations include mandates covering a broad range of activities and products, ranging from refrigerators and freezers to clothes driers to air conditioners, limits on automotive emissions, employer requirements for posting federal labor rules, product labeling, health plan eligibility under Obamacare, and higher minimum wages for foreign workers. The most expensive regulation came from the Environmental Protection Agency, which added five major rules at a cost of more than $4 billion annually.

HERITAGE THAT SAID DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WOULD STIMULATE THE ECONOMY ENOUGH TO PAY OFF THE DEBT BY 2010?

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

...Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010

The Economic Impact of President Bush s Tax Relief Plan


YES, LETS TRUST THEM, LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Also remember that working at Burger King is classified as a "manufacturing job" because according to Dept. of Labor your ate manufacturing a Whopper.

Liar. CREDIBLE link?

 

[edthecynic]

Which is the U-6 rate.

Incorrect. U-6 does not include the long term discouraged workers who have given up looking for work. They are no longer included in the labor force totals.

Yes it does include discouraged workers, and you know that.

From the BLS:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]

That does not include long term discouraged workers who have given up. They are not part of the labor force.

Another wing-nut who pretends they can't read simple English so they can like with impunity. I clearly marked it in RED so even YOU can't say that you missed it! The O-6 rate INCLUDES discouraged workers!!!!!!
Stop lying!

She clearly wrote "long-term discouraged."
Between 1976 and 1994 Discouraged was only defined as previously looked for work but no longer looking due to belief that no work will be found.

In 1994, a time limit of one year was added to the definition.

So long term discouraged are those who want to work, are available, haven't looked for work in over a year, and stopped looking because they believed they'd be unsuccessful.

It's a useless category and is not measured.

And therefore Shadowstats has no number for "long term" discouraged workers and thus can make up any number he wants. However, since the number of short term discouraged workers has gone down since Bush left office, which IS measured, it is logical that the fictitious long term discouraged workers also went down, but shadowstats fabricates an increasing phony number, exposing his hackery.

 

[Dad2three]

people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

any of you libercrats have an answer for this "little" statistic ?

USE YOUR BRAIN?


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

It was 4.6 the last time republicans had majority power, which they from 1994 to 2006. Not that rightwinger knew or cared.

How many full time jobs? How many in the private sector?

Yes, statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital.

Rightwinger is just a ******* ignorant hack

As long as the Senate has filibuster power and president has veto power, it takes a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses to override a presidential veto, so the Dems controlled NOTHING as long as Bush was president.

A perfect example is after the Dems won both houses they passed an increase in the minimum wage in the house. Bush was against it and threatened a veto if he didn't get more tax cuts for business. The GOP in the Senate filibustered the bill and the cloture vote failed with 43 Republicans voting against it. So once Bush got his tax cuts added to the bill it passed in the Senate. Bush and the GOP still controlled everything related to the economy and everything else with their filibuster and veto power. Bush and the GOP own the Bush Depression lock, stock and barrel!!!

You think Bush controlled everything related to the economy when the democrats owned the house and senate?

Do you even know who controls the purse strings?

When I get home I will show you how Bush warned 17 different times in 2008 alone about the housing bubble.

You have to be kidding. Much to your dismay, thebpreident is not a king. Raising the minimum wage would not have done a thing for the economy. That is yet another democrat liberal ploy to cause divisions in the classes and to make them look like Robinhood.

"Bush warned 17 different times in 2008 alone about the housing bubble."

LIAR


BUSH WAS THE REGULATOR OF F/F. THEY WERE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DUMMY!!!

June 17, 2004


(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004







"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDNT REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

It was 4.6 the last time republicans had majority power, which they from 1994 to 2006. Not that rightwinger knew or cared.

How many full time jobs? How many in the private sector?

Yes, statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital.

Rightwinger is just a ******* ignorant hack

As long as the Senate has filibuster power and president has veto power, it takes a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses to override a presidential veto, so the Dems controlled NOTHING as long as Bush was president.

A perfect example is after the Dems won both houses they passed an increase in the minimum wage in the house. Bush was against it and threatened a veto if he didn't get more tax cuts for business. The GOP in the Senate filibustered the bill and the cloture vote failed with 43 Republicans voting against it. So once Bush got his tax cuts added to the bill it passed in the Senate. Bush and the GOP still controlled everything related to the economy and everything else with their filibuster and veto power. Bush and the GOP own the Bush Depression lock, stock and barrel!!!

You think Bush controlled everything related to the economy when the democrats owned the house and senate?

Do you even know who controls the purse strings?

When I get home I will show you how Bush warned 17 different times in 2008 alone about the housing bubble.

You have to be kidding. Much to your dismay, thebpreident is not a king. Raising the minimum wage would not have done a thing for the economy. That is yet another democrat liberal ploy to cause divisions in the classes and to make them look like Robinhood.

Talk is cheap, Bush may have given warnings, but the GOP blocked every attempt at reform.

BUSH HAD FAUX WARNINGS, HE PUSHED F/F INTO BUYING $440 BILLION IN MBS'S TO MEET HIS 'GOALS'...

He threatened to veto the ONLY bill to make it out of the GOP House 1995-2007 on F/F reform in 2004!

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Have you noticed this phenomenon that just before elections, since Obama has been in office, unemployment seems to magically drop? One time in particular, found out after the election a couple of Dem states had trouble reporting, thus producing a false narrative. One state I remember was CA. Another time involved census worker numbers.

From the BLS chart in your link

(Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available

Aug 2141-Sep 2226 Up 85,000, or almost 100,000 as ABC reported.

This is why the GOP lies to the Right, they can't even understand simple English!!!!!

Only the Tea Bag Brotherhood are stupid enough to believe that someone "stopped looking for work" by searching for work!!!
And then jacking 85,000 to 100,000 to make the spin fit the lie!

Take it up with ABC news shithead.

How exactly is it ABC's fault YOU are too stupid to know the difference between "stopped looking for work" and "searched for work?"

Weird, IF what you saying is true, INSTEAD OF ANOTHER RIGHT WING LIE, you'd think the GOP House would've had DOZENS of hearings on it. Care to give me a link to just one? lol



How is it that you are too stupid to understand that someone who is so discouraged that he has given up looking for work is still UNEMPLOYED?

 

[Dad2three]

Have you noticed this phenomenon that just before elections, since Obama has been in office, unemployment seems to magically drop? One time in particular, found out after the election a couple of Dem states had trouble reporting, thus producing a false narrative. One state I remember was CA. Another time involved census worker numbers.

This is why the GOP lies to the Right, they can't even understand simple English!!!!!

Only the Tea Bag Brotherhood are stupid enough to believe that someone "stopped looking for work" by searching for work!!!
And then jacking 85,000 to 100,000 to make the spin fit the lie!

Take it up with ABC news shithead.

How exactly is it ABC's fault YOU are too stupid to know the difference between "stopped looking for work" and "searched for work?"

How is it that you are too stupid to understand that someone who is so discouraged that he has given up looking for work is still UNEMPLOYED?

It's curious, but there is a quite simple explanation: Average Americans are on strike.

lol

Conservatives, ALWAYS simple minds without logic or reasoning involved!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds

The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.

Yes, unemployement is down, because losers have figured out that they can EASILY qualify for SSI for bogus shit like being sad, or back pain or whatever.

In Aug 2014. 4,636,000 people under the age of 65 collected SSI. Let's be generous and assume that only 1/3 of those are fraudulent , bullshit claims like "too sad to work" that's still 2.5M + people who are no longer "unemployed" as far as the government is concerned.

The unemployment rate means nothing.

 

[Andylusion]

Labor participation rate at a 36 year low woot!

You don't sound happy about the good news Rocko

You are not one of those rooting for the economy to fail are you?

Wait wait.... I thought you were against the helpless citizens working for rich wealthy people, making them all more wealthy.

Are you now saying that people slaving away for the 1% is good, and you are glad there are more of them than before??

Say it ain't so!

These hypocrite leftist have no consistency at all. They flip-flop 24-hours a day, even a dozen times in a single thread. You people on the left are nothing more than a joke.

 

[Dad2three]

So. No one knows how many fulltime that fake number represents?

Did a liberal attempt to explain why if the economy is doing so well why the foodstamp recipients increased?

So how does the unemployment rate decrease and foodstamp list increase at the same time?

Liberals folks.

I'd love to see them explain that phenomenon.

IT'S ANOTHER lie of the posters. Shocking I know

Food-Stamp Use Starting to Fall

As the Job Market Improves, More Americans Are Able to Wean Off the Program


There were 46.2 million Americans on food stamps in May, the latest data available, down 1.6 million from a record 47.8 million in December 2012. Some 14.8% of the U.S. population is on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, down from 15.3% last August, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show

http://online.wsj.com/articles/food-stamps-starting-to-fall-1409606700

 

[Andylusion]

Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds

The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.9% from 6.1%, lowest since July 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.

Thank y.....

I just realized with this post, that ever since your thread, laughing and mocking the death of a toddler who drowned, that honestly, I can't stand to even see your cruel evil name, no matter what you have to say.

Every single post, all I can see, is a cruel evil horrible person, laughing at the pain of parents who toddler just drowned.

So.... I'm not going to see your posts anymore. Goodbye Luddly. You are ignored forever. I'll never see, nor respond to your pure evil again.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So. No one knows how many fulltime that fake number represents?

Did a liberal attempt to explain why if the economy is doing so well why the foodstamp recipients increased?

So how does the unemployment rate decrease and foodstamp list increase at the same time?

Liberals folks.

I'd love to see them explain that phenomenon.

IT'S ANOTHER lie of the posters. Shocking I know

Food-Stamp Use Starting to Fall

As the Job Market Improves, More Americans Are Able to Wean Off the Program


There were 46.2 million Americans on food stamps in May, the latest data available, down 1.6 million from a record 47.8 million in December 2012. Some 14.8% of the U.S. population is on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, down from 15.3% last August, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show

\
End of year data from the government doesn't match this article.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/food-stamps-starting-to-fall-1409606700


And look at the HUGE increase from 2008 to 2009. Now what happened in 2008? Remind me.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From CNS News:

A record 92,584,000 Americans 16 and older did not participate in the labor force in September, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.7 percent, a level it has not seen in 36 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.

Six times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but September’s 62.7 percent is the lowest since February of 1978.

The participation rate is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job or actively seeking one. Those not in the labor force are those who not only did not have a job, but they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

- See more at: Great News Unemployment at 5.9 Bad News Record number not in work force wages flat Poor Richard s News

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

If that were true why is Bushes unemployment rate the same as obama and Bush had more people in the work force?
We are at a 35 year low.