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

[Faun]

[

WOW, THINK YOU WOULDN'T GET CALLED OUT ON YOUR LIE?

PRIVATE sector jobs

Jan 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2009 111,397,000


THAT'S A LOSS OF 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS BUBBA, LOL

Yes, Dubya like ALL GOPers, grew Gov't jobs and spending. Shocking I know

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

And once again your link does not prove what you posted since it starts in 2004..

Oh, look, here's the link going back to 2001....

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

sad you have to lie.

Says the one that can not prove their original comments that started all this.

I have just proven that you posted a lie, as you should have been able to easily prove your comments.

You are liar and a far left hack..

It's well established that Hoover lost private sector jobs as the Great Depression saw unemployment skyrocket on his watch from 3% to over 20%. But you're right in that BLS data only goes as far back as 1948. So according to BLS stats, George Bush is the only president recorded to lose private sector jobs.

Ain't ya proud? LOL

Also the way we count unemployment is different now then back in those days, you can thank the far left Congress and Clinton for that one.

See all this to get you admit the truth..

Why do the far left insist on doing this?

Did this make FDR president in 1948? Did it make any other president lose private sector jobs by the time they left office?

 

[Faun]

[
And once again your link does not prove what you posted since it starts in 2004..

\

HOW FUKKKING HARD IS IT TO PUT IN 2001 AND THEN HIT GO? LOL

Oh right you're a conservative. Try it Buba

LMAO

And the far left hack (along with another far left hack) is still unable to prove their original comments..

Thus proving my original comments about you being a far left Hack and a Liar.

Of course the far left a so easy to lead down this path as they can easily show what they want, but choose to post lies in order to support their religion..

Are you ignoring your own lies that FDR was president in 1948 and then your lie of posting total employment and calling in private sector jobs?

No I know I posted bunk, just to show that you could post information if it existed.

Instead you insisted on carrying on with you lie and acting like the far left hack we know you to be..

I know you were intentionally lying. What else is new?

 

[Kosh]

\

HOW FUKKKING HARD IS IT TO PUT IN 2001 AND THEN HIT GO? LOL

Oh right you're a conservative. Try it Buba

LMAO

And the far left hack (along with another far left hack) is still unable to prove their original comments..

Thus proving my original comments about you being a far left Hack and a Liar.

Of course the far left a so easy to lead down this path as they can easily show what they want, but choose to post lies in order to support their religion..

Are you ignoring your own lies that FDR was president in 1948 and then your lie of posting total employment and calling in private sector jobs?

No I know I posted bunk, just to show that you could post information if it existed.

Instead you insisted on carrying on with you lie and acting like the far left hack we know you to be..

I know you were intentionally lying. What else is new?

Just like you lied right? You are a known liar and far left hack and you proved my comments..

 

[Faun]

LMAO

And the far left hack (along with another far left hack) is still unable to prove their original comments..

Thus proving my original comments about you being a far left Hack and a Liar.

Of course the far left a so easy to lead down this path as they can easily show what they want, but choose to post lies in order to support their religion..

Are you ignoring your own lies that FDR was president in 1948 and then your lie of posting total employment and calling in private sector jobs?

No I know I posted bunk, just to show that you could post information if it existed.

Instead you insisted on carrying on with you lie and acting like the far left hack we know you to be..

I know you were intentionally lying. What else is new?

Just like you lied right? You are a known liar and far left hack and you proved my comments..

Then your comment must have been that you're a projecting, lying, dolt, because that is all you have proven. Meanwhile, Hoover and Bush remain the only presidents recorded to lose private sector jobs by the time they left office.

 

[Kosh]

And the far left hack (along with another far left hack) is still unable to prove their original comments..

Thus proving my original comments about you being a far left Hack and a Liar.

Of course the far left a so easy to lead down this path as they can easily show what they want, but choose to post lies in order to support their religion..

Are you ignoring your own lies that FDR was president in 1948 and then your lie of posting total employment and calling in private sector jobs?

No I know I posted bunk, just to show that you could post information if it existed.

Instead you insisted on carrying on with you lie and acting like the far left hack we know you to be..

I know you were intentionally lying. What else is new?

Just like you lied right? You are a known liar and far left hack and you proved my comments..

Then your comment must have been that you're a projecting, lying, dolt, because that is all you have proven. Meanwhile, Hoover and Bush remain the only presidents recorded to lose private sector jobs by the time they left office.

Once again posting your lie without any real facts to back them up. Even you claim that the source you posted in the only source to use, thus making your comments a lie.

And once again the far left shows that even after being proven wrong they will still post their lies..

 

[Faun]

Are you ignoring your own lies that FDR was president in 1948 and then your lie of posting total employment and calling in private sector jobs?

No I know I posted bunk, just to show that you could post information if it existed.

Instead you insisted on carrying on with you lie and acting like the far left hack we know you to be..

I know you were intentionally lying. What else is new?

Just like you lied right? You are a known liar and far left hack and you proved my comments..

Then your comment must have been that you're a projecting, lying, dolt, because that is all you have proven. Meanwhile, Hoover and Bush remain the only presidents recorded to lose private sector jobs by the time they left office.

Once again posting your lie without any real facts to back them up. Even you claim that the source you posted in the only source to use, thus making your comments a lie.

And once again the far left shows that even after being proven wrong they will still post their lies..

The liar is you. I agreed that BLS stats only go back as far as 1948. That doesn't mean the Great Depression went undocumented.

 

[Kosh]

No I know I posted bunk, just to show that you could post information if it existed.

Instead you insisted on carrying on with you lie and acting like the far left hack we know you to be..

I know you were intentionally lying. What else is new?

Just like you lied right? You are a known liar and far left hack and you proved my comments..

Then your comment must have been that you're a projecting, lying, dolt, because that is all you have proven. Meanwhile, Hoover and Bush remain the only presidents recorded to lose private sector jobs by the time they left office.

Once again posting your lie without any real facts to back them up. Even you claim that the source you posted in the only source to use, thus making your comments a lie.

And once again the far left shows that even after being proven wrong they will still post their lies..

The liar is you. I agreed that BLS stats only go back as far as 1948. That doesn't mean the Great Depression went undocumented.

Then you should be able to show all presidents then right?

or the BLS still your only source for these "documented" events?

 

[Faun]

I know you were intentionally lying. What else is new?

Just like you lied right? You are a known liar and far left hack and you proved my comments..

Then your comment must have been that you're a projecting, lying, dolt, because that is all you have proven. Meanwhile, Hoover and Bush remain the only presidents recorded to lose private sector jobs by the time they left office.

Once again posting your lie without any real facts to back them up. Even you claim that the source you posted in the only source to use, thus making your comments a lie.

And once again the far left shows that even after being proven wrong they will still post their lies..

The liar is you. I agreed that BLS stats only go back as far as 1948. That doesn't mean the Great Depression went undocumented.

Then you should be able to show all presidents then right?

or the BLS still your only source for these "documented" events?

Again, I never said "all" presidents. I can't help your read comprehension problems. And the Great Depression is also well documented.

 

[Kosh]

Just like you lied right? You are a known liar and far left hack and you proved my comments..

Then your comment must have been that you're a projecting, lying, dolt, because that is all you have proven. Meanwhile, Hoover and Bush remain the only presidents recorded to lose private sector jobs by the time they left office.

Once again posting your lie without any real facts to back them up. Even you claim that the source you posted in the only source to use, thus making your comments a lie.

And once again the far left shows that even after being proven wrong they will still post their lies..

The liar is you. I agreed that BLS stats only go back as far as 1948. That doesn't mean the Great Depression went undocumented.

Then you should be able to show all presidents then right?

or the BLS still your only source for these "documented" events?

Again, I never said "all" presidents. I can't help your read comprehension problems. And the Great Depression is also well documented.

It is what I asked you to post, but you insisted that your BLS link was the only "known" documentation to prove your comments..

So either post your data that proves your comments or be the far left hack liar that we all know you are..

 

[edthecynic]

LMAO!

The participation rate isn't significant. Its been falling for 15 years, and will continue to fall for the next 15 years as the baby boomers age.


.

It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.
Why did the participation rate stay at a steady 66% up until obama came along and now hows continued to drop and hasn't been back up since 2009
Yall are some of the dumbest people alive. I'm surprised you made it out of the birth canal

Can you say...."baby boomers?"....idiot.

Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came back
Ass hat.

They haven't retired?? Imbecile, there were almost 3 million baby boomers who retired last year alone. You really are as dumb as they come. But then again, you are a Bush voter.

You're really stupid to keep coming back for this ass beating you're getting. MOST have not retired link was posted dumb ass. you are dismissed.

You posted no such link that said "MOST" Boomers have not retired. It actually said "A quarter of Boomers postponed their plans to retire during the past year." A QUATER/25% is hardly "MOST", in fact it isn't even "MOST" of half, it is exactly half of half. You seem to have trouble with thew meaning of very simple words like "MORE" and "MOST."

This was the link YOU posted:
Baby Boomer Retirement Confidence Slips Again Signs of Optimism Spotted newsroom IRI

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.
Why did the participation rate stay at a steady 66% up until obama came along and now hows continued to drop and hasn't been back up since 2009
Yall are some of the dumbest people alive. I'm surprised you made it out of the birth canal

Can you say...."baby boomers?"....idiot.

Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came back
Ass hat.

They haven't retired?? Imbecile, there were almost 3 million baby boomers who retired last year alone. You really are as dumb as they come. But then again, you are a Bush voter.

You're really stupid to keep coming back for this ass beating you're getting. MOST have not retired link was posted dumb ass. you are dismissed.

You posted no such link that said "MOST" Boomers have not retired. It actually said "A quarter of Boomers postponed their plans to retire during the past year." A QUATER/25% is hardly "MOST", in fact it isn't even "MOST" of half, it is exactly half of half. You seem to have trouble with thew meaning of very simple words like "MORE" and "MOST."

This was the link YOU posted:
Baby Boomer Retirement Confidence Slips Again Signs of Optimism Spotted newsroom IRI

We've been through this before dumb ass bitch, You have been proven wrong
Yada yada yada yada yada so on and so forth You are dead ass wrong. the end.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
And once again your link does not prove what you posted since it starts in 2004..

Oh, look, here's the link going back to 2001....

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

sad you have to lie.

Says the one that can not prove their original comments that started all this.

I have just proven that you posted a lie, as you should have been able to easily prove your comments.

You are liar and a far left hack..

It's well established that Hoover lost private sector jobs as the Great Depression saw unemployment skyrocket on his watch from 3% to over 20%. But you're right in that BLS data only goes as far back as 1948. So according to BLS stats, George Bush is the only president recorded to lose private sector jobs.

Ain't ya proud? LOL

Also the way we count unemployment is different now then back in those days, you can thank the far left Congress and Clinton for that one.

See all this to get you admit the truth..

Why do the far left insist on doing this?

Did this make FDR president in 1948? Did it make any other president lose private sector jobs by the time they left office?

You're sinking lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know this might cause dad a coronary. I hope they don't find him face down on the keyboard still clutching his Obama doll.

Budget Explainer How Much Do Americans Pay in Federal Taxes pgpf.org

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.

As soon as the money is given to the poor, it is immediately turned around and enters the economy. Once the wealthy get their hands on the money, it goes OUT of CIRCULATION....and the economy stagnates.

Obviously you've been sleeping for the last 6 years. The Obama administration tried the stimulus AND gave extension after federal unemployment extension, as the economy now stands, it IS stagnant. We have low paying jobs, college grads working far below what their degree allows them to earn, and those seeking full-time having to settle for part-time work for economic reasons.

Wake up!!! How many long-term high income career jobs has this administration been able to provide the middle class? All your graphs and time wasted on this thread and you can't even provide proof that answers that one single question. Show me THOSE facts of the number of high income career jobs vs. this administration simply "getting by" for a few more years of part-time or short term temporary jobs.

Weird, you mean 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created AFTER Obama passed Obamacares Feb 2010, is 'stagnant' AFTER Dubya lost 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years with his 'job creator policiers? lol


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

NOW you want to advocate it's up to Gov't, specifically the Prez to create " high income career jobs"? lol WEIRD, After the longest SUSTAINED lowest tax 'burden' on the 'job creators', where they are paying about half the effective rates of the 1940's and 1950's, WE aren't getting much bang for the buck, right?

Jul 14 2014

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.
Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic



The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...

"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett


Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"

Leo Hindery Jr., the New York City media and investing mogul, is one of hundreds of wealthy people directly asking Congress to raise their taxes as a member of Patriotic Millionaires.


The 66-year-old argues that giving rich people tax breaks makes no economic sense because people like him don't put their extra dollars back into the economy.

"Do you think I don't own every piece of clothing, every automobile? I already have it. You spend money. Rich people just get richer," he told the AP.

Hindery credits his Jesuit upbringing with giving him the tools to look beyond his own economic advantages.

"How can we believe in the American dream when 10 percent of the people have half the nation's income? It's immoral, I think it's unethical, but I also think that it's bad economics,"..."The only people who can take exception to this argument are people who want to get super rich and don't care what happens to the nation as a whole."

And the far left uses a known far left source (the Atlantic) for their "facts"

So ALL you have are ad homs and CAN'T refute FACTS. Got it

All you've done it derp and berp derp. you have no facts.

 

[pinqy]

[

WOW, THINK YOU WOULDN'T GET CALLED OUT ON YOUR LIE?

PRIVATE sector jobs

Jan 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2009 111,397,000


THAT'S A LOSS OF 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS BUBBA, LOL

Yes, Dubya like ALL GOPers, grew Gov't jobs and spending. Shocking I know

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

And once again your link does not prove what you posted since it starts in 2004..

Oh, look, here's the link going back to 2001....

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

sad you have to lie.

Says the one that can not prove their original comments that started all this.

I have just proven that you posted a lie, as you should have been able to easily prove your comments.

You are liar and a far left hack..

It's well established that Hoover lost private sector jobs as the Great Depression saw unemployment skyrocket on his watch from 3% to over 20%. But you're right in that BLS data only goes as far back as 1948. So according to BLS stats, George Bush is the only president recorded to lose private sector jobs.

Ain't ya proud? LOL

Also the way we count unemployment is different now then back in those days,

Well, yeah, they didn't count it at all outside the decennial census until 1942. Any unemployment numbers before 1948 are partly guesswork

you can thank the far left Congress and Clinton for that one.

what specific changes are you thinking of. The only changes made under Clinton that affected the unemployment numbers were clearer wording in the new survey and that before then people waiting to start a job were classified as unemployed wheter or not they had been looking.

Please don't make yourself look stupid by claiming a time limit on unemployed was instituted or that discouraged were removed

 

[Kosh]

[
And once again your link does not prove what you posted since it starts in 2004..

Oh, look, here's the link going back to 2001....

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

sad you have to lie.

Says the one that can not prove their original comments that started all this.

I have just proven that you posted a lie, as you should have been able to easily prove your comments.

You are liar and a far left hack..

It's well established that Hoover lost private sector jobs as the Great Depression saw unemployment skyrocket on his watch from 3% to over 20%. But you're right in that BLS data only goes as far back as 1948. So according to BLS stats, George Bush is the only president recorded to lose private sector jobs.

Ain't ya proud? LOL

Also the way we count unemployment is different now then back in those days,

Well, yeah, they didn't count it at all outside the decennial census until 1942.

you can thank the far left Congress and Clinton for that one.

what specific changes are you thinking of. The only changes made under Clinton that affected the unemployment numbers were clearer wording in the new survey and that before then people waiting to start a job were classified as unemployed wheter or not they had been looking.

Please don't make yourself look stupid by claiming a time limit on unemployed was instituted or that discouraged were removed

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

 

[pinqy]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

 

[Kosh]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. … Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

 

[pinqy]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

 

[Kosh]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

FACTS behind the Obama economy
( according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics )



Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.


When the recession began, 16.9 percent worked part time. Today, the share of workers with part-time jobs is 19.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Acording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - the average work week has gone from over 38 hours in 1964 to under 34 hours in 2013 — a drop of almost 12 percent. These are labor facts that show the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may be effecting employment.


A STAGNANT ECONOMY

In September, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in September at 7.1 million.


Where is the improvement? Where is this growing stronger economy? The facts from the Department of Labor just don't show evidence of one.... sorry liberals.



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Part-time employment rising as full-time jobs decline - TheGazette