Jobless Claims in U.S. Fall to Match Lowest Level Since 1973

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For example, since 2007

While I get your point, why would you randomly choose such an odd year to make a point?

2007 was not an odd year, just a year immediately before the recession when unemployment was about where it had been been for the previous 15 years. The FDR/Obama cure for the recession has apparently not worked, it would seem.

 

[Moonglow]

For example, since 2007

While I get your point, why would you randomly choose such an odd year to make a point?

2007 was not an odd year, just a year immediately before the recession when unemployment was about where it had been been for the previous 15 years. The FDR/Obama cure for the recession has apparently not worked, it would seem.

Why not? They are hiring like mad dogs....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For example, since 2007

While I get your point, why would you randomly choose such an odd year to make a point?

2007 was not an odd year, just a year immediately before the recession when unemployment was about where it had been been for the previous 15 years. The FDR/Obama cure for the recession has apparently not worked, it would seem.

Why not? They are hiring like mad dogs....

they are hiring part time workers like mad dogs. Sorry

 

[danielpalos]

dear, it was the right that claimed some capitalists are simply too big and wealthy to be allowed to fail.

actually Krugman claimed that too because he wanted to avoid a depression. Average liberals often didn't claim it because they were too stupid to know that more big failures would lead to a depression. Libertarians mostly wanted to let the big institutions to fail.

dear; to some on the left, it is merely socialism bailing out the wealthiest, like usual, under our form of Capitalism.

 

[SteadyMercury]

2007 was not an odd year, just a year immediately before the recession when unemployment was about where it had been been for the previous 15 years.

Nope.

15 years earlier it was at 7.8%. Ten years earlier it was at 5%. Five years earlier it was at 5.7%. Only a fool or a liar would claim the previous 15 years were at about 4.5%.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2007 was not an odd year, just a year immediately before the recession when unemployment was about where it had been been for the previous 15 years.

Nope.

15 years earlier it was at 7.8%. Ten years earlier it was at 5%. Five years earlier it was at 5.7%. Only a fool or a liar would claim the previous 15 years were at about 4.5%.

you said 2007 was an odd year while I used it because it is the year before the recession that is frequently used as a base line from which to measure the recession and recovery.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Or it was a peak year, which makes no more sense to use than does a valley year for setting a baseline. Whenever I see a source using an exact peak or valley year instead of a more conversationally natural 10 years ago, 20 years ago, whole number etc. it sets off red flags that they have an agenda that they are more interested in framing facts to than actually presenting an unbiased case.

When you then outright lied about 2007 being where it had been the last 15 years it further confirms.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Or it was a peak year, .

peak year was 2010 at about 17% U6, in the preceding 15 years it was around 9%

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well how come I ain't got no fucking JOB?

Could be your stunning command of the English language.

 

[danielpalos]

Well how come I ain't got no fucking JOB?

Could be your stunning command of the English language.

not in any at-will employment State; it could be a simple weight and measure for capitalists to hire someone else and give less qualified labor an excuse to go on unemployment and learn to become more marketable.

i suggest a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation instead of our current regime.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well how come I ain't got no fucking JOB?

Could be your stunning command of the English language.

not in any at-will employment State; it could be a simple weight and measure for capitalists to hire someone else and give less qualified labor an excuse to go on unemployment and learn to become more marketable.

i suggest a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation instead of our current regime.

I could go for that in some cases but not generally. If a factory were to relocate abroad they should certainly have a stake in those employees left in the cold. That sort of hit to a single region can be catastrophic to the local economy and the employer should at minimum offset those costs.

 

[danielpalos]

Well how come I ain't got no fucking JOB?

Could be your stunning command of the English language.

not in any at-will employment State; it could be a simple weight and measure for capitalists to hire someone else and give less qualified labor an excuse to go on unemployment and learn to become more marketable.

i suggest a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation instead of our current regime.

I could go for that in some cases but not generally. If a factory were to relocate abroad they should certainly have a stake in those employees left in the cold. That sort of hit to a single region can be catastrophic to the local economy and the employer should at minimum offset those costs.

why not that form of equality before the law for labor and not just capitalists? the concept of employment at will does not distinguish.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well how come I ain't got no fucking JOB?

Could be your stunning command of the English language.

not in any at-will employment State; it could be a simple weight and measure for capitalists to hire someone else and give less qualified labor an excuse to go on unemployment and learn to become more marketable.

i suggest a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation instead of our current regime.

I could go for that in some cases but not generally. If a factory were to relocate abroad they should certainly have a stake in those employees left in the cold. That sort of hit to a single region can be catastrophic to the local economy and the employer should at minimum offset those costs.

why not that form of equality before the law for labor and not just capitalists? the concept of employment at will does not distinguish.

Employers need the flexibility to fire or trade- up employees. I believe it would be an unnecessary burden on the good actors. The bad actors should be penalized. Good behavior should be rewarded.

It's not an employee's fault if their job is eliminated.

 

[danielpalos]

Well how come I ain't got no fucking JOB?

Could be your stunning command of the English language.

not in any at-will employment State; it could be a simple weight and measure for capitalists to hire someone else and give less qualified labor an excuse to go on unemployment and learn to become more marketable.

i suggest a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation instead of our current regime.

I could go for that in some cases but not generally. If a factory were to relocate abroad they should certainly have a stake in those employees left in the cold. That sort of hit to a single region can be catastrophic to the local economy and the employer should at minimum offset those costs.

why not that form of equality before the law for labor and not just capitalists? the concept of employment at will does not distinguish.

Employers need the flexibility to fire or trade- up employees. I believe it would be an unnecessary burden on the good actors. The bad actors should be penalized. Good behavior should be rewarded.

It's not an employee's fault if their job is eliminated.

not sure what you mean; why would an employer need the expense of trading up employees if the "bad actors" prefer unemployment compensation and being good capitalists, instead of bad actors who may have to lie for a job?

 

[edthecynic]

there are only 2.5 million more full time jobs among the working age population now than in 2007 yet the population in that group is up 18 million!! That means 90% of the new jobs are part time jobs. Thats how you get only 5.1% unemployed.

First of all, Obama did not start in 2007.

In 2009 there were 115,818,000 FT jobs and there are 121,839,000 now, more than ever in the history of this still GREAT country and an increase of over 6 million FT jobs.
In 2009 there were 26,377,000 PT jobs and there are 26,969,000 an increase of less than 6 hundred thousand, hardly 90% of the jobs created since Obama took office.

That's how you expose a Right-wing lie!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Could be your stunning command of the English language.

not in any at-will employment State; it could be a simple weight and measure for capitalists to hire someone else and give less qualified labor an excuse to go on unemployment and learn to become more marketable.

i suggest a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation instead of our current regime.

I could go for that in some cases but not generally. If a factory were to relocate abroad they should certainly have a stake in those employees left in the cold. That sort of hit to a single region can be catastrophic to the local economy and the employer should at minimum offset those costs.

why not that form of equality before the law for labor and not just capitalists? the concept of employment at will does not distinguish.

Employers need the flexibility to fire or trade- up employees. I believe it would be an unnecessary burden on the good actors. The bad actors should be penalized. Good behavior should be rewarded.

It's not an employee's fault if their job is eliminated.

not sure what you mean; why would an employer need the expense of trading up employees if the "bad actors" prefer unemployment compensation and being good capitalists, instead of bad actors who may have to lie for a job?

What?

 

[edthecynic]

Well how come I ain't got no fucking JOB?

'Caus as a CON$ervative you are too fucking lazy to even look for work.

 

[edthecynic]

For example, since 2007

While I get your point, why would you randomly choose such an odd year to make a point?

2007 was not an odd year, just a year immediately before the recession when unemployment was about where it had been been for the previous 15 years. The FDR/Obama cure for the recession has apparently not worked, it would seem.

Bush fudged the UE numbers, "Real" UE was almost 40%.

 

[edthecynic]

you said 2007 was an odd year while I used it because it is the year before the recession that is frequently used as a base line from which to measure the recession and recovery.

You use it because it is DISHONEST to use a BUBBLE based number as a baseline, and no other reason. Honest people use the bottom of the recession not the top of a bubble as the reference point to measure recession and recovery, as you well know.

 

[danielpalos]

not in any at-will employment State; it could be a simple weight and measure for capitalists to hire someone else and give less qualified labor an excuse to go on unemployment and learn to become more marketable.

i suggest a general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation instead of our current regime.

I could go for that in some cases but not generally. If a factory were to relocate abroad they should certainly have a stake in those employees left in the cold. That sort of hit to a single region can be catastrophic to the local economy and the employer should at minimum offset those costs.

why not that form of equality before the law for labor and not just capitalists? the concept of employment at will does not distinguish.

Employers need the flexibility to fire or trade- up employees. I believe it would be an unnecessary burden on the good actors. The bad actors should be penalized. Good behavior should be rewarded.

It's not an employee's fault if their job is eliminated.

not sure what you mean; why would an employer need the expense of trading up employees if the "bad actors" prefer unemployment compensation and being good capitalists, instead of bad actors who may have to lie for a job?

What?

i got it right the first time; are you just clueless and Causeless? only shills do that.