Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
GDP is up for three consecutive quarters signaling the end of the recession. This was registered as the worst recession in 70 years and it is encouraging that it has recovered as quickly as it has.
Jobs, which always lag other indicators are showing signs of a turnaround also
How can anyone be disappointed with this?
95% of Americans have had a tax cut under Obama.GDP is up for three consecutive quarters signaling the end of the recession. This was registered as the worst recession in 70 years and it is encouraging that it has recovered as quickly as it has.
Jobs, which always lag other indicators are showing signs of a turnaround also
How can anyone be disappointed with this?
Because these are the same "patiots" that want to see our economy continue to fail, just as they wanted to see another 9/11 style attack to help turn John McCain's campaign around, to get "their" party back in power....how sad is that?
Ain't no one going to hire because they're all waiting to see how much Obama care is going to cost. (but we already know that it is costing some big employers millions or billions don't we). Then we'll wait to see how much cap and tax will cost. Then we'll wait to see how much an investment tax will cost. Oh and there is always the VAT to wait for.
Taxes are going nowhere but up and we will have a so called recovery that will stall with unemployment higher than it was before the bust.
But we'll all praise the fucking government for any anemic growth. And let's not forget that Obama's plans for reducing the deficit (It's hard to type that without laughing) are predicated on better than 4% growth for years.
We are sliding deeper into the pit folks.
95% of Americans have had a tax cut under Obama.Because these are the same "patiots" that want to see our economy continue to fail, just as they wanted to see another 9/11 style attack to help turn John McCain's campaign around, to get "their" party back in power....how sad is that?
Ain't no one going to hire because they're all waiting to see how much Obama care is going to cost. (but we already know that it is costing some big employers millions or billions don't we). Then we'll wait to see how much cap and tax will cost. Then we'll wait to see how much an investment tax will cost. Oh and there is always the VAT to wait for.
Taxes are going nowhere but up and we will have a so called recovery that will stall with unemployment higher than it was before the bust.
But we'll all praise the fucking government for any anemic growth. And let's not forget that Obama's plans for reducing the deficit (It's hard to type that without laughing) are predicated on better than 4% growth for years.
We are sliding deeper into the pit folks.
this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.
this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.
Still it amazes me how we have nearly half a million new unemployment claims every week yet the unemployment numbers don't change. Must be some kind of new math.
this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.
but, pinqy, the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now. 'not deciding to look for work for whatever reason' is not the driving force of the masses falling off the long term unemployment rolls. not now, not ever.
Bolding mine. Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsPeople are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment
data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.
but, pinqy, the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now. 'not deciding to look for work for whatever reason' is not the driving force of the masses falling off the long term unemployment rolls. not now, not ever.
Again, that's untrue. Whether or not someone has ever received or been eligible for unemployment has NEVER EVER been part of the Unemployment calculations. Here's the definition:Bolding mine. Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsPeople are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment
data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
The Unemployment level and rate is not from any "rolls," or list, but from a monthly survey that's been conducted by the Census Bureau since 1941. You can be unemployed even if you've never held a job.
Still it amazes me how we have nearly half a million new unemployment claims every week yet the unemployment numbers don't change. Must be some kind of new math.
No, it's simple math. Looking at the seasonally adjusted numbers:
In February, 138,641,000 people were employed. By March, 2,295,000 became unemployed, 3,665,000 lost/left their job and were not looking for work. And 23,000 left the population (died, left the country, went to prison, joined the military, whatever). So 132,658,000 remained employed from Feb to Mar.
In Feb, there were 14,871,000 unemployed (defined as looking for work). By March, 2,583,000 found work, 2,797,000 were no longer looking, and 2,000 are other. 9,489,000 remained unemployed.
In Feb, there were 83,487,000 not working or looking for work. By March 3,582,000 found jobs, 3,205,000 started looking but hadn't found work yet, and 185,000 left the population.
Additionally, from Feb to Mar, 370,000 joined the population (turned 16, immigrated, left the military, released from prison, etc). 82,000 became employed, 16 million became unemployed, 272,000 weren't looking for work.
Source: BLS Labor Force Status Flows
In short, from Feb to Mar, 5.5 million people became unemployed, but 6.2 million became employed, and several more million left the labor force or the population.
How is that difficult math?
reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned. that is not new smoke nor mirrors. looking at the reagan recovery specifically, employment stubbornly lagged behind other indicators. reaganomics had many merits, however, there's thin ice supporting strong job creation early in any reagan expansion.
the obama approach is different than reagan's in some ways. while income tax rates are considerably lower than they were in the early 80's, there's no room or intent to lop them any lower. the opposite is actually indicated, however, that didn't hamper an employment-rich expansion under clinton. writing off obama's policies doesn't indicate that you've considered their aim. heavy-handed supply-side economics is not the only approach to running an economy, and its not without its many flaws, either.
i think america's credit dependency is really showing itself at this point. my clientele has shifted to cash-holders at the upper and lower extremes of the income spread, where credit card deals from the middle class paid the bills during the boom. institutional deals are all from the government at the moment, specifically the millitary, whereas homebuilders were tendiring the most in '05, '06. that's just a narrow perspective, but some others echo it at the chamber of commerce. the middle class needs to find a medium of cash and credit where they relied entirely on credit before. i think that is the key to shift gears on the recovery.
obama and his boys are right to backtrack on their job optimism. 8%, peak, anyone?
this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.
but, pinqy, the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now. 'not deciding to look for work for whatever reason' is not the driving force of the masses falling off the long term unemployment rolls. not now, not ever.
In short, from Feb to Mar, 5.5 million people became unemployed, but 6.2 million became employed, and several more million left the labor force or the population.
How is that difficult math?
Still it amazes me how we have nearly half a million new unemployment claims every week yet the unemployment numbers don't change. Must be some kind of new math.
No, it's simple math. Looking at the seasonally adjusted numbers:
In February, 138,641,000 people were employed. By March, 2,295,000 became unemployed, 3,665,000 lost/left their job and were not looking for work. And 23,000 left the population (died, left the country, went to prison, joined the military, whatever). So 132,658,000 remained employed from Feb to Mar.
In Feb, there were 14,871,000 unemployed (defined as looking for work). By March, 2,583,000 found work, 2,797,000 were no longer looking, and 2,000 are other. 9,489,000 remained unemployed.
In Feb, there were 83,487,000 not working or looking for work. By March 3,582,000 found jobs, 3,205,000 started looking but hadn't found work yet, and 185,000 left the population.
Additionally, from Feb to Mar, 370,000 joined the population (turned 16, immigrated, left the military, released from prison, etc). 82,000 became employed, 16 million became unemployed, 272,000 weren't looking for work.
Source: BLS Labor Force Status Flows
In short, from Feb to Mar, 5.5 million people became unemployed, but 6.2 million became employed, and several more million left the labor force or the population.
How is that difficult math?
Very nice, now tell me why is it I don't remember hearing about all these adjusted numbers? And if 700,000 more people are working why didn't the unemployment percentage change? Just doesn't figure. But then I'm just an ole retired Sergeant, what do I and common sense know.
They didn't LEAVE the labor force - the government stopped counting them. It doesn't count long time discouraged workers who would like a job but can't find them.
The total number of Unemployed has increased, not decreased.
reagan's stats...
Obama's stats exclude the long term unemployed who have quit looking as well - so you are making a specious comparison. U6 unemployment, which includes them, is currently 17%.
You continue to neglect the spending binge and the massive debt accumulation in which Obama is engaged - while noting we have a credit dependency. The biggest credit dependency is more government debt to fuel spending; this relationship is stunting economic and job growth. And Obama is going to raise taxes in the midst of it.
The only 8% unemployment we are likely to see is when more people quit being counted under the U3 definition, and move into U6.
And they DID leave the labor force...they're not working and not looking for work. They're not participating in the labor market, so they're not part of the labor force.
And they DID leave the labor force...they're not working and not looking for work. They're not participating in the labor market, so they're not part of the labor force.
That is spin. People who are long term discouraged workers generally want to be part of the labor force.