You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.
Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.
Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.
Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC
Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.
What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?
Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.
Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over
11 million jobs. Part time Jobs
decreased over that same period by
300,000 jobs, so where the **** do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"
But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.
And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"
Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.
whoopsie...try again, tool.
Again, no answer.
Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?
Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....
Full-time jobs ....
+11,465,000
Part-time jobs ....
-294,000
Actually those full-time numbers can be very misleading. You can have a company hire more full-time employees than is necessary, anticipating that some will eventually quit. You can also have an individual work full-time quit, and try another full-time job the following month, but you would have us believe that your "figures" mean there must be more individuals that are working full-time.
Now with regard to the unemployment figures, here is a little known fact as why simply quoting the latest unemployment number can be misleading.
Those unemployment numbers don't include
- Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.
- Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).
- Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.
- Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.
Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of
total unemployment in the United States. Over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.
So you can quote only one statistical figure as your basis for proving the economy is doing well and improving, but unless you are willing to take into consideration other factors which play a part in revealing the overall picture of the economy, you'll only look like a complete idiot in doing so.
