Obamagas to drop below $2 a gallon nationwide

[Faun]

In terms of the health of the job market, what do you think it means when people stay at their jobs longer? What does long term employment mean to you?

What does it mean when you work full time but the company only has need of you for 3 months? What about the company that overhired because they experience a high turn around and anticipate that those they employ will either will not work out or quit? Relying on only one set of figures does not equate to an overall picture of the strength of the economy. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to you for you to understand. How many economists actually rely on job numbers alone and think they know enough to accurately determine how this country is doing? I just sat and explained how those numbers can be misleading, as well as what unemployment numbers don't account for .... get a clue.

That didn't answer my question. All you did was repeat a previous post. How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? Are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

People don't often have a choice if they can't remain employed for longer than three months. They also don't have the option to receive unemployment benefits if they don't qualify for a new claim. No ability to provide their family with health care through their employer. Maybe that individual is able to find another full-time job after two months of searching.

However, you can't provide me a breakdown on how those numbers you quoted are obtained, can you? All you can prove is that a full-time job was provided and recorded. You could have the same individual obtain two different full-time jobs because long term employment wasn't available in their profession, and it's simply recorded as just another full-time job. Your graph can't distinguish the difference, can it? I ask again, show me a breakdown of how those numbers were recorded and obtained. Your silence on the issue explains a lot.

It's not that I'm being silent on this .... it's that you're refusing to answer my questions. Who knows why?

Again.....

How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? In terms of the health of the job market, are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

What your not educated enough to understand is the EMPLOYER often determines how long you are to be employed. If the job market doesn't reflect a "need" for you to be employed for more than a few months, then you get laid off for a lack of work and the need for you to be employed. You response is based on this assumption, that if an individual can find full-time employment but it's not long term that somehow it's still a strong economic indicator because he can always try and seek out other work? I can't sit down an explain to you terms like "job market", if you don't have a grasp of the basics on how the economy works.

At least I will sit and explain a graph or a set of figures, like unemployment, breaking it down to what it means.. what it covers and what's not included. Perhaps this is why you consistently avoid doing the same when you are called out on it, because perhaps you aren't as knowledge on economic issues as you'd like everyone else to think you are. I'm not going to waist my time conversing with someone who posts figures they can't explain, with a breakdown source of how those numbers are derived that you can't produce.

Called out on what? Despite me asking multiple times, I still can't get you to say if it's better or worse for people to be staying at their jobs longer. Are you avoiding answering because you don't know?

 

[rightwinger]

$1 a gallon Obamagas just in time for the 2016 elections

And republicans threated that if Obama were reelected, gas would rise to $6 a gallon

The Case for $1 Gas

It was actually one of their many ridiculous lies.

And conservatives still have zero sense of humor.

Conservatives don't find our poor economy humorous. Unlike the left who think everything is a joke.

What "poor economy"? DOW at record highs, Gas at 11 year lows, unemployment at near-record lows. When it was almost this low under Bush, conservatives considered it "full employment".

FULL EMPLOYMENT:

The state that occurs when all of the economy's resources are engaged in the production of output. In practice, an economy is considered to be at full employment when the unemployment rate is around 5 to 5 1/2 percent and the capacity utilization rate of capital is about 85 percent. This is one of the five economic goals and three macroeconomic goals.​

The valuation of my home has increased about 75% under Obama. Under Bush, it fell considerably.

My 401 Obamaplan also tripled in value

 

[Dot Com]

Texas Likely To See Massive Layoffs Soon

I could care less. They want to secede, and have done everything they could to make Obama fail, hence make America fail.

Payback's a *****.

Low cost Obamagas is Obamas payback to Texas

First Jade Helm and now Obamagas

Remember all those jobs Rick Perry claimed he created?

^ that

CrusaderFrank

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What does it mean when you work full time but the company only has need of you for 3 months? What about the company that overhired because they experience a high turn around and anticipate that those they employ will either will not work out or quit? Relying on only one set of figures does not equate to an overall picture of the strength of the economy. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to you for you to understand. How many economists actually rely on job numbers alone and think they know enough to accurately determine how this country is doing? I just sat and explained how those numbers can be misleading, as well as what unemployment numbers don't account for .... get a clue.

That didn't answer my question. All you did was repeat a previous post. How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? Are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

People don't often have a choice if they can't remain employed for longer than three months. They also don't have the option to receive unemployment benefits if they don't qualify for a new claim. No ability to provide their family with health care through their employer. Maybe that individual is able to find another full-time job after two months of searching.

However, you can't provide me a breakdown on how those numbers you quoted are obtained, can you? All you can prove is that a full-time job was provided and recorded. You could have the same individual obtain two different full-time jobs because long term employment wasn't available in their profession, and it's simply recorded as just another full-time job. Your graph can't distinguish the difference, can it? I ask again, show me a breakdown of how those numbers were recorded and obtained. Your silence on the issue explains a lot.

It's not that I'm being silent on this .... it's that you're refusing to answer my questions. Who knows why?

Again.....

How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? In terms of the health of the job market, are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

What your not educated enough to understand is the EMPLOYER often determines how long you are to be employed. If the job market doesn't reflect a "need" for you to be employed for more than a few months, then you get laid off for a lack of work and the need for you to be employed. You response is based on this assumption, that if an individual can find full-time employment but it's not long term that somehow it's still a strong economic indicator because he can always try and seek out other work? I can't sit down an explain to you terms like "job market", if you don't have a grasp of the basics on how the economy works.

At least I will sit and explain a graph or a set of figures, like unemployment, breaking it down to what it means.. what it covers and what's not included. Perhaps this is why you consistently avoid doing the same when you are called out on it, because perhaps you aren't as knowledge on economic issues as you'd like everyone else to think you are. I'm not going to waist my time conversing with someone who posts figures they can't explain, with a breakdown source of how those numbers are derived that you can't produce.

Called out on what? Despite me asking multiple times, I still can't get you to say if it's better or worse for people to be staying at their jobs longer. Are you avoiding answering because you don't know?

I answered your question multiple times, as the length of employment is dependent on the needs of the employer based on there being a need on the job market. It's the private sectors ability to provide a service, and it's marketability to create a need that allows the employer to furnish jobs.

You see, I'm not the one who opened the discussion on this thread based on a graph, without the ability to provide any statistical breakdown of what those results are based on. Am I really surprised? No, it's been expected. Your knowledge on the subject has been made quite clear based on your limited discussions here. Perhaps you will dig a little deeper and develops a basic of understanding on the subject, before you start throwing out graphs to which you can't explain. At least show us you can explain and understand information behind those figures, such as a clear indication as to how the data was collected and details as to what those numbers actually specifically represents.:Other than that, I will leave my discussions towards those who have a little more knowledge on the subject.

 

[Faun]

That didn't answer my question. All you did was repeat a previous post. How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? Are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

People don't often have a choice if they can't remain employed for longer than three months. They also don't have the option to receive unemployment benefits if they don't qualify for a new claim. No ability to provide their family with health care through their employer. Maybe that individual is able to find another full-time job after two months of searching.

However, you can't provide me a breakdown on how those numbers you quoted are obtained, can you? All you can prove is that a full-time job was provided and recorded. You could have the same individual obtain two different full-time jobs because long term employment wasn't available in their profession, and it's simply recorded as just another full-time job. Your graph can't distinguish the difference, can it? I ask again, show me a breakdown of how those numbers were recorded and obtained. Your silence on the issue explains a lot.

It's not that I'm being silent on this .... it's that you're refusing to answer my questions. Who knows why?

Again.....

How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? In terms of the health of the job market, are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

What your not educated enough to understand is the EMPLOYER often determines how long you are to be employed. If the job market doesn't reflect a "need" for you to be employed for more than a few months, then you get laid off for a lack of work and the need for you to be employed. You response is based on this assumption, that if an individual can find full-time employment but it's not long term that somehow it's still a strong economic indicator because he can always try and seek out other work? I can't sit down an explain to you terms like "job market", if you don't have a grasp of the basics on how the economy works.

At least I will sit and explain a graph or a set of figures, like unemployment, breaking it down to what it means.. what it covers and what's not included. Perhaps this is why you consistently avoid doing the same when you are called out on it, because perhaps you aren't as knowledge on economic issues as you'd like everyone else to think you are. I'm not going to waist my time conversing with someone who posts figures they can't explain, with a breakdown source of how those numbers are derived that you can't produce.

Called out on what? Despite me asking multiple times, I still can't get you to say if it's better or worse for people to be staying at their jobs longer. Are you avoiding answering because you don't know?

I answered your question multiple times, as the length of employment is dependent on the needs of the employer based on there being a need on the job market. It's the private sectors ability to provide a service, and it's marketability to create a need that allows the employer to furnish jobs.

You see, I'm not the one who opened the discussion on this thread based on a graph, without the ability to provide any statistical breakdown of what those results are based on. Am I really surprised? No, it's been expected. Your knowledge on the subject has been made quite clear based on your limited discussions here. Perhaps you will dig a little deeper and develops a basic of understanding on the subject, before you start throwing out graphs to which you can't explain. At least show us you can explain and understand information behind those figures, such as a clear indication as to how the data was collected and details as to what those numbers actually specifically represents.:Other than that, I will leave my discussions towards those who have a little more knowledge on the subject.

No, you're not actually answering what I'm asking. Let's try it this way... just answer, (a) or (b) ....

In terms of indicating the health of the job market, employees staying at their jobs longer is:

A) better

B) worse

No wordy explanations necessary. Just select (a) or (b)...

 

[Synthaholic]

It went down again!

Thank you, President Obama (praise be unto Him!)

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[KissMy]

Oil companies & traders are using Enron scams to raise oil & gas prices. They have slowed the tanker fleets & rented hundreds of tankers to create flotillas of offshore oil storage. They have more than 100m barrels of crude oil and heavy fuels stored way out as sea where it wont be counted in inventory. This ties up oil transport ships creating bottlenecks driving prices.up.

They are also creating refinery outages, infrastructure hiccups and delays to strangle oil flowing to consumers to raise prices in the face of the largest oil glut in history which should normally mean the lowest prices in history. David Wech, managing director of JBC Energy said “As we move closer to capacity that is creating more infrastructure hiccups and delays in the oil market, leading to more oil being backed out on to the water.”

Patrick Rodgers, the chief executive of Euronav, one of the world’s biggest listed tanker companies, said oil glut was so severe traders were asking ships to go slow to help them manage storage levels. “Tanker shipping has never been a delay business and all of a sudden there are delays everywhere,” said Mr Rodgers

“We are being kept at relatively low speeds. The owners of the oil are not in a hurry to get their cargoes. They are managing their storage capacity by keeping ships at a certain speed.”

 

[Faun]

People don't often have a choice if they can't remain employed for longer than three months. They also don't have the option to receive unemployment benefits if they don't qualify for a new claim. No ability to provide their family with health care through their employer. Maybe that individual is able to find another full-time job after two months of searching.

However, you can't provide me a breakdown on how those numbers you quoted are obtained, can you? All you can prove is that a full-time job was provided and recorded. You could have the same individual obtain two different full-time jobs because long term employment wasn't available in their profession, and it's simply recorded as just another full-time job. Your graph can't distinguish the difference, can it? I ask again, show me a breakdown of how those numbers were recorded and obtained. Your silence on the issue explains a lot.

It's not that I'm being silent on this .... it's that you're refusing to answer my questions. Who knows why?

Again.....

How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? In terms of the health of the job market, are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

What your not educated enough to understand is the EMPLOYER often determines how long you are to be employed. If the job market doesn't reflect a "need" for you to be employed for more than a few months, then you get laid off for a lack of work and the need for you to be employed. You response is based on this assumption, that if an individual can find full-time employment but it's not long term that somehow it's still a strong economic indicator because he can always try and seek out other work? I can't sit down an explain to you terms like "job market", if you don't have a grasp of the basics on how the economy works.

At least I will sit and explain a graph or a set of figures, like unemployment, breaking it down to what it means.. what it covers and what's not included. Perhaps this is why you consistently avoid doing the same when you are called out on it, because perhaps you aren't as knowledge on economic issues as you'd like everyone else to think you are. I'm not going to waist my time conversing with someone who posts figures they can't explain, with a breakdown source of how those numbers are derived that you can't produce.

Called out on what? Despite me asking multiple times, I still can't get you to say if it's better or worse for people to be staying at their jobs longer. Are you avoiding answering because you don't know?

I answered your question multiple times, as the length of employment is dependent on the needs of the employer based on there being a need on the job market. It's the private sectors ability to provide a service, and it's marketability to create a need that allows the employer to furnish jobs.

You see, I'm not the one who opened the discussion on this thread based on a graph, without the ability to provide any statistical breakdown of what those results are based on. Am I really surprised? No, it's been expected. Your knowledge on the subject has been made quite clear based on your limited discussions here. Perhaps you will dig a little deeper and develops a basic of understanding on the subject, before you start throwing out graphs to which you can't explain. At least show us you can explain and understand information behind those figures, such as a clear indication as to how the data was collected and details as to what those numbers actually specifically represents.:Other than that, I will leave my discussions towards those who have a little more knowledge on the subject.

No, you're not actually answering what I'm asking. Let's try it this way... just answer, (a) or (b) ....

In terms of indicating the health of the job market, employees staying at their jobs longer is:

A) better

B) worse

No wordy explanations necessary. Just select (a) or (b)...

Oh well. Despite repeated requests for an answer to that question, shakles refuses to say. Who knows why?

At any rate, the median number of years people remain with the same employer is currently (as of January, 2014) 4.6 years -- which is the highest it's been since at least the early 80's ...

1/1983: 3.5
1/1987: 3.4
1/1991: 3.6
1/1996: 3.8
1/1998: 3.6
1/2000: 3.5
1/2002: 3.7
1/2004: 4.0
1/2006: 4.0
1/2008: 4.1
1/2010: 4.4
1/2012: 4.6
1/2014: 4.6

Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by occupation, selected years, 1983-2002
Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by age and sex, selected years, 2004-2014​

... so Obama's job market is not only at full employment, not only employs more full-time folks than ever before, not only persists into the unprecedented 68th consecutive month of job growth in the private sector ... but folks are staying at their jobs longer than they have for decades.

 

[KissMy]

Gasoline is only $1.54 at Shell, 2S600 IL-59, Warrenville, IL 60555

Note that is in communist high tax Illinois!!!

 

[MarcATL]

Gas prices to fall below $2 for Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving travelers will pay less for gasoline than they have in more than a decade.
The average price of unleaded gasoline is expected to hit $1.99 on Thanksgiving, GasBuddy.com analysts reported.
That's the lowest it's been for Turkey Day since 2004, said Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis for Oil Price Information Service.




.

ObamaGas™ is $1.78 where I am in Georgia!

I saw it as low as $1.89 in my parts of town. I LOVE ObamaGas! It's for the children.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[konradv]

My biggest fear is how high Trumpgas could go, when The Donald starts insulting nearly everyone in the world.

 

[MarcATL]

It's not that I'm being silent on this .... it's that you're refusing to answer my questions. Who knows why?

Again.....

How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? In terms of the health of the job market, are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

What your not educated enough to understand is the EMPLOYER often determines how long you are to be employed. If the job market doesn't reflect a "need" for you to be employed for more than a few months, then you get laid off for a lack of work and the need for you to be employed. You response is based on this assumption, that if an individual can find full-time employment but it's not long term that somehow it's still a strong economic indicator because he can always try and seek out other work? I can't sit down an explain to you terms like "job market", if you don't have a grasp of the basics on how the economy works.

At least I will sit and explain a graph or a set of figures, like unemployment, breaking it down to what it means.. what it covers and what's not included. Perhaps this is why you consistently avoid doing the same when you are called out on it, because perhaps you aren't as knowledge on economic issues as you'd like everyone else to think you are. I'm not going to waist my time conversing with someone who posts figures they can't explain, with a breakdown source of how those numbers are derived that you can't produce.

Called out on what? Despite me asking multiple times, I still can't get you to say if it's better or worse for people to be staying at their jobs longer. Are you avoiding answering because you don't know?

I answered your question multiple times, as the length of employment is dependent on the needs of the employer based on there being a need on the job market. It's the private sectors ability to provide a service, and it's marketability to create a need that allows the employer to furnish jobs.

You see, I'm not the one who opened the discussion on this thread based on a graph, without the ability to provide any statistical breakdown of what those results are based on. Am I really surprised? No, it's been expected. Your knowledge on the subject has been made quite clear based on your limited discussions here. Perhaps you will dig a little deeper and develops a basic of understanding on the subject, before you start throwing out graphs to which you can't explain. At least show us you can explain and understand information behind those figures, such as a clear indication as to how the data was collected and details as to what those numbers actually specifically represents.:Other than that, I will leave my discussions towards those who have a little more knowledge on the subject.

No, you're not actually answering what I'm asking. Let's try it this way... just answer, (a) or (b) ....

In terms of indicating the health of the job market, employees staying at their jobs longer is:

A) better

B) worse

No wordy explanations necessary. Just select (a) or (b)...

Oh well. Despite repeated requests for an answer to that question, shakles refuses to say. Who knows why?

At any rate, the median number of years people remain with the same employer is currently (as of January, 2014) 4.6 years -- which is the highest it's been since at least the early 80's ...

1/1983: 3.5
1/1987: 3.4
1/1991: 3.6
1/1996: 3.8
1/1998: 3.6
1/2000: 3.5
1/2002: 3.7
1/2004: 4.0
1/2006: 4.0
1/2008: 4.1
1/2010: 4.4
1/2012: 4.6
1/2014: 4.6

Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by occupation, selected years, 1983-2002
Median years of tenure with current employer for employed wage and salary workers by age and sex, selected years, 2004-2014​

... so Obama's job market is not only at full employment, not only employs more full-time folks than ever before, not only persists into the unprecedented 68th consecutive month of job growth in the private sector ... but folks are staying at their jobs longer than they have for decades.

The reason that rightwing radical couldn't, or refused, rather, to answer is because he has no answer that would be beneficial to him and his radical talking points.

You see, him and his ilk always need to position themselves in opposition to Obama, hence the long drawn-out pablum and clap-trap he's been spewing that makes absolutely no sense, but communicates an opposition to Obama by blaming him for something, anything... everything.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[KissMy]

My biggest fear is how high Trumpgas could go, when The Donald starts insulting nearly everyone in the world.

Yup! Saudi's love Obama. Al Saud and other top officials showered the Obama family with more than $1.3 million in gifts throughout 2014. Plus Saudi Arabia & other OPEC countries are pumping record amounts of oil during Obama's administration just like they did under Clinton. They hated Bush's warring against good Muslims instead of killing terrorist & devaluing the US Dollars oil is sold in. The US dollar has been on a steady climb under Obama.

 

[Dot Com]

one more green check mark to reach 20. Who hasn't voted to thank our great President who actually delivers

 

[Sarah G]

Marathon is back up to 1.95 today. The Republicans are likely getting their sticky fingers into big oil again.

 

[Dot Com]

Going to fill-up my motorcycle tonight. Thanks Mr. President

 

[Synthaholic]

Marathon is back up to 1.95 today. The Republicans are likely getting their sticky fingers into big oil again.

Or trying to gin up fears about "Radical Islam" again. That's always good for an oil increase.

 

[edthecynic]

Obamagas is up ten cents in the last week.......I actually have to pay $1.91 but it still is below $2

Even though the price of a barrel of oil FELL during that same period. And it is still falling, down $15 in the last month to under $40 a barrel, but the price of gas still rises in every gas station no matter what the name the gas is sold under. You would think some oil company would cut the price of gas to gain market share. But if they are all part of the same oil monopoly, why would they have to compete with themselves under different names for market share they already control??

Now tell me why there is no Oil Monopoly again!

 

[rdean]

National gas prices to soon fall below 2

Nationally, regular unleaded gasoline currently averages about $2.12 a gallon, down 46 cents from just four weeks ago and $1.01 cheaper than year-ago levels.
Gas prices are also expected to fall more than previously forecast for the full year

Not bad for a community organizer











.

Federal oil & gas creation IS DOWN dumbass. The increase is from the PRIVATE SECTOR.

Gas prices are low DESPITE Obama.

******* lib idiot

Yea, Republicans took out Bin Laden despite Obama.

Oh, wait..........