So where did Obama come up with 6 million new jobs???

[thereisnospoon]

6 million jobs during a recession is pretty impressive then

Stop parroting Obama talking points. Because it just isn't true.

What is not true?

BLS statistics?

Please. DO the BLS stats talk about the jobs LOST in the same period?
Do the BLS stats define what a job is?
In your estimation is a part time temporary position a "job"?
Are contract labor positions "jobs"?
When a business contracts such as Freightliner which announced the layoffs of 1,200 workers last week, does it not count as "lost" jobs? On your side maybe. Ask those people who will no longer be getting paychecks is they agree with the BLS..
Oh and suppose all 1,200 of those people decide become employed elsewhere, does the BLS count those as "1,200 new jobs"?
As previously stated, it just isn't true.

 

[rightwinger]

Wow. You can read.

Explain why we started creating jobs in 2010.

Gladly

The US stock market went into freefall in 2008. Investors bailed out of the market, companies shed workers to the tune of over 700,000 jobs a month, Banks were failing, auto companies were failing, nobody was putting money into the economy.......we were in a panic

In late 2008 and early 2009, Presidents Bush and Obama stated that the US Government would stand behind our businesses. Key businesses would not be allowed to fail. The US Government would start to put a trillion dollars INTO the economy

In March 2009, the panic subsided. We stopped losing that 700,000 jobs a month but it took months before the jobs outlook turned positive.

Any further questions?

The stock market? Deflection.
The financial markets have little or less to do with the overall health of the economy.
Do a little homework. There is an obvious disconnect.
For example. Ruddick Corp owner of the Harris Teeter Grocery chain, putting the grocer in play. The result was a 15% two day jump in the stock price of Harris Teeter. Did that create any new jobs? Hell no.
Yesterday AMR ,parent company of American Airlines announced it would agree to a merger with US Airways. The stock price took a nice little leap. DId that create any new jobs? No. In fact, there will be as a result of the merger, a reduction in redundant positions. Therefore a net job LOSS.
With these two examples, do you see the disconnect between the stock market and the economy in general? If not, you are indeed existing with head planted firmly in soil.

I'm afraid they do

The Stock market reflects investors confidence in the economy. As they pulled money out of the economy the economic engine stalled. It took the Governments stimulus spending in the economy and ensuring that key sectors would not be allowed to fail that restored that confidence

We are not looking at individual stocks like you cite but the entire market that was in collapse. Big difference

 

[rightwinger]

Stop parroting Obama talking points. Because it just isn't true.

What is not true?

BLS statistics?

Please. DO the BLS stats talk about the jobs LOST in the same period?
Do the BLS stats define what a job is?
In your estimation is a part time temporary position a "job"?
Are contract labor positions "jobs"?
When a business contracts such as Freightliner which announced the layoffs of 1,200 workers last week, does it not count as "lost" jobs? On your side maybe. Ask those people who will no longer be getting paychecks is they agree with the BLS..
Oh and suppose all 1,200 of those people decide become employed elsewhere, does the BLS count those as "1,200 new jobs"?
As previously stated, it just isn't true.

A simple answer to all your questions is Yes

 

[Darkwind]

No, the numbers are the numbers for the current time, and can be compared with any time frame. Setting a baseline distorts the picture because a baseline is arbitrary. It's the Direction that matters more.


But you're not talking about a frame of reference, you're talking about setting an arbitrary point as the "real" number and basing everything around that. I note that you didn't address the question of increases from the baseline. And, as the population changes, the baseline number of jobs becomes meaningless.

There are plenty of frames of reference...direction of job growth, percent of population employed...percent in the labor force....percent of the labor force unemployed.

What you're saying is that if you were once on top of a hill, and come down again, no matter where you go you can't say you've climbed anything until you've exceeded the height of the hill. That's nonsense.

Try this....A company has 100 employees. It hires 50 more. How many new jobs does the company have? You're basically saying that depends entirely on how many employees the company used to have. If 100 years ago the company had 200 employees, by your argument those 50 new hires weren't actually hired...that you couldn't say the company has expanded.

I would say the company has grown from what it had been the previous month. You add context and frame by whatever periods you're choosing to compare. Setting a baseline is completely arbitrary.

For example, employment is much higher than during Reagan's second term, or during the Clinton era. Why are those not the baseline?

Absolutely incorrect. This is why politicians are able to lie to us with impunity. If there is no frame of reference, then there is no viable discussion. The President (any President) can pick any arbitrary time frame and then use it to make themselves look good. You don't mind it now because it is splitting hairs, or cherry picking, and it supports your guy.

How does it support Romney? And since you're picking an arbitrary time frame, you have little room to talk. Of course Obama picked a time frame to make himself look good (as if he's responsible). I put it in context to show it's not as good as he claimed. You're the one trying to say that the millions more people who have jobs don't really have jobs.

Do you not see where this is heading? You claim Clinton, another claims Reagan, one claims Bush.....none of the numbers are meaningful to 'today' and today's standards and baseline are set on the recession

In context of the recession...but you're trying to set an absolute baseline. Which is just as arbitrary as any time. I specified the job levels and changes pre recession, when Obama took office, depth of job loss and current. I've been saying the whole time that while yes, we have consistantly gained jobs since jobs bottomed out, and we are slightly beyond when Obama took office, we haven't fully recovered from the recession.

Somehow you interpret that as me being an Obama supporter and cheerleading. Your the one with the blind partisanship.

not a single job has been created during his entire reign.

See, and now you're shifting. We do have more employed and more jobs now than when he took office. But you're saying none because he hasn't gone beyond the jobs lost under Bush. How are you not cherrypicking?

No, we do not. Not a single job has been created and I have remained consistent in this point, you need to recalibrate or something.

Until those jobs that were lost are all filled with people again, no new jobs have been created.

It is just that basic. Barry still owes the country 2 million jobs (if we go by his questionable word)

 

[mudwhistle]

Gladly

The US stock market went into freefall in 2008. Investors bailed out of the market, companies shed workers to the tune of over 700,000 jobs a month, Banks were failing, auto companies were failing, nobody was putting money into the economy.......we were in a panic

In late 2008 and early 2009, Presidents Bush and Obama stated that the US Government would stand behind our businesses. Key businesses would not be allowed to fail. The US Government would start to put a trillion dollars INTO the economy

In March 2009, the panic subsided. We stopped losing that 700,000 jobs a month but it took months before the jobs outlook turned positive.

Any further questions?

The stock market? Deflection.
The financial markets have little or less to do with the overall health of the economy.
Do a little homework. There is an obvious disconnect.
For example. Ruddick Corp owner of the Harris Teeter Grocery chain, putting the grocer in play. The result was a 15% two day jump in the stock price of Harris Teeter. Did that create any new jobs? Hell no.
Yesterday AMR ,parent company of American Airlines announced it would agree to a merger with US Airways. The stock price took a nice little leap. DId that create any new jobs? No. In fact, there will be as a result of the merger, a reduction in redundant positions. Therefore a net job LOSS.
With these two examples, do you see the disconnect between the stock market and the economy in general? If not, you are indeed existing with head planted firmly in soil.

I'm afraid they do

The Stock market reflects investors confidence in the economy. As they pulled money out of the economy the economic engine stalled. It took the Governments stimulus spending in the economy and ensuring that key sectors would not be allowed to fail that restored that confidence

We are not looking at individual stocks like you cite but the entire market that was in collapse. Big difference

I think a better indicator is currency values.

With dollar shrinking Gold prices have skyrocketed.

If Gold prices go down in relation to US Dollar values then you can say everyone has confidence in our economic outlook.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Gladly

The US stock market went into freefall in 2008. Investors bailed out of the market, companies shed workers to the tune of over 700,000 jobs a month, Banks were failing, auto companies were failing, nobody was putting money into the economy.......we were in a panic

In late 2008 and early 2009, Presidents Bush and Obama stated that the US Government would stand behind our businesses. Key businesses would not be allowed to fail. The US Government would start to put a trillion dollars INTO the economy

In March 2009, the panic subsided. We stopped losing that 700,000 jobs a month but it took months before the jobs outlook turned positive.

Any further questions?

The stock market? Deflection.
The financial markets have little or less to do with the overall health of the economy.
Do a little homework. There is an obvious disconnect.
For example. Ruddick Corp owner of the Harris Teeter Grocery chain, putting the grocer in play. The result was a 15% two day jump in the stock price of Harris Teeter. Did that create any new jobs? Hell no.
Yesterday AMR ,parent company of American Airlines announced it would agree to a merger with US Airways. The stock price took a nice little leap. DId that create any new jobs? No. In fact, there will be as a result of the merger, a reduction in redundant positions. Therefore a net job LOSS.
With these two examples, do you see the disconnect between the stock market and the economy in general? If not, you are indeed existing with head planted firmly in soil.

I'm afraid they do

The Stock market reflects investors confidence in the economy. As they pulled money out of the economy the economic engine stalled. It took the Governments stimulus spending in the economy and ensuring that key sectors would not be allowed to fail that restored that confidence

We are not looking at individual stocks like you cite but the entire market that was in collapse. Big difference

No it doesn't. The stock market indexes are a reflection of a particular trading day's transactions.
I find this discussion ironic. A couple years ago your side vilified and even attempted to criminalize "Wall Street". Now that the numbers are looking good, you people are all about "Look at the stock market. Obama must be improving the economy"...
Stop the nonsense.
You also ignore the three Quantitative Easing programs. The last of which is now permanent. $85 billion taxpayer dollars are being pumped into the stock market to help prop it up. Meanwhile, no one has explained how that money will be paid back.

 

[healthmyths]

Stop parroting Obama talking points. Because it just isn't true.

What is not true?

BLS statistics?

Please. DO the BLS stats talk about the jobs LOST in the same period?
Do the BLS stats define what a job is?
In your estimation is a part time temporary position a "job"?
Are contract labor positions "jobs"?
When a business contracts such as Freightliner which announced the layoffs of 1,200 workers last week, does it not count as "lost" jobs? On your side maybe. Ask those people who will no longer be getting paychecks is they agree with the BLS..
Oh and suppose all 1,200 of those people decide become employed elsewhere, does the BLS count those as "1,200 new jobs"?
As previously stated, it just isn't true.

This is from the BLS.

FACTS about total employment FROM the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/2011/ces/tableb1_201112.pdf

• 
  jobs end number of
  of year new workers % increase
• 2000...... 131,785 2,792 2.16%
• 2001...... 131,826 41 0.03% Dot.com bust, 9/11 occurred $5 trillion in real losses, 18,000 businesses
• 2002...... 130,341 -1,485 -1.13% 9/11 residual losses
• 2003...... 129,999 -342 -0.26% tax cuts began
• 2004...... 131,435 1,436 1.10%
• 2005...... 133,703 2,268 1.73%
• 2006...... 136,086 2,383 1.78%
• 2007...... 137,598 1,512 1.11%
• 2008...... 136,790 -808 -0.59%
• 2009...... 130,807 -5,983 -4.37% absolute worst losses in in 28 years!
• 2010...... 129,818 -989 -0.76%
• 2011...... 131,159 1,341 +1.03%
• 2012...... 134,825 3,666 +2.7%

STILL 2,773,000 fewer people working in 2012 then in 2007 when 137,598,000 people were working!
So Obama is again shading or OVERREACHING OK lying!

 

[mudwhistle]

Phfttttt

 

[healthmyths]

Fact Checker: Six million new jobs

The low point in jobs was reached in February of 2010, and there has indeed been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Wow. You can read.

Explain why we started creating jobs in 2010.

Gladly

The US stock market went into freefall in 2008. Investors bailed out of the market, companies shed workers to the tune of over 700,000 jobs a month, Banks were failing, auto companies were failing, nobody was putting money into the economy.......we were in a panic

In late 2008 and early 2009, Presidents Bush and Obama stated that the US Government would stand behind our businesses. Key businesses would not be allowed to fail. The US Government would start to put a trillion dollars INTO the economy

In March 2009, the panic subsided. We stopped losing that 700,000 jobs a month but it took months before the jobs outlook turned positive.

Any further questions?

You wrote: "The US stock market went into freefall in 2008"

What do you think feed that free fall?

"The near economic collapse on Thursday (Sept 18,2008), at 11am the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.

The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide.

We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account
so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.
Index of /blog

 

[pinqy]

Stop parroting Obama talking points. Because it just isn't true.

What is not true?

BLS statistics?

Please. DO the BLS stats talk about the jobs LOST in the same period?

Yes...we're talking NET changes, of course.

Do the BLS stats define what a job is?

We're talking about non-farm payroll jobs. Does not include agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, or domestic servants.

In your estimation is a part time temporary position a "job"?

Of course. What we would you classify it as?

Are contract labor positions "jobs"?

It depends... for what we're discussing, you have to be on a payroll.

When a business contracts such as Freightliner which announced the layoffs of 1,200 workers last week, does it not count as "lost" jobs?

Lost or gained is the NET change for the country. So your ex as mole will be a negative to the equation.

Oh and suppose all 1,200 of those people decide become employed elsewhere, does the BLS count those as "1,200 new jobs".

You Don't understand the concept of NET change, do you? "New jobs" does NOT mean "hires" it means a positive net change in the number of people employed.

 

[Charles_Main]

Obama in State of union said: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."

OBAMA where did you get 6 million new jobs when your own labor statistics still show 2+ million LESS employed then were employed in 2007?

There have NEVER BEEN AND NEW jobs created since 2006 when 1.5 million more people were working then the year before!

So where did he get 6 million new jobs???

Read more: Transcript of Obama's State of the Union speech | Fox News
FACTS about total employment FROM the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/2011/ces/tableb1_201112.pdf

jobs at number of
year end new workers % increase

• 2000...... 131,785 2,792 2.16%
• 2001...... 131,826 41 0.03% Dot.com bust, 9/11 occurred $5 trillion in real losses, 18,000 businesses
• 2002...... 130,341 -1,485 -1.13% 9/11 residual losses
• 2003...... 129,999 -342 -0.26% tax cuts began
• 2004...... 131,435 1,436 1.10%
• 2005...... 133,703 2,268 1.73%
• 2006...... 136,086 2,383 1.78%
• 2007...... 137,598 1,512 1.11%
• 2008...... 136,790 -808 -0.59%
• 2009...... 130,807 -5,983 -4.37% absolute worst losses in in 28 years!
• 2010...... 129,818 -989 -0.76%
• 2011...... 131,159 1,341 +1.03%
• 2012...... 134,825 3,666 +2.7%

STILL 2,773,000 fewer people working in 2012 then in 2007 when 137,598,000 people were working!
So Obama is again shading or OVERREACHING OK lying!

By counting "saved" jobs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is not true?

BLS statistics?

Please. DO the BLS stats talk about the jobs LOST in the same period?

Yes...we're talking NET changes, of course.


We're talking about non-farm payroll jobs. Does not include agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, or domestic servants.

Of course. What we would you classify it as?
It depends... for what we're discussing, you have to be on a payroll.

When a business contracts such as Freightliner which announced the layoffs of 1,200 workers last week, does it not count as "lost" jobs?

Lost or gained is the NET change for the country. So your ex as mole will be a negative to the equation.


You Don't understand the concept of NET change, do you? "New jobs" does NOT mean "hires" it means a positive net change in the number of people employed.

In understand completely. It is the people cheer leading for Obama who don't understand.
That BLS chart counts only those employed.
It's a raw number. It does not take into account the number of positions businesses once had available vs those which are no longer available.
Anyway, it appears the facts do not matter to those on your side. Obama said, you believe it and that's that. Ok. Fine. The facts say otherwise.
The perception of the people says otherwise. Resulting downturn in business activity says otherwise.
In the case of the Freightliner example, I think you are incorrect. I think those people who've been let go who take new jobs elsewhere will indeed be counted as jobs created.

 

[pinqy]

Please. DO the BLS stats talk about the jobs LOST in the same period?

Yes...we're talking NET changes, of course.


We're talking about non-farm payroll jobs. Does not include agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, or domestic servants.

Of course. What we would you classify it as?
It depends... for what we're discussing, you have to be on a payroll.

When a business contracts such as Freightliner which announced the layoffs of 1,200 workers last week, does it not count as "lost" jobs?

I understand completely.

Honestly, I don't think you do. Your comments really don't indicate an understanding of the statistics.

That BLS chart counts only those employed.

Well, yeah, it's a measure of employment. Why would you expect it to count something else???

It's a raw number.

No, it's not a raw number. It's an estimate based on a monthly survey, weighted by industry and area for the entire country and adjusted to account for estimated births and deaths of businesses that would not be captured in the survey, and seasonally adjusted to account for normal seasonal patterns.

It does not take into account the number of positions businesses once had available vs those which are no longer available.

Why would it? Why would you try to count something that doesn't exist and when does it become no longer relevant? For example, my office had 9 people in it when I started working here over 10 years ago. We went down to 6 a long time ago. How would you count those now? It wouldn't make any sense to.

Anyway, it appears the facts do not matter to those on your side. Obama said, you believe it and that's that. Ok. Fine. The facts say otherwise.

"Facts" which you have failed to present.

The perception of the people says otherwise.

Perception doesn't always match reality. Perception based on individual circumstances and observations cannot give a full nation-wide picture.

In the case of the Freightliner example, I think you are incorrect. I think those people who've been let go who take new jobs elsewhere will indeed be counted as jobs created.

But that's not how it works. "Jobs created" simply means the net change in total payroll jobs. For the Current Employment Survey (the monthly survey that is used when talking about job gains and losses) employers are asked how many people they had on their payroll for the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. They're also asked about count of female employees, average hours and wages for production and non-production employees. So, the total count adds up the survey results, weighting, inferring gained and lost businesses, and adjusting for seasaonal variations. Next month the same thing is done. If the result is higher, that's a gain of jobs. If the result is lower, that's a loss of jobs.

Every January, the numbers are benchmarked based on the March data from UI tax rolls, and then the year is adjusted accordingly.

You seem to think "jobs created" means hires. It does not.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes...we're talking NET changes, of course.


We're talking about non-farm payroll jobs. Does not include agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, or domestic servants.

Of course. What we would you classify it as?
It depends... for what we're discussing, you have to be on a payroll.

When a business contracts such as Freightliner which announced the layoffs of 1,200 workers last week, does it not count as "lost" jobs?

I understand completely.

Honestly, I don't think you do. Your comments really don't indicate an understanding of the statistics.
Well, yeah, it's a measure of employment. Why would you expect it to count something else???


No, it's not a raw number. It's an estimate based on a monthly survey, weighted by industry and area for the entire country and adjusted to account for estimated births and deaths of businesses that would not be captured in the survey, and seasonally adjusted to account for normal seasonal patterns.

Why would it? Why would you try to count something that doesn't exist and when does it become no longer relevant? For example, my office had 9 people in it when I started working here over 10 years ago. We went down to 6 a long time ago. How would you count those now? It wouldn't make any sense to.

"Facts" which you have failed to present.

The perception of the people says otherwise.

Perception doesn't always match reality. Perception based on individual circumstances and observations cannot give a full nation-wide picture.

In the case of the Freightliner example, I think you are incorrect. I think those people who've been let go who take new jobs elsewhere will indeed be counted as jobs created.

But that's not how it works. "Jobs created" simply means the net change in total payroll jobs. For the Current Employment Survey (the monthly survey that is used when talking about job gains and losses) employers are asked how many people they had on their payroll for the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. They're also asked about count of female employees, average hours and wages for production and non-production employees. So, the total count adds up the survey results, weighting, inferring gained and lost businesses, and adjusting for seasaonal variations. Next month the same thing is done. If the result is higher, that's a gain of jobs. If the result is lower, that's a loss of jobs.

Every January, the numbers are benchmarked based on the March data from UI tax rolls, and then the year is adjusted accordingly.

You seem to think "jobs created" means hires. It does not.

Yeah it does. The problem is it took government to throw in a hodgepodge of nonsense to make something appear to be other than what it is.
It's simple math. If more people are gainfully employed one month than the previous month, that is a gain in jobs. If business eliminates positions that is a loss against the gain in new hires. Period.
So, if company A lets 1,000 people go and Company B hires 1,000 new people the net is ZERO.
The Administration considers this to be "1,000 new jobs created"..That is the falsehood. The BS story.
The other BS story is told when people stop collecting unemployment yet do not find work, they are simply ignored. Vanished. As though they no longer exist. That's more fudging of the numbers.
The bottom line is this. If 6 million DIFFERENT people are now working that never worked before or people who had not been working FOUND 6 million NEW full time permanent jobs, that would be a GAIN in jobs.
If it were true, the unemployment rate would be significantly lower than it is now.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

New businesses come and go all the time. There may well be 6,000,000 new jobs, but 8,000,000 OLD jobs are gone forever.

Yet what "kind" of jobs is Obama using is another big factor. Are we talking part time or seasonal? What about when Obama boosted the number of census bureau hirings in order to manipulate job figures and the outlook of the economy. What I did find was the following statistics below:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “the gap between rich and poor Americans grew in 2011 as the poverty rate remained at almost a two-decade high,” while 25.7 million women live in poverty, which is another record high.
In addition, 16.3% of women now live in poverty, which is the highest rate in 17 years, and the number of families living in poverty increased to 9.5 million, another record high.
Obama's poor economy has shrunk the country’s middle class to an all-time low, even though Obama frames himself as the candidate who can best help the middle class.

The lack of job creation forced 368,000 Americans to give up hope and leave the workforce in August, which is the only reason why the unemployment rate went from 8.3% to 8.1%.
And those who are unemployed or in poverty are finding it more difficult to obtain gainful or higher-paying employment. The Associated Press noted that in July of 2012, 3.5 Americans were competing for each open job.

Census Bureau: Poverty At Record Levels Under Obama

Well, the latest Census Bureau report shows that these are precisely the results Obama has delivered since taking office.
According to that report, median annual household income dropped by more than $2,000 in real terms since 2009, a 4.1% decline. Blacks fared even worse, watching their incomes fall 5.7% between 2009 and 2011.
And despite more than three full years of economic recovery, nearly 2.7 million more people are languishing in poverty than in 2009. The current 15% poverty rate is well above where it stood in Obama's first year in office — 14.3%.
Here, too, blacks have fared worse, with the black poverty rate now at 27.6%, up from 25.8% in 2009. And while the number of whites in poverty dropped slightly in 2011, it continued to climb among blacks, the census data show.


Then there's the increase in government dependency under Obama.
According to the census report, there's been a strong shift under Obama away from employer-provided insurance and toward government insurance.
Between 2009 and 2011, the number of people who get insurance coverage through work dropped by more than 600,000, driving the share of people covered at work down to 55%.
At the same time, the number on government health insurance plans climbed by 6.3 million — with almost a third of Americans (32.2%) now getting coverage from Medicaid, Medicare or through military health care plans.

.....other measures of dependency: food stamp enrollment is up 46% since Obama took office; disability enrollment is up 18%; direct federal payments to individuals is up 21% since Bush's last year.


Read More At IBD: Latest Census Reports Show The Hazards Of Obamanomics - Investors.com

So, based on all these figures, when did the economy show strong signs of significant job growth? Where ARE all these high income jobs that are supposed to launch this nation towards a full economic recovery? Why did the economy shrink in the last quarter of 2012? Does it appear that Obama's plan of "more government spending", has been able to bring this nation any closer towards creating a much stronger economy?

 

[pinqy]

It's simple math. If more people are gainfully employed one month than the previous month, that is a gain in jobs.

Correct. And that is what is reported.

If business eliminates positions that is a loss against the gain in new hires. Period.
So, if company A lets 1,000 people go and Company B hires 1,000 new people the net is ZERO.
The Administration considers this to be "1,000 new jobs created"..That is the falsehood.

Well, it's a falsehood that that's what they do. If Company A lets 1,000 people go and Company B hires 1,000, BLS would report that as 0 net change. Neither the Administration nor BLS would call that 1,000 new jobs created. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that they do. Have you even looked at the Employment Situation Report jobs numbers? Look at the jobs numbers in Table B-1:
Total nonfarm payroll employment, seasonally adjusted Dec 2012 = 134,668,000 and Jan 2013 = 134,825,000. Those are total levels and a net change of +157,000

If you want to look at the churn, go to the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey which shows that for private sector businesses, in December there were 4,194,000 hires and 4,069,000 Separations for a net change of +125,000 (no, it doesn' match up with the Employment Situation because it's 2 different time frames). But the point is that there were over 4 million new hires in December, but those are clearly NOT considered "jobs created," and the NET change is what is.

The other BS story is told when people stop collecting unemployment yet do not find work, they are simply ignored. Vanished. As though they no longer exist. That's more fudging of the numbers.

That is also not true. The Current Population Survey, which is the source of the Unemployment rate, doesn't even ask about unemployment benefits. Unemployed is defined as did not work during the reference week, wants to work, could have started work during the reference week, and actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. Those on temporary layoff with an expected return date do not need to have looked.

Again, you're not even looking at the data. The Jan 2013 Unemployment data used the reference week of January 6-12. The Not Seasonally Adjusted level of unemployment was 13,181,000. ( Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age ) while for that same week, the Dept of Labor showed 5,916,993 people receiving benefits from all programs, Fed and State ( News Release last table). So how would you explain the discrepency if those not recieving benefits weren't included as unemployed?

 

[healthmyths]

Obama in State of union said: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."

The ordinary American says wow 6 million new jobs! 6 million more people employed! Obama's doing a good job!
But if we take Obama's number "6 million" and look at what the
FACTS about total employment FROM the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/2011/ces/tableb1_201112.pdf

• 2007...... 137,598 most people working in history
• 2008...... 136,790
• 2009...... 130,807
• 2010...... 129,818
• 2011...... 131,159
• 2012...... 134,825

If Obama was right then add 6 million to 2012 figure would be 140 million employed.

But the BLS reports 134,825,000 WHY??
Do you think if most Americans who heard Obama tout "6 million new jobs" would ask the simple naive question.. Then why would
2012 show 140 million and not 134 million???

Someone is smokin' something!!!

 

[pinqy]

Obama in State of union said: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."

The ordinary American says wow 6 million new jobs! 6 million more people employed! Obama's doing a good job!
But if we take Obama's number "6 million" and look at what the
FACTS about total employment FROM the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/2011/ces/tableb1_201112.pdf

• 2007...... 137,598 most people working in history
• 2008...... 136,790
• 2009...... 130,807
• 2010...... 129,818
• 2011...... 131,159
• 2012...... 134,825

If Obama was right then add 6 million to 2012 figure would be 140 million employed.

But the BLS reports 134,825,000 WHY??
Do you think if most Americans who heard Obama tout "6 million new jobs" would ask the simple naive question.. Then why would
2012 show 140 million and not 134 million???

Someone is smokin' something!!!

Job losses started in Jan 2008 and continued down until February 2010. From Feb 2010 to present private sector non farm payroll jobs have had a net change of +6 million. That's the number he was using. Is it cherry picking? Sure.

 

[healthmyths]

Obama in State of union said: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."

The ordinary American says wow 6 million new jobs! 6 million more people employed! Obama's doing a good job!
But if we take Obama's number "6 million" and look at what the
FACTS about total employment FROM the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/2011/ces/tableb1_201112.pdf

• 2007...... 137,598 most people working in history
• 2008...... 136,790
• 2009...... 130,807
• 2010...... 129,818
• 2011...... 131,159
• 2012...... 134,825

If Obama was right then add 6 million to 2012 figure would be 140 million employed.

But the BLS reports 134,825,000 WHY??
Do you think if most Americans who heard Obama tout "6 million new jobs" would ask the simple naive question.. Then why would
2012 show 140 million and not 134 million???

Someone is smokin' something!!!

Job losses started in Jan 2008 and continued down until February 2010. From Feb 2010 to present private sector non farm payroll jobs have had a net change of +6 million. That's the number he was using. Is it cherry picking? Sure.

Again.. Perceptions of Americans is "6 million new jobs" Means 6 million more people working.
But that is not true. there are about 3 million people that were working that aren't now. Whether they retired, new workers took place, or what the
simple fact if Americans were told the truth is there are 3 million less people working then there was in 2007 when the highest number was 137 million.
The truly sad part of all this is the parsing, the nit picking the nuancing... and yet the simple fact is there are less people working!
That's it! But we've got Obama touting failed programs and using false numbers to prop these failing programs up.

That's criminal.