Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[JakeStarkey]

Once Romney gets the nomination, he can turn away from the loonies on the far right and deal with the real issues of America, which has nothing to do with the fallacies that Obama is somehow a socialist, marxist, nazi, moon worshipping kenyan immigrant.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Poor attempt at spin
Romney does not say any of those things in the video



Extremist never

that would be someone who says Statism exist nowhere in the world or
that the Father of Fascism, Rousseau, had a greater impact on our country
than Locke



With "friends" like you, who needs enemies

Romney, or for that matter, any GOP will not get into the White House
with your kind of "help"


Keep up the good work
The Left does need your help
with failed polices of Papa Obama
they sure can't run on his record


Ok now remind us again how bad some on the right are
and diffuse the issues of the left and remind us how Papa Obama
was stifled by Republicans

Quick

Romney needs your help

(sad thing is- you are not fooling anyone
with your poor attempts of "concern trolling" )

 

[Listening]

Yes


US trade deficit reaches six-month high

That's all you got?

No wonder you guys are going to lose.

Lose what ?

The senate is our in November and maybe even the White House.

What are you talking about besides your nightly wet dream ?

 

[saveliberty]

<sigh>

pingy's right, its closer to 15%.

I do stand by the 8.3% rate being the equivalent of the 8.9% number from the end of 2011. Between the new Census correction and the normal margin for error, no one can really dispute it.

The census adjustment ended up having no effect on the rate. And the margin if error is +- 0.2 percentage points. So clearly there was a statistically significant downward change.

The Census adjustment was wrong to begin with, because it was bad data pinqy. I dodged the Census people three times. They got how many people lived here and that was it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'd love to see you try and supper that number. Even adding in everyone who says they want a job, regardless of ability to accept one, or not bothering to try to get a job in years doesn't even get close to 20%.


And your evidence for this is what?

UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:

US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts


You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.

The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.

I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.

This is a joke right? Workers decided they don't need to be earning the income they once had because they no longer feel they want to have a full time job, or it's because they have decided they would much rather look after the kids? Are you being serious? Underemployment MEANS they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, perhaps even work two jobs to make up the loss of income under one (which would also make an increase in the job numbers deceptive and misleading). You are able to figure out what underemployment means with respect to a bad economy, aren't you?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Interesting change of subject. I don't even know what "destroying jobs" is supposed to mean. It's not a Econ term

No change of subject at all. Obama has destroyed jobs. They aren't counted any longer.

Try again.

Sure it is. You can't support your made up number of 20% unemployment or the false claim that the govt changes the standards based on mood.

So yo ignore those and now you're talking about "destroyed jobs" without, of course, defining the term. You just like to assert things without backing them up, don't you?

Have you looked at the fact that Obama has been attacking banks through his policies and harsh political rhetoric, and now banks have tightened up on making business loans? How are businesses suppose to hire more workers without the ability to get the financial support they need?

The president also called for expanding the reach of a 1994 law that forbids banks from acquiring another bank if the deal would give it more than 10% of the nation's insured deposits. He would expand that limit to cover other types of funding&#8212;such as banks' short-term borrowing from financial markets&#8212;and perhaps put a cap on the share of assets any one firm could hold.

The Thursday announcement is the latest move by the White House to target Wall Street and banks. Earlier this month, the president proposed a new fee on large banks and insurance companies that would raise $90 billion over 10 years

Obama Proposes New Bank Regulations - WSJ.com

Nobody will be surprised to learn that the past few years have been tough for small business. They&#8217;ve been tough for everyone, after all. But interesting research finalized in December from economists Burcu Duygan-Bump, Alexey Levkov, and Judit Montoriol-Garriga published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston indicates that the interplay of small business and the banking crisis may have played a special role in the recession. In particular, a tightening of credit standards during the high point of the fiscal crunch seems to have disproportionately impacted small firms and is continuing to hold them back during the recession.

Politicians gushing over small businesses is such a cliché that it&#8217;s easy to tune out talk of the importance of small firms. According to the Census Bureau, as of 2008-09 about one-half of all jobs were with firms with fewer than 500 employees, and one-half of those were with firms with fewer than 100 workers. Fully 10 percent of workers were employed by tiny business with fewer than 10 employees. And small-scale operations are unusual in several respects. Most notably, they don&#8217;t have access to the conventional financial-market tools of a big company. For aggressively growing startups, that means gaining the financing they need from the special world of venture capital. But for the hum-drum small businesses that make up such a large share of American economic life&#8212;the kind of firms that are trying to get by and earn a profit, but don&#8217;t necessarily aspire to world domination&#8212;that means relying on bank loans for funding needs.

Small businesses in the economic recovery: The disproportionate impact of the credit crunch - Slate Magazine

 

[Skull Pilot]

Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11% - Forbes

 

[saveliberty]

Getting back to reality....

Stuffing envelopes huh?

 

[BlakeKarpe]

If the employment numbers improve enough then Obama should win

I do hate when my side plays blame Bush Reagan thing, over and over
It is good for getting into office but we have to produce real numbers
to win this election


It only works for the base hard core
but it does not work with general public at large
Really, it makes us look disingenuous

 

[pinqy]

UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:

US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts


You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.

The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.

I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.

This is a joke right? Workers decided they don't need to be earning the income they once had because they no longer feel they want to have a full time job, or it's because they have decided they would much rather look after the kids? Are you being serious? Underemployment MEANS they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, perhaps even work two jobs to make up the loss of income under one (which would also make an increase in the job numbers deceptive and misleading). You are able to figure out what underemployment means with respect to a bad economy, aren't you?

There's no set definition for "underemployment." The definition Gallup uses for their measure is

Respondents who work either for an employer or for themselves, and do not work more than 30 hours per week at either job are categorized as employed part time. Additionally, when asked, these respondents indicated they do want to work more than 30 hours per week.
Gallup definitions

So nothing to do with unable to find full time or having to settle. People working part time because they need to look after kids or elderly or share a car or juggle school will be classified as "underemployed" by Gallup's measure. I find it revealing that you just invented your own definition rather than try to find what was actually used for the measure you were discussing.

BLS has a category called "part time for economic reasons" defined as working less than 35 hrs/week due to either cut hours from slow business or inability to find part time work. That's closer to what you're talking about. Adding them in would raise the UE rate to 13.6%. Adding them in along with Marginally Attached (willing and able to work, looked in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks) makes the rate 15.1%.

Useful to look at and track, but not really measures of Unemployment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poor attempt at spin Romney does not say any of those things in the video Extremist never that would be someone who says Statism exist nowhere in the world or that the Father of Fascism, Rousseau, had a greater impact on our country than Locke With "friends" like you, who needs enemies Romney, or for that matter, any GOP will not get into the White House with your kind of "help" Keep up the good work The Left oes need your help with failed polices of Papa Obama they sure can't run on his record Ok now mind us again how bad some on the right are and diffuse the issues of the left and remind us how apa Obama was stifled by Republicans Quick Romney needs your help (sad thing is- you are not fooling anyone with your oor attempts of "concern trolling" )

Neo fools no one with his inability to put together a cohesive, coherent argument. Instead, he spittles. The fact is that Romney will turn away from the moonies of the far right as soon as he can. Winning the C-PAC was a big, big step to doing that. Neo and his buds can keep up with the socialist fascist marxist nazi kenyan immigrant trolling and continue looking stupid.

The dems are not going to win with "blame Bush et al" this time around. Obama and Romney are going to have to talk jobs and numbers.

 

[saveliberty]

Romney is going to be talking about it from home then. A real conservative is not going to believe him for one second.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney will win with real Republicans and the center voting for him. Those fair weather "conservatives" who sit home will gain nothing after he wins or they can start their own party. They don't get to tell us what to do.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Jake
living proof of

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."



Please if you insist on name calling and falsehoods

I suggest the thread just for us.

otherwise you are wasting posters time and space
trying to "disprove" with your spam what everyone knows to be true
you are a version, albeit a poor one, of the "concerned troll"
The mere fact you have to take the formatting out of the previous
post- shows you to be fearful of the truth


Sorry you are not fooling anyone
As such, I will not spam the thread like you

I will keep my posts to real posters who have some value to add


I will allow you to have the last word
and wait for you on the thread for us

Click here

 

[saveliberty]

If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.

 

[Big Fitz]

If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.

I suspect this has been a pattern the entire primary season in open primaries and caucuses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney will win with real Republicans and the center voting for him. Those fair weather "conservatives" who sit home will gain nothing after he wins or they can start their own party. They don't get to tell us what to do.

Jake living proof of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Please if you insist on name calling and falsehoods I suggest the thread just for us. Ptherwise you are wasting posters time and space trying to "disprove" with your spam what everyone knows to be true you are version, albeit a poor one, of the "concerned troll" Sorry you are not fooling anyone As such, I will not spam the thread with this I will allow you to have the last word and wait for you on the thread for us

Click here

Doth protest too much in a line and a part that you left out because yours compares so badly with it when compared to the rambling, disheveled comment above?

 

[edthecynic]

If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.

Democratic crossovers will continue to vote for inSanitorium.

 

[saveliberty]

Come on Jake, I know you can see the humor in Neo's thread.

 

[saveliberty]

If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.

Democratic crossovers will continue to vote for inSanitorium.

Like I'm going to take your brain farts as important.