Unemployment Rises to 6.2%

[Siete]

I call shenanigans, you blithering idiot.

I NEVER claimed that a POTUS controls the market. The President certainly has a significant impact on the business and economic climate, but so far, we have resisted a complete command and control economy (thank the goddess).

But if Obama and the Progs get their way, we'll soon see more sectors taken over by the government. Their track record of cronyism-control has so far ruined:

- Education
- Health Care
- Real Commercial Banking that used to lend to Main Street and pay interest to savers
- Housing

Let's see what else they can destroy!

if a POTUS can control the stock market then please tell everyone why 43 didn't halt the falling market dead in its tracks and prevent the big fallout that knocked the ladder out from under the economy...


1/19/2001 1/20/2009 Decline
S&P 500 $1,342.54 $805.22 -40%
Dow Jones Industrial $10,587.59 $7,949.09 -25%
NASDAQ $2770.38 $1440.86 -48%

Please take a remedial reading class.

And I challenge you to find any post where I said the POTUS can control the stock market.

read this to me, you wrote it

And anyone with a full brain (unlike you and your wee half brain) knows that an Executive Branch that refuses to enforce the Rule of Law and instead rules by the Whim of Bureaucrats dampens economic activity
...

and you're saying by not enforcing the law of the land the Executive Branch dampens the economy thus having the ability to control the stock market ... yes or no ?

 

[boedicca]

if a POTUS can control the stock market then please tell everyone why 43 didn't halt the falling market dead in its tracks and prevent the big fallout that knocked the ladder out from under the economy...


1/19/2001 1/20/2009 Decline
S&P 500 $1,342.54 $805.22 -40%
Dow Jones Industrial $10,587.59 $7,949.09 -25%
NASDAQ $2770.38 $1440.86 -48%

Please take a remedial reading class.

And I challenge you to find any post where I said the POTUS can control the stock market.

read this to me, you wrote it

And anyone with a full brain (unlike you and your wee half brain) knows that an Executive Branch that refuses to enforce the Rule of Law and instead rules by the Whim of Bureaucrats dampens economic activity
...

and you're saying by not enforcing the law of the land the Executive Branch dampens the economy thus having the ability to control the stock market ... yes or no ?

There is nothing in my post which says the POTUS controls the stock market.

You lose.

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4].[/ame]

 

[Siete]

Please take a remedial reading class.

And I challenge you to find any post where I said the POTUS can control the stock market.

read this to me, you wrote it

And anyone with a full brain (unlike you and your wee half brain) knows that an Executive Branch that refuses to enforce the Rule of Law and instead rules by the Whim of Bureaucrats dampens economic activity
...

and you're saying by not enforcing the law of the land the Executive Branch dampens the economy thus having the ability to control the stock market ... yes or no ?

There is nothing in my post which says the POTUS controls the stock market.

You lose.

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4].[/ame]

ah, another non answer to a ligit yes or no question and I'm declared the loser.

nice vapid try, thanks for playing anyway.

 

[pinqy]

Did Bush ever see six straight months of 200,000+ jobs?

Obama has added more jobs in the last six months than Bush did in eight years

They are purposely ignoring the 390,000 that re-entered the work force looking for jobs.

More people LEFT the work force than re-entered, bub.

A year ago, the Labor Force Participation Rate was 63.4% - now it is 63.9%.

Over the past year:

- The labor force increased by 340K
- Those not participating in the labor force increased by 1.9M

1.6M more people DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE than joined.

The increase in the Labor Force is the NET change.
Not in the labor force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force."
A high school student who doesn't have or want a job turns 16. That's one more person not in the labor force. Someone leaves the military to become a full time student using his/her GI Bill....one more person entering the population as not in the labor force.

If you add the Unemployed to the Non-Participants, the comparison is 101.5M in July 2013 vs. 101.7M in July 2014.

Right and that's an increase of 202,000
At the same time, Employment went from 144,285,000 to 146,352,000 ... a change of 2.1 million. Employment as a percent of population went from 58.7% to 59%

 

[boedicca]

They are purposely ignoring the 390,000 that re-entered the work force looking for jobs.

More people LEFT the work force than re-entered, bub.

A year ago, the Labor Force Participation Rate was 63.4% - now it is 63.9%.

Over the past year:

- The labor force increased by 340K
- Those not participating in the labor force increased by 1.9M

1.6M more people DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE than joined.

The increase in the Labor Force is the NET change.
Not in the labor force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force."
A high school student who doesn't have or want a job turns 16. That's one more person not in the labor force. Someone leaves the military to become a full time student using his/her GI Bill....one more person entering the population as not in the labor force.

If you add the Unemployed to the Non-Participants, the comparison is 101.5M in July 2013 vs. 101.7M in July 2014.

Right and that's an increase of 202,000
At the same time, Employment went from 144,285,000 to 146,352,000 ... a change of 2.1 million. Employment as a percent of population went from 58.7% to 59%

Condolences on your math illiteracy.

 

[pinqy]

you mean the civilian noninstitutional population?
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
the one where the population in June 2014 was 247,814,000 and in July 2014 was 245,756,000 for a DECREASE of 2,058,000? .

Look at the chart again. June 2014 was indeed 247,814,000 but July 2014 was 248,023,000. An increase of 209,000

July 2013 was 245,756,000

Wow, you are an idiot.

Here is what I posted AGAIN:

The civilian population increased by 209K, and jobs increased by 209K....a sign of an anemic economy which can barely create enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

I'm the idiot? My post had nothing to do with anything you said...I was correcting ogibillm's incorrect numbers.

 

[pinqy]

More people LEFT the work force than re-entered, bub.

A year ago, the Labor Force Participation Rate was 63.4% - now it is 63.9%.

Over the past year:

- The labor force increased by 340K
- Those not participating in the labor force increased by 1.9M

1.6M more people DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE than joined.

The increase in the Labor Force is the NET change.
Not in the labor force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force."
A high school student who doesn't have or want a job turns 16. That's one more person not in the labor force. Someone leaves the military to become a full time student using his/her GI Bill....one more person entering the population as not in the labor force.

If you add the Unemployed to the Non-Participants, the comparison is 101.5M in July 2013 vs. 101.7M in July 2014.

Right and that's an increase of 202,000
At the same time, Employment went from 144,285,000 to 146,352,000 ... a change of 2.1 million. Employment as a percent of population went from 58.7% to 59%

Condolences on your math illiteracy.

Oh, which part is wrong?
July 2013:
Employed: 144,285,000
Unemployed: 11,408,000
Not in the Labor Force: 90,062,000
Total Population: 245,756,000
Employed/Population = 144,285,000/245,756,000 = 58.7%

July 2014:
Employed: 146,352,000
Unemployed: 9,671,000
Not in the Labor Force: 92,001,000
Total Population: 248,023,000
Employed/Population = 146,352,000/248,023,000 = 59%

Change in Number of Employed: 146,352,000 - 144,285,000 = +2,067,000
Change in Unemployed: -1,737,000
Change in Labor Force then was 2,067,000 - 1,737,000 = +330,000
Change in Not in the Labor Force: +1,939,000

And all of that was already spelled out in the Employment Situation Report Table A-1


I like how you're trying to dodge that Not in the Labor Force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force." They would only be the same if the population doesn't change or every person entering the population enters as in the labor force.

 

[Siete]

Look at the chart again. June 2014 was indeed 247,814,000 but July 2014 was 248,023,000. An increase of 209,000

July 2013 was 245,756,000

Wow, you are an idiot.

Here is what I posted AGAIN:

The civilian population increased by 209K, and jobs increased by 209K....a sign of an anemic economy which can barely create enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

I'm the idiot? My post had nothing to do with anything you said...I was correcting ogibillm's incorrect numbers.

stay tuned, next, YOU' RE the one who needs a remedial reading course.

 

[pinqy]

Look at the chart again. June 2014 was indeed 247,814,000 but July 2014 was 248,023,000. An increase of 209,000

July 2013 was 245,756,000

Wow, you are an idiot.

Here is what I posted AGAIN:

The civilian population increased by 209K, and jobs increased by 209K....a sign of an anemic economy which can barely create enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

Oh but come on, B, don't you know that pingy is the objective number cruncher here?

LOL, there is no such thing for starters and secondly he's full of shit half the time.

I have never seen you point out anything I've gotten wrong. Mostly you just sling insults. And again, I wasn't even addressing Boudicca and my post had nothing to do with her.

 

[boedicca]

The increase in the Labor Force is the NET change.
Not in the labor force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force."
A high school student who doesn't have or want a job turns 16. That's one more person not in the labor force. Someone leaves the military to become a full time student using his/her GI Bill....one more person entering the population as not in the labor force.

Right and that's an increase of 202,000
At the same time, Employment went from 144,285,000 to 146,352,000 ... a change of 2.1 million. Employment as a percent of population went from 58.7% to 59%

Condolences on your math illiteracy.

Oh, which part is wrong?
July 2013:
Employed: 144,285,000
Unemployed: 11,408,000
Not in the Labor Force: 90,062,000
Total Population: 245,756,000
Employed/Population = 144,285,000/245,756,000 = 58.7%

July 2014:
Employed: 146,352,000
Unemployed: 9,671,000
Not in the Labor Force: 92,001,000
Total Population: 248,023,000
Employed/Population = 146,352,000/248,023,000 = 59%

And all of that was already spelled out in the Employment Situation Report Table A-1


I like how you're trying to dodge that Not in the Labor Force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force." They would only be the same if the population doesn't change or every person entering the population enters as in the labor force.

All you've done is proven my assertion that job creation is barely keeping up with population growth and not making a dent in the un&underemployed-given up population.

 

[Erand7899]

well if you think adding 200k new jobs and an increase in averages wages is a bad thing i don't know what to tell you.

what color do you think the sky is?

Adding jobs, regardless of the number is always a good thing. Not adding enough jobs to cover the growth in the working population is not a good thing, and is strongly indictative of an economy that is still rocking along the bottom.

Six years after a recession, the economy should be robust and adding jobs at every level, but this one is not doing that. The key question is; why not?

The answer is easy. Keynesian economics is a flawed concept that only works in socialist fantasy. How many times does the world have to learn that lesson?

Erand, this is such a profound post, do you mind if I post it again?

Adding jobs, regardless of the number is always a good thing. Not adding enough jobs to cover the growth in the working population is not a good thing, and is strongly indictative of an economy that is still rocking along the bottom.

Six years after a recession, the economy should be robust and adding jobs at every level, but this one is not doing that. The key question is; why not?

The answer is easy. Keynesian economics is a flawed concept that only works in socialist fantasy. How many times does the world have to learn that lesson?

Not so profound, but thanks. Feel free to use anything I post.

 

[pinqy]

Condolences on your math illiteracy.

Oh, which part is wrong?
July 2013:
Employed: 144,285,000
Unemployed: 11,408,000
Not in the Labor Force: 90,062,000
Total Population: 245,756,000
Employed/Population = 144,285,000/245,756,000 = 58.7%

July 2014:
Employed: 146,352,000
Unemployed: 9,671,000
Not in the Labor Force: 92,001,000
Total Population: 248,023,000
Employed/Population = 146,352,000/248,023,000 = 59%

And all of that was already spelled out in the Employment Situation Report Table A-1


I like how you're trying to dodge that Not in the Labor Force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force." They would only be the same if the population doesn't change or every person entering the population enters as in the labor force.

All you've done is proven my assertion that job creation is barely keeping up with population growth and no making a dent in the un&underemployed-given up population.

But you said I showed math illiteracy. So I got the numbers wrong which agrees with what you say? hmmmm

 

[Siete]

Oh, which part is wrong?
July 2013:
Employed: 144,285,000
Unemployed: 11,408,000
Not in the Labor Force: 90,062,000
Total Population: 245,756,000
Employed/Population = 144,285,000/245,756,000 = 58.7%

July 2014:
Employed: 146,352,000
Unemployed: 9,671,000
Not in the Labor Force: 92,001,000
Total Population: 248,023,000
Employed/Population = 146,352,000/248,023,000 = 59%

And all of that was already spelled out in the Employment Situation Report Table A-1


I like how you're trying to dodge that Not in the Labor Force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force." They would only be the same if the population doesn't change or every person entering the population enters as in the labor force.

All you've done is proven my assertion that job creation is barely keeping up with population growth and no making a dent in the un&underemployed-given up population.

But you said I showed math illiteracy. So I got the numbers wrong which agrees with what you say? hmmmm

condolences boedic-uh

 

[AceRothstein]

Funny seeing pinqy own boedicca and econchic. All they know what to come back with is insults. That's how you know they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[EconChick]

if a POTUS can control the stock market then please tell everyone why 43 didn't halt the falling market dead in its tracks and prevent the big fallout that knocked the ladder out from under the economy...


1/19/2001 1/20/2009 Decline
S&P 500 $1,342.54 $805.22 -40%
Dow Jones Industrial $10,587.59 $7,949.09 -25%
NASDAQ $2770.38 $1440.86 -48%

Please take a remedial reading class.

And I challenge you to find any post where I said the POTUS can control the stock market.

read this to me, you wrote it

And anyone with a full brain (unlike you and your wee half brain) knows that an Executive Branch that refuses to enforce the Rule of Law and instead rules by the Whim of Bureaucrats dampens economic activity
...

and you're saying by not enforcing the law of the land the Executive Branch dampens the economy thus having the ability to control the stock market ... yes or no ?

I have no idea how you infer that. Wait, yes I do. You don't understand how a market economy works.

 

[EconChick]

Funny seeing pinqy own boedicca and econchic. All they know what to come back with is insults. That's how you know they don't know what they are talking about.

I'm not surprised you don't know substance when you see it. The big picture requires possessing a lot of brain cells folks like you don't have.

We have the big picture. You and your friends are swimming down in data you can't even understand the meaning of.

 

[Siete]

Please take a remedial reading class.

And I challenge you to find any post where I said the POTUS can control the stock market.

read this to me, you wrote it

And anyone with a full brain (unlike you and your wee half brain) knows that an Executive Branch that refuses to enforce the Rule of Law and instead rules by the Whim of Bureaucrats dampens economic activity
...

and you're saying by not enforcing the law of the land the Executive Branch dampens the economy thus having the ability to control the stock market ... yes or no ?

I have no idea how you infer that. Wait, yes I do. You don't understand how a market economy works.

prolly because I didn't infer that ... your stupid sister boedicca-duh actually TYPED that.


next question..

when are you going to pack up your ass that continually gets handed back to you and stfu?

 

[boedicca]

Oh, which part is wrong?
July 2013:
Employed: 144,285,000
Unemployed: 11,408,000
Not in the Labor Force: 90,062,000
Total Population: 245,756,000
Employed/Population = 144,285,000/245,756,000 = 58.7%

July 2014:
Employed: 146,352,000
Unemployed: 9,671,000
Not in the Labor Force: 92,001,000
Total Population: 248,023,000
Employed/Population = 146,352,000/248,023,000 = 59%

And all of that was already spelled out in the Employment Situation Report Table A-1


I like how you're trying to dodge that Not in the Labor Force is not the same as "dropped out of the labor force." They would only be the same if the population doesn't change or every person entering the population enters as in the labor force.

All you've done is proven my assertion that job creation is barely keeping up with population growth and no making a dent in the un&underemployed-given up population.

But you said I showed math illiteracy. So I got the numbers wrong which agrees with what you say? hmmmm

You consistently demonstrate that you don't understand them.

But thanks for playing.

 

[EconChick]

Wow, you are an idiot.

Here is what I posted AGAIN:

The civilian population increased by 209K, and jobs increased by 209K....a sign of an anemic economy which can barely create enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

Oh but come on, B, don't you know that pingy is the objective number cruncher here?

LOL, there is no such thing for starters and secondly he's full of shit half the time.

I have never seen you point out anything I've gotten wrong. Mostly you just sling insults. And again, I wasn't even addressing Boudicca and my post had nothing to do with her.

What you get wrong is what the data means.

 

[kaz]

The one tenth of a percentage point increase in the unemployment rate to 6.2 percent came as more people entered the labor market, a sign of confidence in the job market.[/U][/B]

are you really trying to spin this as bad news?

LOL, people entered the workforce and couldn't find jobs, I see why you say that isn't bad. OK, I don't...

We need government to stop counting a bunch of unemployed people again to get the rate back down, don't we?