US adds massive 287,000 jobs in June.....Quite A Change From Bush's Fiasco

[pinqy]

Already did and showed the lie in the statistic. It doesn't count people who gave up and went away, the main group of "discouraged" workers. LOL, you people are priceless.

LIAR!

Read your own stat, it said it only counted people who were marginally attached. That means people who worked not too long ago and sorta are working but not in the last 4 weeks.

No, Marginally attached are people who are not working at all, say they want to work and that they could start work immediately if offered and who have looked for a job in the last year but not the last four weeks. They don't need to have ever worked before and they are in no way working now.

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

 

[kaz]

Here's the other problem with the chart. I count part time as anything less than full time. This chart is counting underemployed as full time.

What are you defining as "underemployed" in this context?

I'm confused. The next quote answers that. It even says I was answering it. I started with "meaning ..."

But it didn't do a good job...it was too vague. What constitutes "a big step down?" For example if you lose your job and the only way to make the same pay is to work more hours, so that your hourly pay is less, but your weekly pay the same because you work more hours....is that a step down?

And why is 25-30 hours underemployed?

"Full time" is 40 hours a week. 25-30 is "underemployed." Yet Sparky is counting them as full time.

He's not counting 25-30 hours as full time. No one is. All the charts that show full time and part time use 35 hours as the line.

In fact many companies are specifically limiting employees to under 30 hours because that's when government ***** them with Obamacare. This counts them as full time.

No it doesn't. For these statistics, 40 hours is considered the standard for full time, so 35 plus hours is classified as full time (you have to go a little under to fully capture the real number).

If that's the case, than the whole chart is a lie because it shows part time workers as not going up.

But the number of part time workers is not growing significantly.

Underemployed are a fast growing segment of job workers. That part time is not going up is only possible if you don't include underemployed. Obamacare specifically is driving up underemployed because of the 30 hour threshhold

What is your source for all that? The number of people working part time for economic reasons has been going down:

You know you're on the internet, you can google terms you don't know. Underemployed can be hours. It can also be skills and experience. Say you have a PhD in psychology and you are working at McDonalds. That is also considered underemployed.

I'm confused, you said full time is 35 hours, then asked why 25-30 hours isn't full time ...

If you read the discussion, it's not counting all less than 35 hours as part time, only the ones that are not getting them for "economic reasons." Say you're hourly and your employer is cutting back on LOW. It's a skewed number that doesn't include capping you at 30 because your employer's not going to get fucked by government with Obamacare

 

[kaz]

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.


Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.



And by that I mean

 

[pinqy]

Here's the other problem with the chart. I count part time as anything less than full time. This chart is counting underemployed as full time.

What are you defining as "underemployed" in this context?

I'm confused. The next quote answers that. It even says I was answering it. I started with "meaning ..."

But it didn't do a good job...it was too vague. What constitutes "a big step down?" For example if you lose your job and the only way to make the same pay is to work more hours, so that your hourly pay is less, but your weekly pay the same because you work more hours....is that a step down?

And why is 25-30 hours underemployed?

"Full time" is 40 hours a week. 25-30 is "underemployed." Yet Sparky is counting them as full time.

He's not counting 25-30 hours as full time. No one is. All the charts that show full time and part time use 35 hours as the line.

In fact many companies are specifically limiting employees to under 30 hours because that's when government ***** them with Obamacare. This counts them as full time.

No it doesn't. For these statistics, 40 hours is considered the standard for full time, so 35 plus hours is classified as full time (you have to go a little under to fully capture the real number).

If that's the case, than the whole chart is a lie because it shows part time workers as not going up.

But the number of part time workers is not growing significantly.

Underemployed are a fast growing segment of job workers. That part time is not going up is only possible if you don't include underemployed. Obamacare specifically is driving up underemployed because of the 30 hour threshhold

What is your source for all that? The number of people working part time for economic reasons has been going down:

You know you're on the internet, you can google terms you don't know. Underemployed can be hours. It can also be skills and experience. Say you have a PhD in psychology and you are working at McDonalds. That is also considered underemployed.

There is no standard accepted definition of "underemployed" among economists. I have no idea how you are specifically using the term. Underemployment is not measured by statistical agencies because it is too subjective a concept. Part time for economic reasons (willing and able to work 35+ hours but worked fewer due to slow business or inability to find full time job) is often referred to as "underemployed."

I'm confused, you said full time is 35 hours, then asked why 25-30 hours isn't full time ...

No I didn't. I asked why it was underemployed.

If you read the discussion, it's not counting all less than 35 hours as part time, only the ones that are not getting them for "economic reasons." Say you're hourly and your employer is cutting back on LOW. It's a skewed number that doesn't include capping you at 30 because your employer's not going to get fucked by government with Obamacare

If you were working 35+ hours and your employer cut down to under 30 for Obamacare reasons, that would still be part time for economic reasons...specifically "business reasons."

 

[kaz]

Here's the other problem with the chart. I count part time as anything less than full time. This chart is counting underemployed as full time.

What are you defining as "underemployed" in this context?

I'm confused. The next quote answers that. It even says I was answering it. I started with "meaning ..."

But it didn't do a good job...it was too vague. What constitutes "a big step down?" For example if you lose your job and the only way to make the same pay is to work more hours, so that your hourly pay is less, but your weekly pay the same because you work more hours....is that a step down?

And why is 25-30 hours underemployed?

"Full time" is 40 hours a week. 25-30 is "underemployed." Yet Sparky is counting them as full time.

He's not counting 25-30 hours as full time. No one is. All the charts that show full time and part time use 35 hours as the line.

In fact many companies are specifically limiting employees to under 30 hours because that's when government ***** them with Obamacare. This counts them as full time.

No it doesn't. For these statistics, 40 hours is considered the standard for full time, so 35 plus hours is classified as full time (you have to go a little under to fully capture the real number).

If that's the case, than the whole chart is a lie because it shows part time workers as not going up.

But the number of part time workers is not growing significantly.

Underemployed are a fast growing segment of job workers. That part time is not going up is only possible if you don't include underemployed. Obamacare specifically is driving up underemployed because of the 30 hour threshhold

What is your source for all that? The number of people working part time for economic reasons has been going down:

You know you're on the internet, you can google terms you don't know. Underemployed can be hours. It can also be skills and experience. Say you have a PhD in psychology and you are working at McDonalds. That is also considered underemployed.

There is no standard accepted definition of "underemployed" among economists. I have no idea how you are specifically using the term. Underemployment is not measured by statistical agencies because it is too subjective a concept. Part time for economic reasons (willing and able to work 35+ hours but worked fewer due to slow business or inability to find full time job) is often referred to as "underemployed."

I'm confused, you said full time is 35 hours, then asked why 25-30 hours isn't full time ...

No I didn't. I asked why it was underemployed.

If you read the discussion, it's not counting all less than 35 hours as part time, only the ones that are not getting them for "economic reasons." Say you're hourly and your employer is cutting back on LOW. It's a skewed number that doesn't include capping you at 30 because your employer's not going to get fucked by government with Obamacare

If you were working 35+ hours and your employer cut down to under 30 for Obamacare reasons, that would still be part time for economic reasons...specifically "business reasons."

You're making it up. People who are for example professionals who take lower paying jobs not in their field because they can't find a job in their field are ALWAYS counted as underemployed.

If you're going to start playing stupid word parsing games I'm out

 

[pinqy]

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.

No. How can they both have given up and still be looking????

Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.

Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.
Now, this week happens to be the survey reference week, and the interviewers will be out on Monday asking about this week.
A marginally attached worker for July will be someone who:

1. Did not work at all this week.
2. Wants a job.
3. Has not looked for work or gone to interviews or submitted an application or answered an ad or placed an ad or sent a resume etc after 18 June.
4. Could have started a job this week.

A discouraged worker meets all the above requirements plus:

Stopped looking due to the belief that there were no available jobs, or that s/he would face discrimination.

 

[pinqy]

You're making it up. People who are for example professionals who take lower paying jobs not in their field because they can't find a job in their field are ALWAYS counted as underemployed.

Show me one statistical agency that does that. Anywhere in the world.

Informally, yes you are correct. But measuring it? It can't be done.

Example: A stock broker with an MBA and a decade of experience is convicted of securities fraud and does 6 months in prison.
Because he is a felon, and because of his particular crime, he can no longer work on the stock market and the best he can find is a minimum wage job.

Is he underemployed as a stock broker? Or normally employed as an ex-con?

 

[Faun]

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.


Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.



And by that I mean

Actually .... your argument was .... "Most of the unemployment reduction was Obama convincing people to give up looking for a job."

Which is nothing but another unsupported kaz you can't demonstrate.

 

[kaz]

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.

No. How can they both have given up and still be looking????

Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.

Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.
Now, this week happens to be the survey reference week, and the interviewers will be out on Monday asking about this week.
A marginally attached worker for July will be someone who:

1. Did not work at all this week.
2. Wants a job.
3. Has not looked for work or gone to interviews or submitted an application or answered an ad or placed an ad or sent a resume etc after 18 June.
4. Could have started a job this week.

A discouraged worker meets all the above requirements plus:

Stopped looking due to the belief that there were no available jobs, or that s/he would face discrimination.

You can word parse all you want, but someone who gave up and went away because they gave up on finding a job isn't counted, and there are millions of those. Keep spinning

 

[kaz]

You're making it up. People who are for example professionals who take lower paying jobs not in their field because they can't find a job in their field are ALWAYS counted as underemployed.

Show me one statistical agency that does that. Anywhere in the world.

Informally, yes you are correct. But measuring it? It can't be done.

Example: A stock broker with an MBA and a decade of experience is convicted of securities fraud and does 6 months in prison.
Because he is a felon, and because of his particular crime, he can no longer work on the stock market and the best he can find is a minimum wage job.

Is he underemployed as a stock broker? Or normally employed as an ex-con?

OK, you want to make up your own definitions for words. I'm out

 

[Faun]

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.

No. How can they both have given up and still be looking????

Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.

Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.
Now, this week happens to be the survey reference week, and the interviewers will be out on Monday asking about this week.
A marginally attached worker for July will be someone who:

1. Did not work at all this week.
2. Wants a job.
3. Has not looked for work or gone to interviews or submitted an application or answered an ad or placed an ad or sent a resume etc after 18 June.
4. Could have started a job this week.

A discouraged worker meets all the above requirements plus:

Stopped looking due to the belief that there were no available jobs, or that s/he would face discrimination.

You can word parse all you want, but someone who gave up and went away because they gave up on finding a job isn't counted, and there are millions of those. Keep spinning

Yes, there are 5.6 million. I gave you the link.

 

[Mac1958]

287k is not "massive".

It's healthy, though, and I'll definitely take it.
.

 

[pinqy]

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.

No. How can they both have given up and still be looking????

Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.

Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.
Now, this week happens to be the survey reference week, and the interviewers will be out on Monday asking about this week.
A marginally attached worker for July will be someone who:

1. Did not work at all this week.
2. Wants a job.
3. Has not looked for work or gone to interviews or submitted an application or answered an ad or placed an ad or sent a resume etc after 18 June.
4. Could have started a job this week.

A discouraged worker meets all the above requirements plus:

Stopped looking due to the belief that there were no available jobs, or that s/he would face discrimination.

You can word parse all you want, but someone who gave up and went away because they gave up on finding a job isn't counted, and there are millions of those. Keep spinning

Isn't counted as what? And I'm not word parsing, I'm giving the definitions. If you're using "marginally attached" or "discouraged" as meaning anything else, then you are wrong.

 

[pinqy]

You're making it up. People who are for example professionals who take lower paying jobs not in their field because they can't find a job in their field are ALWAYS counted as underemployed.

Show me one statistical agency that does that. Anywhere in the world.

Informally, yes you are correct. But measuring it? It can't be done.

Example: A stock broker with an MBA and a decade of experience is convicted of securities fraud and does 6 months in prison.
Because he is a felon, and because of his particular crime, he can no longer work on the stock market and the best he can find is a minimum wage job.

Is he underemployed as a stock broker? Or normally employed as an ex-con?

OK, you want to make up your own definitions for words. I'm out

I'm not making up any definitions. By YOUR definition of underemployed, is my example underemployed or not? There is no, and cannot be, any objective, useful, definition of underemployed. We can all agree that a person with an MBA working the line at McDonalds is under employed. But what about someone with an MFA? Food service is pretty normal for them.

 

[IcebergSlim]

The "hard on" is for the longest streak of job growth in 50 years...you can go back under the rock now.

Long, yes, but incredibly weak. Obama is going to be the first President to not have a single year of 3% GDP growth in his entire Presidency. Particularly remarkable considering the hole he started in. Typically GDP growth is high coming out of recessions just getting back where we were. You're proud of that? You think kids should get stars for getting Ds too or just Presidents?

Obama is going to be the first President to not have a single year of 3% GDP growth in his entire Presidency. Particularly remarkable considering the hole he started in. Typically GDP growth is high coming out of recessions just getting back where we were.

Do you know the formula for calculating GDP?

One of the variables is "G"......

This is the first recession since 1960 where the Federal & State Government contribution to GDP has been negative.....

And starting from the bottom of a deep recession? Yeah, that's OK then ...



You sheeple will believe anything Democrats tell you. And I'll buy State and local are negative. But the Feds? I call BS to that, they are growing like crazy

Net REDUCTION in the federal workforce since Feb 2009 - 13,000...

OK, fair enough. Nothing sarcastic in that, I concede that point.

It doesn't change that 10 million over 7.5 years in a country of 350 million starting from the bottom of a recession is piddling, but I did say government workers were part of that growth, and they were not over that period

It's considerably better than the 1.3 million over 8 years (all public sector, by the way) of Obama's predecessor. ....

 

[IcebergSlim]

The only problem being it was a lie. I said it was mostly shit jobs and part time. Sputnik changed that to "mostly part time." Just a flat out lie, totally different thing.

I love how you lie as you accuse people of lying. Hilarious stuff.

You said most jobs created were part time and just because that is not ALL you said doesn't mean you didn't say it. I've proven that to be fabricated BS and now you post more BS trying to skirt around the facts.

You don't have to accept simple facts, you just have to accept them to not look like a fact denying idiot without any credibility.

Now as to your other claim of "shit jobs", I have no idea what you base it on, but going by your record it is based on NOTHING substantive.

Here's the other problem with the chart. I count part time as anything less than full time. This chart is counting underemployed as full time. Meaning you took a big step down and/or they offer you the 25-30 hour a week range. Explain how a low end worker lives on that.

In fact many companies are specifically limiting employees to under 30 hours because that's when government ***** them with Obamacare. This counts them as full time. They aren't.

Same goes to the rest of your naked assertions - SOURCE IT because there is not a single reason for anyone to trust anything you type.

Lies wrapped in lies wrapped in lies, that's what you people have.

That and after 7 1/2 years, Obama had a good month for one stat! Hail Obama!

More blatant lying.

You seriously see only "one good month"?

If you count underemployed as part time and claim that part time workers are not going up, yeah, that's a lie

You want the category

Employed Part Time for Economic Reasons...

Thank me later.

Thank you for what? Again, you're spinning, spinning, spinning.

I think part time workers are people who work but don't work full time. You think it's a contrived category that doesn't include people who work less than 30 hours a week because their employers don't want to get fucked by government with Obamacare.

You think you're winning that point?

I don't give a shit what you "think", I'm telling you what IS....

BLS distinguishes between those who work part time because they want to, from those who do so because it is all they can find.....please don't oblige me to explain why that matters.

 

[AntonToo]

You're making it up. People who are for example professionals who take lower paying jobs not in their field because they can't find a job in their field are ALWAYS counted as underemployed.

If you're going to start playing stupid word parsing games I'm out

Unbelievable. You are again doing this crazy shit where you falsely accuse someone of doing something while you yourself are actually doing it.

What you just said is MADE UP. That is not how collection of this data works even if you can somehow imagine it in your know-nothing head. No it's not how it is counted, not always, not EVER.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You gotta just love the Right, after getting nailed in a lie, the Right just make up another lie.

You don't know that people have dropped out of the labor market? Seriously?

But you claim that "MOST" who have dropped out did so out of discouragement, which IS a lie, and you know it.
Discouraged workers have declined from 1,318,000 at the peak of the Great Bush Recession to 502,000 now.

Well, whether it's "most" or not is debatable based on how you're counting them, and I agree I wasn't specific in that. But where do you get that there are 502K discouraged workers? That's hard to swallow

You can go to BLS...

Already did and showed the lie in the statistic. It doesn't count people who gave up and went away, the main group of "discouraged" workers. LOL, you people are priceless.

I said when I was wrong, are you going to do the same?

Seriously....where do they find you people...

BLS provides a glossary, with detailed definitions of all categories......you are struggling to reconcile what you've been told to think with what can be demonstrated.....

 

[Faun]

Dayam, Kaz's kazzing is getting the shit kicked out of it.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You should challenge him to provide citations.......

I know, right?

Rat numbers are a joke on us, them, the American people....and we've had enough of it.

"Rat numbers"?

You don't have any idea, do you.....