Who Is Excited About The Employment Report?

[jc456]

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

No it isn't unless you count the retired, students and stay at home parents who don't need to work as unemployed. Why would anyone count those groups of people as unemployed?

i posted that material earlier in the thread, go for the read. Go to search and put jc456 and this thread, then look for the link I posted.

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?

holy crap, here let me write once more, since you agree with the numbers, the numbers are the numbers. so, again, it is what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

 

[AceRothstein]

No it isn't unless you count the retired, students and stay at home parents who don't need to work as unemployed. Why would anyone count those groups of people as unemployed?

i posted that material earlier in the thread, go for the read. Go to search and put jc456 and this thread, then look for the link I posted.

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?

holy crap, here let me write once more, since you agree with the numbers, the numbers are the numbers. so, again, it is what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Because we've never used the U6 as the "real" unemployment rate before. Under Obama, the right has decided that the U6 is the "real" rate. It is intellectually inconsistent.

 

[jc456]

i posted that material earlier in the thread, go for the read. Go to search and put jc456 and this thread, then look for the link I posted.

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?

holy crap, here let me write once more, since you agree with the numbers, the numbers are the numbers. so, again, it is what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Because we've never used the U6 as the "real" unemployment rate before. Under Obama, the right has decided that the U6 is the "real" rate. It is intellectually inconsistent.

even though they are the real numbers, too special.

 

[AceRothstein]

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?

holy crap, here let me write once more, since you agree with the numbers, the numbers are the numbers. so, again, it is what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Because we've never used the U6 as the "real" unemployment rate before. Under Obama, the right has decided that the U6 is the "real" rate. It is intellectually inconsistent.

even though they are the real numbers, too special.

You're so ******* stupid. If you had another brain, it would be lonely.

 

[jc456]

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?

holy crap, here let me write once more, since you agree with the numbers, the numbers are the numbers. so, again, it is what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Because we've never used the U6 as the "real" unemployment rate before. Under Obama, the right has decided that the U6 is the "real" rate. It is intellectually inconsistent.

even though they are the real numbers, too special.

You're so ******* stupid. If you had another brain, it would be lonely.

and yet, you can't keep up.

 

[pinqy]

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?

holy crap, here let me write once more, since you agree with the numbers, the numbers are the numbers. so, again, it is what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Because we've never used the U6 as the "real" unemployment rate before. Under Obama, the right has decided that the U6 is the "real" rate. It is intellectually inconsistent.

even though they are the real numbers, too special.

They're both real numbers, but different things. The U-3 is the number of people looking for work as a percent of those working or looking for work. You're citing the U-6, which is those looking, plus those not currently looking who looked recently and are available, plus those working less than 35 hours/week who want to and could work 35+ hours as a percent of those working, looking, and not currently looking who looked recently and are available.

 

[pinqy]

The LFPR is at 63% The average in the 1950's was 59.3%, and the 1960's at 59.2%. The LFPR never got anywhere near 63% until the late 1970's

Because women, 53% of the population, didn't enter the workforce until then.

63% remains critically low.

Why? Why was 59.3% not critically low, but 63% is? It went up because women were entering, it's dropping because women, retirees, and high school students are leaving or not entering.

Because half the population did not hold jobs.

Simple concept. And yes, the fact that Gen Y is not interested in holding jobs is a concern.

And in the 50's it was less than half. Are you saying our current labor market is better than anytime before 1977? Our LFPR is higher.

 

[Faun]

8 million

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

It's good that the LPR went up, first time in Obama's presidency. It remains shockingly low, even so.

No worries... In terms of the health of the job market, it's just as meaningless today as it was before the March's numbers came out.

 

[Faun]

Just a realist....

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

Good lord, you're an idiot.

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

That's now four different figures you given for the number of people unemployed.

First you said it was 9 million.

Then you said it was 17 million.

Then you said it was 56 million.

Now you sayi it's 101 million.

Clearly, if you had a ******* clue what you were talking about, you would have only one number.

 

[Faun]

Nowhere does that article state there are 17 million people unemployed; plus that article is 6 months old.

Your idiotic claim falls unsubstantiated. You lose again.

Can't do math eh? Here if 8 million is five percent multiply that by 7 and what do you get?

8 x 7 is 56. You said there are 17 million people unemployed.

You failed to prove that. Miserably.

Isn't that greater than, and includes 17 million wow dude you asked I delivered

You said it was 17 million.

If you weren't full of shit, you wouldn't have posted [very] different numbers three times (so far).

First you said it was 9 million.

Then you said it was 17 million.

Then you said it was 56 million.

Do you really think more evidence is needed that you really have no ******* clue what you're talking about?

Trump loves the poorly educated.

Well then JC must be one of his favorites.

 

[Faun]

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?

holy crap, here let me write once more, since you agree with the numbers, the numbers are the numbers. so, again, it is what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Because we've never used the U6 as the "real" unemployment rate before. Under Obama, the right has decided that the U6 is the "real" rate. It is intellectually inconsistent.

even though they are the real numbers, too special.

It may be a real number, but it's not an unemployment rate. How could it be when it includes people who are working?

 

[Borillar]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

I was forced into early retirement last year at age 59. I've been looking for work for over a half a year. Nobody wants to hire an engineer my age. they'd rather hire kids fresh out of college, or H1-B wage slaves. I'd certainly feel like celebrating if I managed to land one of those 300,000 jobs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

I was forced into early retirement last year at age 59. I've been looking for work for over a half a year. Nobody wants to hire an engineer my age. they'd rather hire kids fresh out of college, or H1-B wage slaves. I'd certainly feel like celebrating if I managed to land one of those 300,000 jobs.

I can't say that I know what you are going through. Hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[AceRothstein]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

I was forced into early retirement last year at age 59. I've been looking for work for over a half a year. Nobody wants to hire an engineer my age. they'd rather hire kids fresh out of college, or H1-B wage slaves. I'd certainly feel like celebrating if I managed to land one of those 300,000 jobs.

Time to get some boot straps.

 

[Borillar]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

I was forced into early retirement last year at age 59. I've been looking for work for over a half a year. Nobody wants to hire an engineer my age. they'd rather hire kids fresh out of college, or H1-B wage slaves. I'd certainly feel like celebrating if I managed to land one of those 300,000 jobs.

Time to get some boot straps.

Maybe I should run for president. I'd have to work real hard to do worse than the last two jokers.

 

[AnarchistJay]

 

[sealybobo]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

are you ready to defend the hoax?

I own a business. I added total of 247 employees so far just this year alone. If this is hoax I could have skinned LoneL and JakeS........... alive.
So tell me why I'm having a hard time finding electrical and mechanical Engineer? I am even paying extra money just to relocate a med tech. from Portland to California.

I notice Republicans always tell people to go start their own business but I think when we count who's "under" employed, we are counting people who have to pay their own healthcare insurance and who aren't getting benefits from a company. So in one hand Republicans tell people to stop working for someone else and go work for yourself, but then they are counting these people who are out there not getting benefits from an employer.

 

[jc456]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

are you ready to defend the hoax?

I own a business. I added total of 247 employees so far just this year alone. If this is hoax I could have skinned LoneL and JakeS........... alive.
So tell me why I'm having a hard time finding electrical and mechanical Engineer? I am even paying extra money just to relocate a med tech. from Portland to California.

how many hours a week do those new employees work?

 

[charwin95]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

are you ready to defend the hoax?

I own a business. I added total of 247 employees so far just this year alone. If this is hoax I could have skinned LoneL and JakeS........... alive.
So tell me why I'm having a hard time finding electrical and mechanical Engineer? I am even paying extra money just to relocate a med tech. from Portland to California.

how many hours a week do those new employees work?

They are on salary. Per hour employees work 40 hours then OT after that.

 

[charwin95]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

are you ready to defend the hoax?

I own a business. I added total of 247 employees so far just this year alone. If this is hoax I could have skinned LoneL and JakeS........... alive.
So tell me why I'm having a hard time finding electrical and mechanical Engineer? I am even paying extra money just to relocate a med tech. from Portland to California.

I notice Republicans always tell people to go start their own business but I think when we count who's "under" employed, we are counting people who have to pay their own healthcare insurance and who aren't getting benefits from a company. So in one hand Republicans tell people to stop working for someone else and go work for yourself, but then they are counting these people who are out there not getting benefits from an employer.

I provide health care benefits if that what you seek. Under United Health Care.