February Jobs Report - GO OBAMA ECONOMY GO 295 THOUSAND JOBS ADDED!!!

[Sooner8th]

Come on boys show the black lining to the silver cloud!

U.S. Economy Added 295,000 Jobs in February; Unemployment Rate at 5.5%

The Labor Department reported on Friday that employers added 295,000 workers to their payrolls in February and that unemployment fell to 5.5 percent. The report was a big improvement from January’s, when employment rose to a newly revised 239,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-february.html?_r=0

[Sooner in Tampa]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^

Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^

Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.

Dumbass inbred lemming hillbilly loser piece of ****.

[dwarthog]

Funny... "You want fries with that"?

Lemming...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Counting the illegal aliens now that the Leftist Lite party gave DHS a free pass...

[Sooner8th]

and there it is....whatever happened to any job is a good job? did you see 54,000 jobs in education and health? Fries with those jobs?

[FaninAma]

LOL and yet Obama's approval rating remains 8 points below his disapproval level. Something ain't jiving here jack and I think it's due to the fact that people aren't believing what this administration is shoveling.

[Sooner8th]

Counting the illegal aliens now that the Leftist Lite party gave DHS a free pass...

What does that have to do with adding 295 THOUSAND jobs?

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^

Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.

Hey dumbass....did you see a paragraph above? Did ya? moron

[FaninAma]

From the NYT article:

Also in February, the labor force participation rate fell slightly, dropping to 62.8 percent, from 62.9 percent.
“Everyone knows of someone who has been laid off or has a friend or relative who has been laid off,” said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. “We hear we’re on the road to recovery, but people aren’t convinced of that.”

[champions77]

It's too bad we don't have a number for those willing to work but have given up trying to find employment. As long as we have the lowest participation rate since the late 1970's, and close to 50 MILLION Americans on food stamps, no time to celebrate, despite the euphoria that 8th exhibits. Of course to a Democrat, having 50 MILLION on food stamps is a good thing, a very good thing.

Why? Because more Americans are dependent, and when you have more dependents, you have more that you can count on to ensure you are re-elected. You are more in control. Hell of a constituency you have there 8th. The opposite of dependency is Independency, and the more dependents you generate, the less freedoms you have. You lefties have a difficult time comprehending that concept.

[SoonerorLater]

"Restaurants and bars drove US job growth in February" .... This is why people don't put much faith in these contrived reports.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/restaurants-bars-drove-us-job-164557713.html

[SoonerorLater]

News just gets worse.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-02/us-macro-weakest-july-2011-goldman-affirms-global-economy-contraction

[SoonerorLater]

And yet one more piece of bad economic news. Maybe all of the newly hired busboys and dishwashers will be able to pull us out of this spiral.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-05/two-times-factory-orders-declined-rate-us-was-recession

[Soonerjeepman]

Funny... "You want fries with that"?

Lemming...

dude, we are PROTECTING the lemming....can't use it! lol

[Sooner in Tampa]

I'll just leave this right here:


92,898,000 Americans were not in the labor force in February, according to data (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf) released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday.

[hawaii 5-0]

8th, don't you get it ??

It's not about the Jobs. It never was.

It's ALL about Obama's approval rating.

C'mon, get with the program.


5-0

[Sooner in Tampa]

8th, don't you get it ??

It's not about the Jobs. It never was.

It's ALL about Obama's approval rating.

C'mon, get with the program.


5-0

92,898,000 Americans were not in the labor force

[FaninAma]

8th, don't you get it ??

It's not about the Jobs. It never was.

It's ALL about Obama's approval rating.

C'mon, get with the program.


5-0

Actually it is about the disconnect bewtween the rosey data this administration wants the country to buy into and the fact that the majority of the voters aren't buying what he is selling. I guess they don't buy his rhetoric: "If you like your new dish washing job you can keep your new dish washing job!"

More workers over the age of 55 are staying in the workforce than ever before so the increase in the number of labor NON-participants is coming from millenials.

[Sooner8th]

You people either have brain damage or are mentally ill or both. Do you understand the data has been gathered the same way since 1940? No changes in how it is gathered. It's all contrived and made up or the "rosey data this administration wants the country to buy"? The data is the data. No one if fixing or fudging it. Wall Street, banks, investors and every credible economiest counts on these reports every month.

Rosey data? The best 12 month job growth in 40 years? S&P and dow at all time highs? All "made up'? 92 millions amreicans not in the job force? You mean kids and retired people? Seriously do you people even think? Look at the 12 month data soonerorlater posted both professional services and education and health had better job growth than "hotels and bars".



Professional services (Accounting, temp work)
51,000
10,000
660,000


Education and health
54,000
46,000
539,000


Hotels, restaurants, entertainment
66,000
39,000
527,000

[Sooner8th]

One more time people......labor participation rate dropping since late 1999. Not a word about it when bush was president.


http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lightbox/images/aaa4_727.jpg

[REDREX]

And fell off the cliff under Barack

[jiminy]

Looks to me like Reagan grew it from '81 to '89, then it was more or less consistent except for the Y2K bubble until 2009, then drops like a rock under Obama. No way you can spin this as positive for him.

[Sooner8th]

Looks to me like Reagan grew it from '81 to '89, then it was more or less consistent except for the Y2K bubble until 2009, then drops like a rock under Obama. No way you can spin this as positive for him.

No body is trying to spin it as a positive, just the reality. You people are trying to spin it as a negative. You want to attribute 100% of it to people being discouraged and not looking for work anymore and that is just not true. From the article posted:

BLS points to the aging of the baby boom generation as a key factor affecting the labor force participation rate:

"In 2000, baby boomers were aged 36 to 54 years and were in the group with the highest participation rates: the prime-aged group 25 to 54 years old. The participation rate for women in this group was 76.7 percent and for men was 91.6 percent, so that the overall participation rate of the group was 84.0 percent. The participation rate of the next-older age group, that 55 years and older, was 32.4 percent, so the difference between the two age groups was 52 percentage points.”

Come on - read the articles that are being posted instead of a rush to try to spin it as a negative.

[Sooner8th]

One more thing about the labor participation rate - if the job situation is so bad that people who have been unemployed for a long time that they have given up looking for work, why did your party cut off long term unemployment insurance to them claiming it made them lazy and not look for work? You and your party cannot keep your arguments straight.

[okie52]

Just how long do you think unemployment benefits should last there 8th? 1yr 2yrs 10yrs?

[Sooner8th]

Just how long do you think unemployment benefits should last there 8th? 1yr 2yrs 10yrs?


Just missing the point aren't you? I'm not even going to try to explain the lack of integrity from one issue to the next.

[okie52]

Just missing the point aren't you? I'm not even going to try to explain the lack of integrity from one issue to the next.

Yes, I'm missing your point. I know you've hidden it somewhere.

[Sooner8th]

Yes, I'm missing your point. I know you've hidden it somewhere.

Read it again..........................it's there you just have to be smart enough to see it.

[okie52]

I was afraid someone had hacked your account again 8th.

[Sooner8th]

I was afraid someone had hacked your account again 8th.

Still can't see it huh? Not surprising...............

[SoonerorLater]

I was afraid someone had hacked your account again 8th.

Nah not really. Still plays fast and loose with the truth. To suggest that the stats have been figured the same way since 1940 is not true. During the Clinton administration the way "discouraged workers" were accounted for changed. Prior to that those that had given up looking but would accept work if available, were counted as unemployed. That was changed during the first Clinton term and after that discouraged workers were no longer counted as unemployed.

To be fair this probably didn't budge the figures much at the time because there was already pretty much what would be considered full employment. Against the backdrop of an inflating internet bubble and a looming Y2K most people could find a job. Fast forward 15 years against a new backdrop, the financial meltdown, and the flaw with this calculation becomes obvious.

[Sooner8th]

Nah not really. Still plays fast and loose with the truth. To suggest that the stats have been figured the same way since 1940 is not true. During the Clinton administration the way "discouraged workers" were accounted for changed. Prior to that those that had given up looking but would accept work if available, were counted as unemployed. That was changed during the first Clinton term and after that discouraged workers were no longer counted as unemployed.

To be fair this probably didn't budge the figures much at the time because there was already pretty much what would be considered full employment. Against the backdrop of an inflating internet bubble and a looming Y2K most people could find a job. Fast forward 15 years against a new backdrop, the financial meltdown, and the flaw with this calculation becomes obvious.

No I don't play fast and loose with the truth. You are wrong. There was not change to how the data was reported - only what the data was termed. U-3 or U-6. Go look it up. No changes whatsoever. No change in "discouraged workers were no longer counted as unemployed". I have posted this before.

[Sooner in Tampa]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^

Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.