http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ly-Jobs-Report
Although this is another government manipulated number it contradicts
Sooner8th's rosy economic assertions.
The equity markets are reversing. UE is going up. Let's see what the Fed
does. They haven't left themselves any wiggle room.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
How good are things when 209,000 jobs is disappointing?Originally Posted by FaninAma
Dubya LOST 825,000 private sectors jobs in 8 years while adding 1.9 million government jobs.
Be happy we have obama and not bush.
If we were at full employment 200k would be fine...too bad we are not...
200k is about the break even point...covers those new to the workforce but does little to lower the unemployment rate....
Data supports that simple fact...
Prior to the recession the participation rate was at 66.0%....last month the participation rate sat at 62.9%....3% less workers...
Unemployment prior to 2008 was 4.5%...last month 6.2%
U6 prior at 8.5%...last month 12.2%
200k a month isn't going to cut it...
I just heard on the news six straight months of jobs added at over 200k per month - first time since 1997.
Unemployment was 4.5% in April 2007. Yeah, lets go back almost 2 years to make the comparison. When OBAMA took office it was 7.8, now 6.2.
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2
Bush left office in January 2009, losing 779,000 jobs in January 2009 ALONE - dubya's last month in office. Unemployment was was going up about a year and a half before Obama took office.
Bottom line - Obama is kicking bush's *** in jobs.
Did I get the gist of your reply? Did I miss anything?
Bob, Bush sucked! You are not winning any debate points by comparing Obama to Bush. Playing the low expectations card is weak.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
I don't give a damn about Bush's poor performance....his policy was not backed by much economic genius...
We are talking about job creation....and 200k a month is not enough to drop the true unemployment rate...
Unemployment has dropped 3.5% since it's peak...a good thing
Labor participation has dropped 3% from it's peak....a bad thing
We have created enough jobs to absorb the new workers coming into the workforce....
The unemployment rate has dropped primarily due to the drop in participation...
The numbers are damn sure better than Bush but they aren't what we need in our current economic state...
Pretty much agree across the board. And Bush's performance wasn't bad if taken in the proper context: he didn't care about all these metrics. His policy was strictly designed for the government to borrow money and distribute it to the very wealthy and it was extremely effective. Employment? Labor participation? Phffft… jobs are for poor people.
All these wonderful jobs= Can I super size that for you? and Thank you for shopping Wally Weird.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Is there nothing obama does that you don't bag on him about? I just showed you how the guy most of you voted for TWICE did ten times worse than Obama is doing. Since when are republicans interested in good jobs? You guys do everything you can to keep the wages down, unless of course you are a CEO.
I aint "Baggin" on Obammy at all. Im baggin on YOU ya ****in Moran.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
so are there any numbers with the "participation rate"?
how many of those are boomers retiring, etc...?
I did read a recent article on that, but sorry, I don't have a link. The data had it broken down between retirees, disabilities and the unemployed/underemployed. The bottom line conclusion was actually positive - discouraged workers data was turning towards the positive, but only slightly and very recently. The other positive data I saw was that the job gains in the last few month were of better quality - again small gains and only recently, but maybe a corner being turned. Now if we can only avoid starting some stupid war somewhere….
How it has been calculated has not changed since 1994. The right is always talking about the participation rate, if there are not enough jobs so that people are discouraged to look for work, why are republicans saying unemployment insurance shouldn't be extended because it makes people lazy and not look for work?
good one.......
I'm talking about job creation too. You bring up the true unemployment rate - sure people have dropped out of the force, i can't seem to find anywhere a list of why and i don't know if they do or not. I have heard that it is a lot of boomers retiring since the market has gone up they can afford to retire now, or stop working to take care of an aging parent. I agree we don't have enough jobs being created, nor are they good enough, but what i do know is cuttin' taxes won't create them. I do firmly believe republicans don't want a strong recovery on a dem presidents watch, they don't want a repeat of dems being in almost majority like what happened after the depression.
I see republicans reaching back for examples of how things worked for your positions, kennedy tax cuts, regean tax cuts, how bad it was under carter, but when i compare obama to bush you blow it off.
If you would like to discuss it without blowing off what the same policies that republicans want are the same policies that bush used, i would welcome that.
That is my point.
You remind me of Don Quixote. You are constantly tilting at windmills. Despite your gnashing of teeth, more often than not the big bad giant is just a windmill.
You ask and you shall receive...good stuff just released this month....much more at link
Bad link on PDF ...Whitehouse document labor participation report
The turmoil of 2008 inflicted tremendous pain on millions of families, overshadowing the fact that 2008 also marked a unique milestone in U.S. economic history. That year, the first baby boomers (those born in 1946) turned 62 and became eligible for Social Security early retirement benefits. This second force—the demographic inflection point stemming from the retirement of the baby boomers—was felt far less acutely than the Great Recession, but will continue to have a profound influence on the economy for years to come, well after the business cycle recovery from the Great Recession is considered complete.
In this report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that this 3.1 percentage point decline can be attributed to three main sources:
About half of the decline (1.6 percentage point) is due to the aging of the population.
Because older individuals participate in the labor force at lower rates than younger workers, the aging of the population exerts downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate. While older workers today are participating in the labor force at higher rates than older workers of previous generations, there is still a very large drop-off in participation when workers enter their early 60s.
About a sixth of the decline in the overall participation rate (0.5 percentage point) is a cyclical decline in line with historical patterns in previous recessions.
While the unemployment rate has come down from a peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009 to 6.1 percent in June 2014, it has remained elevated for the last several years. Historically, elevation in the unemployment rate is associated with a decline in labor force participation, as potential workers may decide to defer looking for a job until the economy improves. A portion of the most recent decline in the participation rate reflects this historical pattern, which this report refers to as the “cyclical” effect.
About a third of the decline (1.0 percentage point) arises from other factors, which may include trends that pre-date the Great Recession and consequences of the unique severity of the Great Recession.
In particular the two elements of this “residual” not explained by the standard factors are:
The fact that participation rates conditional on age were declining for many groups in the run-up to 2008, including for prime-age men from the 1950s and for prime-age women from the late 1990s, may also have contributed to the decline in participation. This would have been expected to result in a decline in the participation rate above and beyond the pure aging effect even in the absence of a recession. Note, these effects were partly offset by other pre-existing trends, like a rise in the participation rate for older workers.
The severity of the Great Recession, which has resulted in an unusual pattern of a very large share of long-term unemployed relative to total unemployment, may have lowered the participation rate more than would have been expected through normal channels. In fact, we find that a declining participation rate is historically correlated with the elevation of long-term unemployment, suggesting that both issues have a common cause or cause each other.
This report says half the loss is due to aging and not as a result of the recession...they show data that shows their conclusions fall in the middle of several other reports..
If this is the case then it seems these retirees left jobs and were replaced (a new hirer somewhere down the chain)....which should have helped he unemployment rate...and if it had any affect then the stimulus did even less to reduce unemployment then I previously thought...
Then again, I might be all screwed up....
What this is saying is you can attribute one point to workers not in the workforce because they are discouraged with half of that is normal. That would raise the unemployment rate by .5% to 6.7%, which is lower than what it was when Obama took office - 7.8%. Other factors keeping unemployment high is the 850,000 government workers who lost jobs, the first time government workforce decreased in a recession. Add in debt ceiling fights and cutting spending and we would be on a much better situation.
Posting Permissions
