Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1199 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



714 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 11:37:08 AM  

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.


the point is that the number of job adds were well below expectations and down from the month prior. While less people looking for work as a result of retirement is good news for those searching for a job, this number is not indicative of the economic growth that was projected. The drop in U6 can also be explained via retirement
 
2012-09-07 11:37:24 AM  
That first one is Labor Force Participation Rate...

/titles damn it, titles!
 
2012-09-07 11:37:28 AM  

Graffito: No, but it's sure beats the 700K 800K jobs lost in a quarter month under the previous administration.

 
2012-09-07 11:38:08 AM  

Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.


it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.
 
2012-09-07 11:38:36 AM  

impaler: DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.

Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?


Pretty sure it's 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius
 
2012-09-07 11:38:58 AM  

coeyagi: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

WHAR JOBS BILL BOEHNER WHAR?


So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.
 
2012-09-07 11:39:16 AM  

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.

the point is that the number of job adds were well below expectations and down from the month prior. While less people looking for work as a result of retirement is good news for those searching for a job, this number is not indicative of the economic growth that was projected. The drop in U6 can also be explained via retirement


So vote Romney, we can get back to losing jobs, and faster!
 
2012-09-07 11:39:29 AM  

Hobodeluxe: so tell your congressman to quit filibustering the jobs bill


Heh!
 
2012-09-07 11:39:38 AM  

turtle553: impaler: DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.

Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?


Pretty sure it's 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius


Uhhh.... Yeah. I'm an idiot.

/those first 32 degrees don't count?
 
2012-09-07 11:39:44 AM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


wow that's some herpy derp there.
 
2012-09-07 11:39:57 AM  

DamnYankees: I dont' know what this means.


It means he doesn't know how feedback loops work.
 
2012-09-07 11:40:30 AM  

BigBooper: theknuckler_33: 96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

It doesn't matter. The only number that will get any play is the 8.1.


Why? Because the media is totally in the tank for Obama? Most of the articles this morning about the jobs report are scathing, ignoring the context provided in this thread.
 
2012-09-07 11:40:39 AM  

OHDUDENESS: Always an open minded dem to drop the race card first. 1/10 for getting me to reply, troll.


Why do you hate the founding fathers and original US Constitution? What are you, some kind of liberal who's again a man's ability to freely enter into a contract of indentured servitude or the outright ownership of Negroes and Musselmen?
 
2012-09-07 11:40:40 AM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


Just to play along with your example, while those workers get that money from the government they start spending it too thus increasing demand from private businesses like cars, washing machines, TVs, food, etc and once the private sector takes off those government workers can be phased out and switched to private jobs.

But idiots that have no idea that the economy is 98% of the times driven by demand (taking out the goods and services that are inelastic) prentend that government workers get all the money from government but don't spend it at all. This is also why tax cuts to middle class and poor help the economy more than the ones given to the rich because the rich already have the money to satisfy their needs and wants. Giving them extra money will stimulate investment IF there is a good rate of return. Since rates of return are much higher outside of the US for the past 30-40 years, that's where all those tax cuts for the rich went. (And also 22 trillion dollars sitting in offshore accounts).
 
2012-09-07 11:40:46 AM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy.

Yes, we could use that boost. Those works would have more money to spend, and given they are unemployed, the multiplier would likely be very large. The fact that they are digging ditches is irrelevant - I'd be happy to just give them the money for doing nothing, but if you want to make them dig ditches, whatever.

MattStafford: It also massively distorts the economy

I dont' know what this means.

MattStafford: What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.


Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?
 
2012-09-07 11:40:50 AM  

Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

wow that's some herpy derp there.


this jobs report is as bad as the Holocaust and Black Death combined? That's really dumb, Hobo
 
2012-09-07 11:41:01 AM  

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.


Yea, I only read the headline at first. Just seemed like a big monthly drop to attribute to retirement and going back to school. I'm a realist and positive job growth is always a good thing, it's just that after the ADP report yesterday, expectations, at least for me, were much higher.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled the U3 is down to 8.1. But being a trailing indicator, I tend to look more at the actual jobs numbers and after yesterday, I was hoping for something closer to 200K and I can't help but feel disappointed.

Won't effect my vote though, just thought a nice big 200k number would be a nice shot-in-the-arm to help Obama's campaign keep up the mo.
 
2012-09-07 11:41:02 AM  
i45.tinypic.com

Freepers right now: "MANIPULATED DATA!11!"
 
2012-09-07 11:41:30 AM  

sten: Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...
[i376.photobucket.com image 600x300]

and...
[i376.photobucket.com image 744x503]

may have something to do with this...


But what's wrong with that? Clearing out the old workers so new workers can come up is a good thing. In the place my wife works, there are TONS of boomers and even older workers just hanging out, sucking up benefits and working at 1/10 the pace of everyone else because them computers be confusing, yo. Honestly? I'd rather they move into the retirement phase of life and start clearing up some space for promotion. I'll eat the necessary tax hikes to keep them from starving to death. The colo-rectal and lung cancers and heart disease will get them soon enough anyway. Just like all of us.
 
2012-09-07 11:41:38 AM  

ghare: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.

the point is that the number of job adds were well below expectations and down from the month prior. While less people looking for work as a result of retirement is good news for those searching for a job, this number is not indicative of the economic growth that was projected. The drop in U6 can also be explained via retirement

So vote Romney, we can get back to losing jobs, and faster!


no, this is just a discussion of the jobs report and interpreting the numbers. That's all. Perhaps you should act less childish and learn something?
 
2012-09-07 11:42:18 AM  
Debeo Summa Credo

So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.

Five Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth.
 
2012-09-07 11:42:48 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.


Please do explain what President McCain would have done that would have yielded better results. We're all ears.
 
2012-09-07 11:42:54 AM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:28 AM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: DamnYankees: impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.

Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?

The meaning of U3 and U6 is pretty straightforward. They're often closely correlated because of the nature of the two numbers.

That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.


Maybe it's because they figure that for every 100 unemployed persons (counting only those who would otherwise be employed, NOT people who cannot have a job because they're too young/retired/bedridden/too old/ginger/etc), there are about 74 underemployed persons.

Just a guess on my part. Could be wronger than Obama/Romney slashfics, though.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:28 AM  

AcneVulgaris: People giving up and dropping out of the workforce isn't bad?


Not all the people dropping out are giving up, some are retiring, some are giving up because they're going to school.

Debeo Summa Credo: So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault?


Actually it's the private sector's fault, but it doesn't look good for the GOP to be filibustering jobs bills.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:51 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?


The economy?
 
2012-09-07 11:43:53 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: coeyagi: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

WHAR JOBS BILL BOEHNER WHAR?

So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.


It's a combo platter. GOP obstructionism. People retiring or going back to school. And probably some people giving up hope thanks to companies wanting to f*ck over the economy so a president comes in that makes sure they get all the tax breaks in the world.

Yes, in lieu of the right-wing petulant children in power, it's not a great report.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:58 AM  

skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

wow that's some herpy derp there.

this jobs report is as bad as the Holocaust and Black Death combined? That's really dumb, Hobo


I thought you were comparing the irrelevancy of those events to the job losses under Bush as they relate to the unemployment numbers now.
 
2012-09-07 11:44:19 AM  

Dinki: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


I think that's a typo. I got a Fw:Fw:Fw that said it was more like 89 Brazillion
 
2012-09-07 11:44:27 AM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.


which has farkall to do with whether this is a "spiffy" jobs report number
 
2012-09-07 11:44:28 AM  

hugram: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

It helps that Clinton gave Bush a 4.2% U3 rate to start with.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase


those numbers are nice, but what would be even more valuable was if you could post the rate of change in the unemployment in the month when they took office vs. the rate of change at the end. Because just from the numbers you posted it could be that Obama just had slow unemployment growth over 4 years instead of illustrating how it was skyrocketing in the beginning and is slowly lowering now.
 
2012-09-07 11:44:35 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?


Presumably the corporations sitting on record profits and throwing the executives bonus parties instead of hiring more employees.
 
2012-09-07 11:44:39 AM  

DamnYankees: I dont' know what this means.


To use a real world example, think of our military industrial complex. We are employing millions of people directly through defense contracts. Think of all the engineers at Boeing/Lockheed, all of the factory workers building the planes/bombs/whatever, all of the paper pushers at the DoD, all of the actual soldiers. People have been trained for decades to do jobs that are only supported by government debt. These factories build things only demanded by government debt. If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy. These factories are tooled to build things that aren't demanded by the private economy.

Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.

DamnYankees: I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.


Sure, let them spend it on food, consumable, and entertainment. Grocery stores/food production expand, retail stores/manufacturing expands, entertainment industry expands. What happens to those industries when the government lays off those individuals?
 
2012-09-07 11:44:44 AM  
I knew it would be OK news when I heard one of the Republican shills interviewed on PBS last night. His talking point was "X number of weeks above 8% unemployment!!!1!!1!" That's the new goalpost -- the 8% number. And of course in a couple of months they'll be saying "7%! Can you believe we're still above 7%!"

The Republicans are just shocked that Americans are suffering less despite the GOP's best efforts to extend our pain for as long as possible for their own selfish gain.
 
2012-09-07 11:45:24 AM  

Gotfire: [i45.tinypic.com image 306x310]

Freepers right now: "MANIPULATED DATA!11!"


Love that GIF.
 
2012-09-07 11:45:51 AM  
Holy crap, the impotent fury sure is flowing this morning.

Unemployment is dropping and getting damned close to that 'magic number' of 8%, the DNC just knocked it out of the park and Romney's name seems mostly attached to 'missing tax returns' and 'horrible at foreign policy'.

Yeah, I'd be raging too, if I were a GOPer.
 
2012-09-07 11:46:11 AM  
So the GOP is going to look at this and tell us "he didn't fix everything in his first term!" I just don't get how they think I'm going to reject Obama's slow recovery in favor of Romney's "nose dive the economy into the ground and loot its burning corpse" alternative.

/No illusions about where I am on the looter/corpse scale
 
2012-09-07 11:46:47 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?


We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.
 
2012-09-07 11:47:05 AM  

nmrsnr: hugram: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

It helps that Clinton gave Bush a 4.2% U3 rate to start with.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase

those numbers are nice, but what would be even more valuable was if you could post the rate of change in the unemployment in the month when they took office vs. the rate of change at the end. Because just from the numbers you posted it could be that Obama just had slow unemployment growth over 4 years instead of illustrating how it was skyrocketing in the beginning and is slowly lowering now.


I have posted this graph before as well on other threads...

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-09-07 11:47:14 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: I knew it would be OK news when I heard one of the Republican shills interviewed on PBS last night. His talking point was "X number of weeks above 8% unemployment!!!1!!1!" That's the new goalpost -- the 8% number. And of course in a couple of months they'll be saying "7%! Can you believe we're still above 7%!"

The Republicans are just shocked that Americans are suffering less despite the GOP's best efforts to extend our pain for as long as possible for their own selfish gain.


but it was at 10.2

Imagine what it might have been had the GOP even attempted to work with him.
 
2012-09-07 11:47:23 AM  

Graffito: theknuckler_33: /96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.


undoubtedly.

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: /96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

Exactly. It was a crappy jobs report. Not disasterous, but lousy.


I wouldn't go that far. The new jobs number was disappointing. Different people focus on different things. By itself, the U3 going from 8.3 to 8.1 is good. Why that happened when only 96K new jobs were created is where the poo flinging comes into play.
 
2012-09-07 11:47:25 AM  

Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

wow that's some herpy derp there.

this jobs report is as bad as the Holocaust and Black Death combined? That's really dumb, Hobo

I thought you were comparing the irrelevancy of those events to the job losses under Bush as they relate to the unemployment numbers now.


I was. The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or not. Not everything is about the election or justifying less than stellar data because things were worse under one of the worst administrations this country has had, dude. This is a disappointing employment number. That remains true regardless of what happened under the last administration
 
2012-09-07 11:47:26 AM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?

We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.


What are they, like 6%?
 
2012-09-07 11:48:28 AM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.

which has farkall to do with whether this is a "spiffy" jobs report number


only if you can't see these stories as part of a bigger narrative I guess...
 
2012-09-07 11:48:44 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


What's your point? According to the 2010 census, over 60 million people are under 14 (i.e. legal working age). That leaves less than 30 million unemployed before even looking at those that are retired.

/why do you support child labor?
 
2012-09-07 11:48:46 AM  

skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no


You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!
 
2012-09-07 11:48:47 AM  

SuperTramp: Debeo Summa Credo

So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.

Five Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth.


Yeah, four out of five of those are dubious/questionable. I'll not dispute that the GOPs behavior regarding the debt ceiling last year was atrocious and definitely did cost the economy momentum (as well as our aaa rating, most likely)

But I'm not arguing that the sucky jobs report is entirely, or even primarily Obama's fault. I'm just saying that the employment numbers announced today are indeed disappointing.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:35 AM  

ddam: Just to play along with your example, while those workers get that money from the government they start spending it too thus increasing demand from private businesses like cars, washing machines, TVs, food, etc and once the private sector takes off those government workers can be phased out and switched to private jobs.


I don't understand how you can't think this all the way through.

Government hires people to dig ditches. People digging ditches buy washing machines. Washing machine company expands. Government lays off ditch diggers, expects them to get a job at the washing machine factory. Can't you see the problem? These places are only expanding due to the increased demand from the ditch diggers. Once the ditch diggers are laid off, the demand falls off, and those places contract.

ddam: but idiots that have no idea that the economy is 98% of the times driven by demand (taking out the goods and services that are inelastic) prentend that government workers get all the money from government but don't spend it at all. This is also why tax cuts to middle class and poor help the economy more than the ones given to the rich because the rich already have the money to satisfy their needs and wants. Giving them extra money will stimulate investment IF there is a good rate of return. Since rates of return are much higher outside of the US for the past 30-40 years, that's where all those tax cuts for the rich went. (And also 22 trillion dollars sitting in offshore accounts).


I am completely fine with wealth redistribution, if that is what you want. I am fine with shifting the tax burden onto the wealthy. Those do not create unsustainable economic situations. Going into debt and spending money on unproductive programs does create unsustainable economic situations. You can't deficit spend forever and expect to be fine. It is complete insanity.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:39 AM  

King Something: Maybe it's because they figure that for every 100 unemployed persons (counting only those who would otherwise be employed, NOT people who cannot have a job because they're too young/retired/bedridden/too old/ginger/etc), there are about 74 underemployed persons.

Just a guess on my part. Could be wronger than Obama/Romney slashfics, though.


They don't "figure" that for every 100 unemployed persons there are about 74 underemployed persons. They measure it.

That ratio just happens to be a consistent ratio that just naturally occurs.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:41 AM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


Not really. Those things cannot be attributed to the policies of the previous administration (which are basically the policies of the current GOP candidate). I'd say it is relevant to the current election cycle.
 
Displayed 50 of 714 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report