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 714
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1196 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (2 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 03:42:53 PM  

hugram: BojanglesPaladin: Thank you. I think that GDP growth is one of many trusted indicators of economic growth and/or recovery, and this mnetric shows some mesurable improvement, which is good. But it is only one of many all of which must be balanced together.So GDP is up, whch is good. Unemployment is still high, which is bad. Debt and Defecit is up, which is bad. Do you have other positive metrics?

GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
[www.tradingeconomics.com image 700x300]

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 09/06/2012: 13,292.00
Rate of Return: 67.21%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 09/06/2012: 1,432.12
Rate of Return: 77.85%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 09/06/2012: 3,135.81
Rate of Return: 117.63%

Private jobs hemorrhage slowed down during the Obama Administration and eventually went into positive territory.
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 800x462]

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

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

Unemployment rate has been trending down now during the Obama Administration...
[i2.cdn.turner.com image 620x355]

...Even though the Tea Party Nation urged small business owners to not hire people in order to make Obama look bad

Or when a company with company policies about not hiring until Obama is gone based on nothing to do with the basic supply and demand process for his business goods.

Or having Mitch McConnell admit that Republicans took America hostage

Or having the GOP blocked a 10 percent tax break for small businesses that hires new employees

Even so, the job market did improve. Read all about it...

Private-sector job growth biggest in 3 years (new window)

Stealth signs of a stronger job market (new window)

Biggest unemployment ra ...


You know, it seems like we can keep posting these same graphs and charts over and over again and the Republicans will continue to say that the economy is terrible and people are worse off than they were four years ago regardless of the facts because that's what they need people to believe. I think they are just pissed because they have been actively trying to destroy the economy for the past four years but couldn't even do that very well.
 
2012-09-07 03:43:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker:
Debeo Summa Credo: In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.

What other investments, exactly, do you think people have that they are turning away from in order to invest in a bond which offers a negative interest rate? Your theoretical construct makes sense and is nice, but its at odds with a reality where people are willingly investing in bonds at a negative rate.

The reality is that for the government to issue more debt, buyers of that debt will have to provide funds to the government in exchange for the debt. You get that, right?

So where do you think potential investors are currently keeping the funds that you expect them to use to buy the newly issued treasuries? I don't know how to put this more simply. They're not sitting on a pile of $100 bills.

Any money that might be used for additional treasury purchases is currently in some sort of investment or interest bearing account. They will have to liquidate those investments or withdraw from those interest bearing accounts (for instance bank deposits which fund loans) to buy the new treasuries.

You realize the Bid to Cover ratio for treasuries is usually around 3 right? They will sell.

I'm not arguing that they won't sell. DamnYankees is correct that there is plenty of demand. What I'm arguing is that the funds used to buy the treasuries will need to come from somewhere else. It's not just conjured from nowhere. And although the additional govt spending funded by the incremental treasury sales will benefit the economy, whatever project/spending the cash used to buy treasuries would have funded absent the additional issuance will have a negative effect on the economy...

Please. That's not the case and you know it

By all means then explain where the cash comes from to buy incremental treasury debt?


My contention isn't where the money comes from, its the assertion that buying treasuries instead of whatever else other instrument has a negative effect on the economy.
 
2012-09-07 03:45:00 PM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Any money that might be used for additional treasury purchases is currently in some sort of investment or interest bearing account.

Please explain why, if this was true, anyone would actually buy t-bills.


You realize that capital providers have diversified portfolios, with exposure to many asset classes, right? And that within those portfolios capital providers perform a risk/return analysis on individual investments. T-bills are paying next to nothing, but they are bought because they are the safest, most liquid investment available.

But beyond that you need to explain to me where you expect the cash to come from to buy any incremental treasuries. That still hasn't been answered. Any domestic sources of capital used to purchase treasuries is going to have to come from some source that would have contributed to the economy otherwise.  Even foreign sources will have an alternative use that would affect the US economy. It's not a free lunch.
 
2012-09-07 03:49:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But beyond that you need to explain to me where you expect the cash to come from to buy any incremental treasuries.


I don't have data in front of me of this (I'd be curious to see it), but either consumption or other investment assets, like you said. And I don't really care where it comes from - the fact that people are willing to make that investment is all that matters.
 
2012-09-07 03:49:49 PM  

CPennypacker: My contention isn't where the money comes from, its the assertion that buying treasuries instead of whatever else other instrument has a negative effect on the economy.


One or the both of you is arguing that there is a finite amount of capital, and therefore funds spent in one place(T-Bills) means funds NOT spent in another. It seems hard to argue that moneys spent on T-Bills is not a reduction of moneys spent somehwere else.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: Because it turned out the economy was worse than we originally thought. When a band-aid fails to cure a gun shot wound, you don't conclude band-aids never work

And yet, If a doctor applied a band-aid to a gunshot wound and sent you home with aspirin, that Doctor would be fired, right?


You failed to address the point. I'll answer your question right after you address the point. Deal?

BojanglesPaladin: But regardless of the whys and wherefores, The Stimulus did not produce the desired or promised results, despite the cost.

Because it turned out the economy was worse than we originally thought. When a band-aid fails to cure a gun shot wound, you don't conclude band-aids never work. Well you would.


The stimulus did exactly what it should, it created exactly as many jobs as we knew and expected it would. That did not produce the promised result in unemployment numbers. The reason is not because the stimulus did not work, again, the stimulus created exactly as many jobs as we thought it would. Turned out the economy was worse than we originally thought, which is why you didn't see the promised result.

The point being made - government stimulus works.
 
2012-09-07 03:55:32 PM  
CPennypackerBy all means then explain where the cash comes from to buy incremental treasury debt?

My contention isn't where the money comes from, its the assertion that buying treasuries instead of whatever else other instrument has a negative effect on the economy.


"All in" it is uncertain whether it has a negative effect on the economy. It depends on what the foregone use was and what the government uses it for. My point is that it's not a freebie. If an investor uses funds to buy treasuries that they would have used for a company expansion, there is a negative effect from that foregone expansion that counters the keynesian benefit of the incremental spending funded by the issuance of new debt.

If the investor took money out of the bank to buy treasuries, then whatever the bank was funding - mortgages, commecial loans, whatever, loses funding which means fewer loans and a hit to the economy.

If the investor would otherwise have used the funds for consumption, but changed their minds when they saw the t-bill auction, then whatever economic activity that would have been funded by consumption is lost.

Also depends on the utility of the investment by the govt. Pretty much any private spending/investing is a better use of funds than the 'paying people to dig ditches' analogy (or to do nothing) posted way upthread. Building a school or power plant in an underserved area, conversely, is likely to provide significant long term excess benefit over the alternative investment. Building a 2nd or 3rd school in the same area, not so much.
 
2012-09-07 03:55:34 PM  

Pincy: You know, it seems like we can keep posting these same graphs and charts over and over again and the Republicans will continue to say that the economy is terrible and people are worse off than they were four years ago regardless of the facts because that's what they need people to believe.


As I have said on many a thread, charts charts and more charts are insufficient to argue against people's perceptions. This isn't just a "Republican" view, this is an American view. Poll after Poll after Poll shows that Americans do not feel that the economy has recovered yet.

This isn't (or rather shouldn't be) a partisan issue. There is a disconnect between small changes in econoimic indicators and the general state of the economy as percieved by the general populace.

Try it like this:

You can show all the charts you want about how average ambient temprature during the last four years have reduced by 1.25 degrees in cental Texas, and that it is IN FACT cooler than it was before. But that means nothing to people in the sun who feel it is blazing hot in a Texas summer.
 
2012-09-07 03:56:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: One of the most often cited reasons for companies holding on to their cash reserves is that it is a response to an uncertain economic enviornment , regulatory uncertainty, and an unknown tax landscape.


I'm super excited for your citations to back that wild guess up.

BojanglesPaladin: Right winger might very well "address" that problem by voting in Romney, and putting businesses at ease that their money is safer without Obama and over-regulation wil lbe eased and they will start spending again.


I'm sure you will point to very specific regulations (with citations) to back that wild claim up, rather than make a ridiculous blanket claim.
 
2012-09-07 03:58:15 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: As I have said on many a thread, charts charts and more charts are insufficient to argue against people's perceptions. This isn't just a "Republican" view, this is an American view. Poll after Poll after Poll shows that Americans do not feel that the economy has recovered yet.


I agree with you, posting charts on Fark.com does not shift the American public polling data. Posting them on TV commercials would.

I love that you believe your opinion is an "American view."
 
2012-09-07 03:58:16 PM  

lennavan: You failed to address the point.


I did. You just didn;t like the answer. Obama's Stimulus failed to improve unemployment numbers to pre-recession levels as planned. Period. Your argument that he did it wrong, are under-provisioned, or under-estimated, or whatever is not a counter argument. You are saying it's not his fault, because his efforts were inadequate to the scope of the task?

Unemployment is still where it was before he started.
 
2012-09-07 04:00:18 PM  

lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: Because it turned out the economy was worse than we originally thought. When a band-aid fails to cure a gun shot wound, you don't conclude band-aids never work

And yet, If a doctor applied a band-aid to a gunshot wound and sent you home with aspirin, that Doctor would be fired, right?

You failed to address the point. I'll answer your question right after you address the point. Deal?

BojanglesPaladin: But regardless of the whys and wherefores, The Stimulus did not produce the desired or promised results, despite the cost.

Because it turned out the economy was worse than we originally thought. When a band-aid fails to cure a gun shot wound, you don't conclude band-aids never work. Well you would.

The stimulus did exactly what it should, it created exactly as many jobs as we knew and expected it would. That did not produce the promised result in unemployment numbers. The reason is not because the stimulus did not work, again, the stimulus created exactly as many jobs as we thought it would. Turned out the economy was worse than we originally thought, which is why you didn't see the promised result.


I disagree with you on most of what you post but the bolded parts above are spot-on. In selling his stimulus package, Obama said it would keep unemployment below 8% (or something like that). It didn't because the economy was and is in much worse shape than he (and most economists) thought. The hangover from a huge asset bubble can be a biatch, especially when that asset is everybody's house.
 
2012-09-07 04:03:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: You failed to address the point.

I did. You just didn;t like the answer. Obama's Stimulus failed to improve unemployment numbers to pre-recession levels as planned. Period. Your argument that he did it wrong, are under-provisioned, or under-estimated, or whatever is not a counter argument. You are saying it's not his fault, because his efforts were inadequate to the scope of the task?

Unemployment is still where it was before he started.


No, you addressed a different point. The stimulus created exactly as many jobs as it was intended to. The stimulus worked. You are using a metric, unemployment, and pretending the sole input into unemployment is the stimulus. That's fundamentally retarded, not shocking given you posted it. Unemployment is a metric that takes into account multiple factors. I'm telling you the stimulus worked and its the other factors that explain why unemployment remains the same.

I didn't argue Obama did it wrong, I didn't argue it was under-provisioned or any of that. I argued it worked exactly as it was designed to work. The roads got paved, construction workers actually got paychecks and so on.

There is nothing to fault. Again, the stimulus created exactly as many jobs as it was intended to. Exactly.

Your response to that is the stimulus should have been intended to create more. That says absolutely nothing about whether or not government stimulus works and creates jobs. Indeed, your point and your reply implicitly agrees with what I'm saying.
 
2012-09-07 04:09:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Pincy: You know, it seems like we can keep posting these same graphs and charts over and over again and the Republicans will continue to say that the economy is terrible and people are worse off than they were four years ago regardless of the facts because that's what they need people to believe.

As I have said on many a thread, charts charts and more charts are insufficient to argue against people's perceptions. This isn't just a "Republican" view, this is an American view. Poll after Poll after Poll shows that Americans do not feel that the economy has recovered yet.

This isn't (or rather shouldn't be) a partisan issue. There is a disconnect between small changes in econoimic indicators and the general state of the economy as percieved by the general populace.

Try it like this:

You can show all the charts you want about how average ambient temprature during the last four years have reduced by 1.25 degrees in cental Texas, and that it is IN FACT cooler than it was before. But that means nothing to people in the sun who feel it is blazing hot in a Texas summer.


You asked for more positive data... I provided you more positive data via graphs and articles. You then say that graphs and articles don't work. How do you provide data without some sort of graph, article, comparison, etc? Do you prefer the "how I 'feel" method regarding the economy?
 
2012-09-07 04:33:46 PM  

hugram: You asked for more positive data... I provided you more positive data via graphs and articles.


I did. Thank you. Still looking over them. Please note that I have not argued that Obama has has zero positive impact. Rather, I have been clear that Obama has not turned the economy around.

hugram: You then say that graphs and articles don't work.


I said that charts alone will not work to change comon perception. *I* am not public perception. Individual understanding can and should be swayed by accurate information.

But poll after poll after poll shows that the puvlic perception of the economy is that what nominal slight improvements have been made are not sufficient to be considered an 'economic recovery'. Anemic positive growth is good, but may not be 'good enough'. Many Obama Apologists' seem to have a difficult time with this distinction. The economy is not a yes/no binary. Poinmting out that the unemployment rate is effectively unchanged duting Obama's term does not mean that he is an awful man, or that he has produced no positive results. But similarly, pointing out that some things have gotten slightly better does not mean he is a hero or that the economy has been 'fixed.

Obama's biggest challenge is changing the public perception, and his 'evidence so far' is less than compelling.
 
2012-09-07 04:34:44 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Rather, I have been clear that Obama has not turned the economy around.


What metric do you use to base this assertion on?
 
2012-09-07 04:36:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: dericwater: Obama tried compromising with the GOP.

I think a review of coverage at that time would be a good idea. Obama famously told Republicans arguing about the Stimulus package touhg luck, saying "I Won".

Here's a quick recap from Politico


He won because he compromised. Remember that compromising and being bipartisan was one of his "promises".
 
2012-09-07 04:44:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: As I have said on many a thread, charts charts and more charts are insufficient to argue against people's perceptions. This isn't just a "Republican" view, this is an American view. Poll after Poll after Poll shows that Americans do not feel that the economy has recovered yet.


Of course it hasn't recovered yet. Who is making that assertion? Oh, that's right, it's a Republican strawman.

The economy is definitely doing better than it was four years ago. The economy is on its way to recovery. I didn't hear Obama claim victory last night. I heard him say that we are on the right path and the choice is to whether we stay the course or go back to policies that got us in trouble in the first place.

Of course we would all like it to recover faster but we don't always have control over that. But the Republicans are trying to convince people that since Obama hasn't been able to produce full employment in just under four years after having been handed an utter failure of an economy by Bush that he has failed as well. If McCain had won and the numbers were the same as they are now you and I both know that the Republicans would be showing all these same charts and graphs and telling everyone that we are on the road to prosperity.
 
2012-09-07 05:00:33 PM  
This is devastating news for a failed President who proved in his speech last night that he is exhausted and out of ideas. Other than "more of the same," Obama had nothing to offer, and this morning was a startling reminder that "more of the same" is a recipe for four more years of failure.

If things are so rosy, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?????
 
2012-09-07 05:20:30 PM  
Did anyone mention that employment is at almost 92%

STFU and GBTW!
 
2012-09-07 05:31:55 PM  

dericwater: Remember that compromising and being bipartisan was one of his "promises".


And would you say that Obama has "changed the tone in Washington"? As he promised, is it now LESS partisan than before he took office?

lennavan: What metric do you use to base this assertion on?


The unemployment rate is still where it was and that's too high, Debt has skyrocketed, The Deficitis bigger than ever, foreclosures are still high, the percentage growth rate for the economy is still too low, Job growth has slowed, etc.

Again, Obama has produced some positive outcomes. (Or if you want to be persnickity, positive outcomes have occured during his term). I do not think he has been an abject failure. But that does not mean he has been succesful. I think that a fair assesment is that Obama has produced at best only marginal improvements at great expense.

YMMV. Reasonable people can arrive at different assesments.

Pincy: Of course it hasn't recovered yet. Who is making that assertion? Oh, that's right, it's a Republican strawman.


It's not a Republican Strawman. It is the measure that Obama himself asked to be graded on, and it is the standard which every president who has ever taken office on the promise to fix the economy is held to. Are you suggesting that the president should NOT be asked to show results after four years? Of course not. I know it is nettlesome to acjnowledge that Obama has not produced an indisputable success, but he has not.

But it is absurd to now try to argue that he never promised results. He did. And the American people RIGHTLY get to evaluate those results.

Obama cannot say "Vote for me, I fixed it like I said I would". If he could, he certainly would and he would be heading into a landslide victory his November. So he must now say "I did all I could, and I promise it will get better if you let me keep working on it" which is effectively his campaign message (That and "The other guys will ruin everything"). The American people will have to be convinced that he's on the right track, since no amount of re-casting the numbers can argue that the economy is 'fixed'.
 
2012-09-07 05:34:05 PM  

tony41454: This is devastating news for a failed President who proved in his speech last night that he is exhausted and out of ideas. Other than "more of the same," Obama had nothing to offer, and this morning was a startling reminder that "more of the same" is a recipe for four more years of failure.

If things are so rosy, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?????


www.monster.com
www.dice.com
{yourcity}helpwanted.com
craigslist.

If you can't find a job, you either haven't really been looking, haven't been willing or able to take a pay cut, or haven't yet honed the proper skill set. I have all three listed, because I know some people that really aren't looking, others that see certain jobs as beneath them or the pay is too low (I personally continue to get headhunters after me and I've seen pay offers drop for 3 years now), or you don't want to change your skill set and/or lack the cash to do it.

If you're 45+ well, then you also have some age discrimination going on.

The employers offering peanuts is not helping. As I said, I've seen in the past 3 years job offers with identical requirements drop from $14 to $12 to $10 per hour. And then employers have the nerve to say they can't find people.
 
2012-09-07 05:41:17 PM  

Pincy: If McCain had won and the numbers were the same as they are now you and I both know that the Republicans would be showing all these same charts and graphs and telling everyone that we are on the road to prosperity.


So presumably it would be bullshiat when the "other side did it"? But it's somehow perfectly valid now? Methinks your partisan-colored glasses are showing.

No. If it was McCain, and not Obama who had produced the same results, then we would rightly be evaluating his performance and questioning whether it was "good enough".

This is not some new situation. Every President who has campaigned on the promise that they can fix the economy has had to explain his performance come re-election time, and the American people have had to be convinced about whether or not he has done as he said he would.

This is the central problem of Obama's re-election. He must convince the American people that despite the high unemployment, despite the lackluster economy, despite all the undervalued homes and foreclosures, despite the assive debt and deficit, he has still done a "good enough" job to be entrusted with another try to do better.

Or, failing that (as it seems his campaign understands it to be) convince the American people that the other candidate is far worse. The vehemence with which the Campaign is attacking Romney can be considered an indicator of how much faith they themselves have in how convincing they think the "good enough performabce" argument is going to go.
 
2012-09-07 05:41:45 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypackerBy all means then explain where the cash comes from to buy incremental treasury debt?

My contention isn't where the money comes from, its the assertion that buying treasuries instead of whatever else other instrument has a negative effect on the economy.

"All in" it is uncertain whether it has a negative effect on the economy. It depends on what the foregone use was and what the government uses it for. My point is that it's not a freebie. If an investor uses funds to buy treasuries that they would have used for a company expansion, there is a negative effect from that foregone expansion that counters the keynesian benefit of the incremental spending funded by the issuance of new debt.

If the investor took money out of the bank to buy treasuries, then whatever the bank was funding - mortgages, commecial loans, whatever, loses funding which means fewer loans and a hit to the economy.

If the investor would otherwise have used the funds for consumption, but changed their minds when they saw the t-bill auction, then whatever economic activity that would have been funded by consumption is lost.

Also depends on the utility of the investment by the govt. Pretty much any private spending/investing is a better use of funds than the 'paying people to dig ditches' analogy (or to do nothing) posted way upthread. Building a school or power plant in an underserved area, conversely, is likely to provide significant long term excess benefit over the alternative investment. Building a 2nd or 3rd school in the same area, not so much.


The problem with this line of thinking is that it leads to "the economy can never grow."

Replace the Treasury with Google and you see the problem. Google cannot create wealth, because, after all, every dollar of Google's revenue came from somewhere, reducing growth in whatever the advertisers would have otherwise spent the money on.

Therefore Google (and by extension any other business) cannot contribute to economic growth. And the government cannot grow the total economy (your original argument), so the economy never grows, QED.
 
2012-09-07 05:41:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: dericwater: Remember that compromising and being bipartisan was one of his "promises".

And would you say that Obama has "changed the tone in Washington"? As he promised, is it now LESS partisan than before he took office?


Doesn't help when the opposition said on live TV that it's main goal is to make Obama a one-term president.
 
2012-09-07 05:43:37 PM  

meat0918: If you can't find a job, you either haven't really been looking, haven't been willing or able to take a pay cut, or haven't yet honed the proper skill set.


Is it really you argument that people should stop biatching that they can;t find work as a proffesional bcause McDonald's is hiring? Or that an unemployed structural engineer is to blame for his unemployment because he hasn't learned to be a welder?

I don't think that's a fair assesment of the current job market.
 
2012-09-07 05:45:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Doesn't help when the opposition said on live TV that it's main goal is to make Obama a one-term president.


No it does not.I kow what a shock it must have been to see an opposition party announcing an intention to...oppose the President.

So...would you say that Obama has "changed the tone in Washington"? As he promised, is it now LESS partisan than before he took office?
 
2012-09-07 05:46:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: most Keynesians of fark seem to think its a free lunch. That you can just borrow to finance govt spending and get free demand.


As a duly self-appointed representative of Fark Keynesianism, I agree, you are correct.

That is, putting unemployed people/resources to work is, in fact, more or less a macroeconomic free lunch. If you could target the spending 100% to putting unemployed people to work, it would be a no-brainer. (In the real world nothing can be targeted that precisely).
 
2012-09-07 05:57:29 PM  
Liberals are so delusional. The most manufacturing jobs cut in two years is Spiffy.
368,000 people dropping out of the workforce is Spiffy.
Hourly wages dropping is Spiffy.
96,000 jobs added, which is behind the rate of population growth, is Spiffy.
Lowest percentage of Americans in the workforce in 31 years is Spiffy,

This is all taking place while Europe is on the brink of a recession. But yes, the unemployment rate went down, so Obama is our savior. Never mind the actual reasons for it going down and the bleak outlook for the American economy.

Obama 2012
 
2012-09-07 06:04:52 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: So...would you say that Obama has "changed the tone in Washington"? As he promised, is it now LESS partisan than before he took office?


i think this was one of his biggest mistakes. He really did try to change the tone in the beginning. But it was a mistake to think that the opposition (ie: Republicans) would behave like adults and come together for the sake of all Americans.
 
2012-09-07 06:06:18 PM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Lowest percentage of Americans in the workforce in 31 years is Spiffy,


If you're going to use a dishonest talking point. Then why bother chatting with you? 

How come you tards weren't screaming about the downward trend of the labor force participation rate during the Bush presidency?
 
2012-09-07 06:11:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: He really did try to change the tone in the beginning.


That is pretty debatable. See earlier posted link for an example, In the first month on the first Stimulus bill, he met Republicans and dismissed their objections by saying "I Won", and then proceded to pass it over nearly complete Republican objections (and even a few Democrats. Day one he made it clear that he could pass legislation with Pelosi and Reid with or without Republican consent, and proceeded to do so.

I know it messes up the narrative of Republican obstructionism (and lord knows it's TRUE since the advent of the TeaParty), but Obama danced that Tango too and did so right from the begining.
 
2012-09-07 06:32:47 PM  

meat0918: tony41454: This is devastating news for a failed President who proved in his speech last night that he is exhausted and out of ideas. Other than "more of the same," Obama had nothing to offer, and this morning was a startling reminder that "more of the same" is a recipe for four more years of failure.

If things are so rosy, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?????

www.monster.com
www.dice.com
{yourcity}helpwanted.com
craigslist.

If you can't find a job, you either haven't really been looking, haven't been willing or able to take a pay cut, or haven't yet honed the proper skill set. I have all three listed, because I know some people that really aren't looking, others that see certain jobs as beneath them or the pay is too low (I personally continue to get headhunters after me and I've seen pay offers drop for 3 years now), or you don't want to change your skill set and/or lack the cash to do it.

If you're 45+ well, then you also have some age discrimination going on.

The employers offering peanuts is not helping. As I said, I've seen in the past 3 years job offers with identical requirements drop from $14 to $12 to $10 per hour. And then employers have the nerve to say they can't find people.


the answer is obviously to give work permits to another 1.2 million illegal aliens. that's sure to provide unemployed Americans with jobs.
 
2012-09-07 06:53:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: meat0918: If you can't find a job, you either haven't really been looking, haven't been willing or able to take a pay cut, or haven't yet honed the proper skill set.

Is it really you argument that people should stop biatching that they can;t find work as a proffesional bcause McDonald's is hiring? Or that an unemployed structural engineer is to blame for his unemployment because he hasn't learned to be a welder?

I don't think that's a fair assesment of the current job market.


My argument is work that was paying $20+ an hour is now sub $20. Have you seen what is being offered for some jobs with the requirements listed? That's the pay cut I am speaking of.

I have family that was let go from their jobs, and then 6 months later reinterviewed for the same job they left, and doing the same work plus some for less money than what they previously earned, and they have taken the job because it was all they could find.

I've been keeping on eye on the job market, and I am not impressed with salary offerings right now. I've seen listings with 5-10 years multiple languages and technologies (c++, MSSQL, java, c#, wpf, etc.) listed for 40K, when 3 years ago that was 60K-70K or higher.

Besides, unless you omit a lot of work experience, McDonald's won't hire you, because they know you will leave ASAP.
 
2012-09-07 07:15:30 PM  

meat0918: I've been keeping on eye on the job market, and I am not impressed with salary offerings right now. I've seen listings with 5-10 years multiple languages and technologies (c++, MSSQL, java, c#, wpf, etc.) listed for 40K, when 3 years ago that was 60K-70K or higher.


That is true. But it is also a function of demand. It happens, often without a recession. After the .com bust, I watched technicians who had had cushy 6 figure jobs scrounging to get a job for $50K. But it was because they had been grossly OVERpaid and the market made a salary correction. It's incredibly painful for the people hit by it, but it's a reality in a free market economy.

In a down economy, when demand is down, demand is down. And when demand is down, prices tend to fall. Salary is also a price for labor.

But I think I understand your point better now. Thank you for the clarification.
 
2012-09-07 07:23:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: meat0918: I've been keeping on eye on the job market, and I am not impressed with salary offerings right now. I've seen listings with 5-10 years multiple languages and technologies (c++, MSSQL, java, c#, wpf, etc.) listed for 40K, when 3 years ago that was 60K-70K or higher.

That is true. But it is also a function of demand. It happens, often without a recession. After the .com bust, I watched technicians who had had cushy 6 figure jobs scrounging to get a job for $50K. But it was because they had been grossly OVERpaid and the market made a salary correction. It's incredibly painful for the people hit by it, but it's a reality in a free market economy.

In a down economy, when demand is down, demand is down. And when demand is down, prices tend to fall. Salary is also a price for labor.


sure and handing work permits to 1.2 million illegal aliens between the age of 18 and 29, not through legislation but through executive fiat, is a great way to increase employment opportunities and wages for young American citizens. it wipes out 8 months of job increases at the stroke of the presidents pen. job increases that have never been even enough to keep up with population growth. this imperial president sure has our best interests at heart.
 
2012-09-07 07:30:13 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The Dog Ate The Constitution: Lowest percentage of Americans in the workforce in 31 years is Spiffy,

If you're going to use a dishonest talking point. Then why bother chatting with you? 

How come you tards weren't screaming about the downward trend of the labor force participation rate during the Bush presidency?


It's not dishonest, it's a fact. Your "but but but BUSH" doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm sorry you feel the need to act like an immature child, but you should really learn to accept that Obama hasn't done much for the economy.

Sure he inherited a bad economy, but in case you forgot, he ran for the Presidency. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to do it. He knew exactly what was in store for him, yet he decided he would campaign on fixing the economy. He has failed at that task. Liberals seem to think that Obama was off saving another planet while the economic downturn was taking place. It's as if they completely forgot that he was a member of Congress sitting idly by as economist after economist warned of the coming bursting bubble.
 
2012-09-07 07:32:10 PM  

lennavan: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs

Remember 3 and a half years ago when we we lost 818,000 jobs in a single month? Of course you don't. For the rest of us, suddenly that "only" +96,000 doesn't seem so bad.


That's great, if 'the rest of us' are currently employed. If you're one of the lost jobs, it means a hell of a lot. If you're one of the ones still searching, it also means a hell of a lot. The hemorrhaging is still there.
 
2012-09-07 07:33:43 PM  

MattStafford: ExperianScaresCthulhu: I'll be honest: I'll take that short term solution; I'll take it even more if it meant 30s style infrastructure 'we're going to employ you because you want to work regardless of education, credit or felonies' government programs. Get people employed, and then figure out the rest as you go.

This is idiotic. "Let's do things in the short term with no regard for how it might effect us in the long term. I'm sure we'll be fine." Guess what? We're not.


That's life in the paycheck to paycheck zone. People want to work. People don't want to be statistics on paper. Statistics is for power gamers and Bain stockholders. Get people employed and figure out the rest.
 
2012-09-07 07:35:25 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: MattStafford: ExperianScaresCthulhu: I'll be honest: I'll take that short term solution; I'll take it even more if it meant 30s style infrastructure 'we're going to employ you because you want to work regardless of education, credit or felonies' government programs. Get people employed, and then figure out the rest as you go.

This is idiotic. "Let's do things in the short term with no regard for how it might effect us in the long term. I'm sure we'll be fine." Guess what? We're not.

That's life in the paycheck to paycheck zone. People want to work. People don't want to be statistics on paper. Statistics is for power gamers and Bain stockholders. Get people employed and figure out the rest.


I want to see rural broadband pushed harder.
 
2012-09-07 07:37:54 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

Government builds a military base in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that military base. Government eventually shuts the base down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had the government not distorted the economy.

How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.

Except your scenerio actually happened in towns in bumblefark PA.

Mostly with the steel industry but you get the idea.

I mean I'm not an economics genius or anything but even I know that MattStafford doesn't have a grasp on the most simple of economics concepts.

Either he's really this stupid or just trolling.


Matt has a great grasp. Matt just isn't looking at it from the human side of things. Matt's looking at it from paper and theory.
 
2012-09-07 07:38:50 PM  

impaler: Corporate profits, last 2 presidential terms:

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


Figures. Doing better than ever. But that's not translating into jobs at home.
 
2012-09-07 07:40:43 PM  

Dog Welder: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Link

It took all of 30 seconds on Google to find that. It's the same act that the GOP has been blocking in Congress for the past 365 days.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-amer i can-jobs-act

Thank you, Dog Welder.
 
2012-09-07 07:41:30 PM  

gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]


I'm going to borrow that.
 
2012-09-07 07:52:57 PM  
weaselzippers.us

McJob chart
 
2012-09-07 07:58:01 PM  

IronTom: [weaselzippers.us image 550x495]

McJob chart


The bad stuff is all Bush's fault.
 
2012-09-07 09:00:35 PM  

sweetmelissa31: ferretman: and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

If we bring back child labor that number will certainly decrease.


I wouldn't put it past the Publicans to try it. Child labor laws are evul gubmint regalation brought on by evul Union Thugs.
 
2012-09-07 09:55:06 PM  

tony41454: This is devastating news for a failed President who proved in his speech last night that he is exhausted and out of ideas. Other than "more of the same," Obama had nothing to offer, and this morning was a startling reminder that "more of the same" is a recipe for four more years of failure.

If things are so rosy, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?????


Is that your newest excuse for openly praying for lynch mobs to storm the white house?
 
2012-09-07 09:57:12 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...

Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.


I agree, trying to appease hatemongers like you was a bad idea.
 
2012-09-07 10:02:01 PM  
thinkprogress.org

Vote Republican, because we need to lay off more teachers and drive unemployment even higher!
 
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