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.

(Slate)   The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds an extra 386,000 jobs under its seat cushions   (slate.com) divider line 147
    More: Spiffy, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

6426 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 9:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 10:29:38 PM
data.bls.gov
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/
 
2012-09-27 10:31:25 PM

MyRandomName: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Thank god the population hasn't increased at all since he took office.


3 year olds need jobs too!
 
2012-09-27 10:31:56 PM

Hobodeluxe: I submitted this with the same headline earlier :/

go Obama. grats on the 7.9% unemployment despite all the GOP austerity measures


What farking austerity? Trillion dollar deficits? Record spending levels? What farking austerity? Just because Krugman says that word while you are sucking his dick doesn't mean the US is even close to austerity measures.
 
2012-09-27 10:32:14 PM
Well that's convenient. For a minute there I thought the Obama reputation sanitation crew had missed spot.

/Unemployment crisis narrowly averted
//I bet they are all healthcare jobs, right?
 
2012-09-27 10:32:53 PM
Our economy does not require all able-bodied adults to be in the workforce to function well.

Sucks for those not in the work force, but changing figureheads won't alter that fact.
 
2012-09-27 10:33:06 PM

Baryogenesis: MyRandomName: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Thank god the population hasn't increased at all since he took office.

3 year olds need jobs too!


I was unaware the full population increase was just 3 year olds. I'm sure the bls can revise their participation rate numbers on that news.
 
2012-09-27 10:33:07 PM

bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/


It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.
 
2012-09-27 10:34:12 PM
This means Obama is automatically president and Sarah Pa... Oh wait
 
2012-09-27 10:35:22 PM

MyRandomName: I was unaware the full population increase was just 3 year olds. I'm sure the bls can revise their participation rate numbers on that news.


303,202,683 to 314,159,265 from Jan 9 2008 to Aug 14 2012.

How many of that 10,956,582 are in the labor force?
 
2012-09-27 10:36:13 PM

Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.


It's not even worth arguing this. Any reasonable person can read that graph.
 
2012-09-27 10:39:20 PM
Here is how you spin this:

Republican: THEY ARE COOKING THE BOOKS!
Democrat: See! the Obama recovery is working!

In other words, it depends who is in the WH, and which "side" you are on, as to how you
feel about this so called statistic. I'm about to the point of thinking BOTH political parties
could care less about what happens in flyover country. They've got theirs and that is all
they care about.
 
2012-09-27 10:40:38 PM

MyRandomName: Hobodeluxe: I submitted this with the same headline earlier :/

go Obama. grats on the 7.9% unemployment despite all the GOP austerity measures

What farking austerity? Trillion dollar deficits? Record spending levels? What farking austerity? Just because Krugman says that word while you are sucking his dick doesn't mean the US is even close to austerity measures.


I was talking about the public sector jobs lost because of budget cuts. 600,000+ of them. and it would have been worse if not for the stimulus and the aid to states (mostly red states that get money from the blue states anyway)
but go ahead and ignore them.
 
2012-09-27 10:40:59 PM

bestie1: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

It's not even worth arguing this. Any reasonable person can read that graph.


I am reading that graph, the trend started going downward in 2001 when the baby boomers started retiring, the slope increased during the fallout from the bubble bursting in 2008 and now it's evened back out again and continues the same downward trend that it started under Bush.

Wait, are you telling me that the trend should be going upward? That's just stupid and shows how little you know about statistics and demographics.
 
2012-09-27 10:41:14 PM

impaler: Well that was the last metric. GDP, corporate profits, and now jobs, are all higher than 4 years ago.


How much higher would those metrics be if the Prez hadn't been in a GOP stranglehold for most of that time? The stranglehold was purely so things wouldn't get better enough for the GOP to lose 2012 like a retarded kid playing chess. So now they lose anyway like a retarded kid playing Chutes and Ladders AND the country is stunted in its recovery from a GOP clusterfark! Had there been a GOP that took its 2008 loss with grace and did its duty to the nation, we could be so much further ahead by now...

And what really kills me is that a vibrant, dynamic economy of well-educated, healthy individuals can create more wealth for everybody than the mercenary and incendiary practices of 'conservatives' today. It's like the difference between parasitism and mutualism... uh oh, mutualism sounds like socialism... {dog whistle}
 
2012-09-27 10:41:15 PM

Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.


No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak, no matter how one wants to spin it. To deny this simple fact (which most people in this thread have done) is just idiocy in the highest order.
 
2012-09-27 10:43:11 PM

bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/


So, Republicans are now arguing that smaller government is a bad thing? Make up yer gotdamn minds.
 
2012-09-27 10:43:13 PM

Atomic Spunk: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak, no matter how one wants to spin it. To deny this simple fact (which most people in this thread have done) is just idiocy in the highest order.


maybe we should quit rewarding people like Romney that ship them overseas then?
 
2012-09-27 10:44:22 PM

Atomic Spunk: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak, no matter how one wants to spin it. To deny this simple fact (which most people in this thread have done) is just idiocy in the highest order.


Sorry, it's just that when one usually posts that, they are insinuating that it's all Obama's fault.

But like I said, when you factor the fact that this trend pretty much started in 2001 and has been steadily going downward since, it's downright idiotic to think that a trend that started under Bush is all Obama's fault.
 
2012-09-27 10:48:25 PM
Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
www.bls.gov

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

data.bls.gov
 
2012-09-27 10:49:42 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

So, Republicans are now arguing that smaller government is a bad thing? Make up yer gotdamn minds.

What?
 
2012-09-27 10:50:30 PM

propasaurus: You forgot gas prices.


Do you think a sitting president would let gas prices rise right before the election if he really had any control over them? No, of course not. Ergo, he doesn't have control over gas prices. The public might think he does (and food prices and housing prices etc.), and he could if he nationalized all of those things, but everybody would come unglued if he tried that.
 
2012-09-27 10:50:59 PM

bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]


If you think we're in the same nose dive position that we were in 2008-2009, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of slopes.

Enough said.
 
2012-09-27 10:54:48 PM

Aquapope: Yoyo: /anyone need a freelance engineer? EIP.

But engineers use MATH, and math is the language of science, and science is of the Debbil! So, NO THANKS!

/seriously, good luck with finding a better gig. I've been out o' work for while and don't like it much.


I"M THE GOD DAMNDEVIL!

Link
 
2012-09-27 10:56:47 PM
The president's ability to affect change in the economy is mostly symbolic. He requires the Legislative Branch to function in order to make any substainative change.
 
2012-09-27 10:56:53 PM

Mrtraveler01: bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]

If you think we're in the same nose dive position that we were in 2008-2009, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of slopes.

Enough said.

Wow. Your amazing. Can I have your autograph? I've never met someone from another planet before.
 
2012-09-27 10:59:17 PM

bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:


You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.


I think bestie1 may know what he's talking about. He keeps it simple and without finger-pointing. So unFarklike.
 
2012-09-27 11:00:18 PM

Nadie_AZ: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Which is more than can be said for Bush. Even after 8 years.


Doing exactly what? If by "employed" you mean re-fill the seasonal, agricultural, and other minimum wage or rehire jobs to fill the numbers, then you'd be correct. I don't see a lot of new $50k a year jobs within 100 miles of me, if any. I don't blame Bushbot or Nobama, but you guys inhale numbers like coke on a stripper's arse.
 
2012-09-27 11:01:19 PM

Dinki: FlashHarry: awww, poor romney. i wonder how he'll spin this.

I'm sure the derp squad is all ready with "The BLS is in the tank for Obama, and is atrtificially inflating the numbers"


And that's the most amusing thing - they think that the perception of official pronouncements of how things are drive people's election choices more than the actuality of the economy.
 
2012-09-27 11:02:24 PM

bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/


But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!
 
2012-09-27 11:02:38 PM
Bullshiat.

Consumer confidence is in the basement for a reason. This is as valid as the embassy being attacked because of a video... election month bullshiat.
 
2012-09-27 11:02:48 PM

bestie1: Mrtraveler01: bestie1: Prior to 2000 the the increasing participation of women in the workforce pushed the numbers up:
[www.bls.gov image 401x238]

You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]

If you think we're in the same nose dive position that we were in 2008-2009, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of slopes.

Enough said.
Wow. Your amazing. Can I have your autograph? I've never met someone from another planet before.


So explain to me why a trend that started in 2001 is Obama's fault. Explain to me how that even though the line did take a nosedive in 2008-2009 but has leveled off since mid 2011 and into 2012, that the numbers are still in your eyes "taking a nose dive".

Do you really expect the trend to go upwards even as more and more baby boomers retire?

/Farking statistics, how do they work
 
2012-09-27 11:03:59 PM

Deftoons: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!


You expect the trend to go upward too even though it hasn't since 2001?
 
2012-09-27 11:15:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: Deftoons: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!

You expect the trend to go upward too even though it hasn't since 2001?


I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years - but let's not kid ourselves here, it's not just those numbers. They have to be jobs that are not dependent on government subsidies and programs; because it's otherwise not a sound recovery (that would be based off of true supply and demand), but a false one based on corrupt political management.
 
2012-09-27 11:23:29 PM

Nadie_AZ: meat0918: FTFA:

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Once more, with feeling

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

One. More. Time.

More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Which is more than can be said for Bush. Even after 8 years.


I think that's just counting the private sector jobs though. Bush added a lot more government jobs b/c of TSA, and probably enlistment into the military.
 
2012-09-27 11:23:54 PM

ph0rk: MyRandomName: I was unaware the full population increase was just 3 year olds. I'm sure the bls can revise their participation rate numbers on that news.

303,202,683 to 314,159,265 from Jan 9 2008 to Aug 14 2012.

How many of that 10,956,582 are in the labor force?


We want 2009, but we could probably guess 7-8 million. The more relevant data would be people entering the labor market vs. people leaving.
Of course, the real point is to laugh at trolls like random who think Obama should have magically lowered the unemployment rate to 3% and that anything less means Obama is the worst president ever!!1!
 
2012-09-27 11:25:04 PM
but the Gov can't find the $7 Trillion the fed "lost"... or was that the pentagon...

I lost track
 
2012-09-27 11:29:15 PM

bestie1: You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.


boomers started in 45. People start retiring in their 60s...

What's 1945 + 60 again?

Fuking retard.
 
2012-09-27 11:29:27 PM

vegasj: but the Gov can't find the $7 Trillion the fed "lost"... or was that the pentagon...

I lost track


It might be in that pallet of money we lost in Iraq.
 
2012-09-27 11:32:10 PM

impaler: bestie1: You can see that there was a big dip in 2001 which was the .com bubble bursting just prior but it had leveled off by 2004. Since 2009 though we have been in a nose dive.

boomers started in 45. People start retiring in their 60s...

What's 1945 + 60 again?

Fuking retard.


Nope, clearly it's Obama's fault that people are retiring in their 60's.
 
2012-09-27 11:35:37 PM

Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years


GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
research.stlouisfed.org

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-27 11:40:15 PM

impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?
 
2012-09-27 11:45:11 PM

fanbladesaresharp: impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?


It's funny that you ask this question while I just saw Romney on TV in VA railing AGAINST budget cuts in Defense.

That's right, Romney is against cuts in government spending...as long as they're in defense.

So no, I don't take the GOP seriously when it talk about wanting to balance the budget. Thanks for asking.
 
2012-09-27 11:46:02 PM
Mrtraveler01: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

It's been trending downward since 2001, ergo it's all Fartbama's fault.

No need to make this political, you jackass. bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak


He showed no data showing a bleak employment situation.

Also:

Deftoons: bestie1: [data.bls.gov image 600x300]
Civilian workforce participation rate. Kind of hard to argue with.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

But the stimulus is finally working! B-b-but Bush! Romney is worse! Excuse!


If you're ignorant of the political statement he was making, don't insult those of us that aren't
 
2012-09-27 11:48:43 PM

fanbladesaresharp: So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd?


Jesus you're an ignorant moron.

First off, lying sack of shat, the debt increased 6 trillion, and that's mostly from unchanged Bush policies.

bridgeproject.com
 
2012-09-27 11:55:57 PM

ph0rk: ARE YOU BETTER OFF?!


Fark yeah. Who doesn't remember how shatty it was 4 years ago?

List of company failures.

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-27 11:59:07 PM

Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years


I just reread this. Jesus you're an idiot. Labor participation rates have almost nothing to do with the economy. It's about retired and 'too young to work' demographics.
 
2012-09-28 12:04:12 AM

Atomic Spunk: bestie1 simply posted a graph that showed that the employment situation is bleak,


It's coming to me now. Republican scum post "labor participation rates" decreasing, because people will misinterpret it to think it means that the economy is worsening, even though it just means an aging population is retiring.

Take note everyone.
 
2012-09-28 12:08:59 AM

impaler: fanbladesaresharp: So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd?
Jesus you're an ignorant moron.
First off, lying sack of shat, the debt increased 6 trillion, and that's mostly from unchanged Bush policies.


Look at the numbers: GOP presidents tend to increase the debt and deficit faster than Dems do. This is not partisan, it's empirical. But the common truthyism is that Dems are reckless financially. Look at how much Reagan added to the debt (but he broke the Soviets, you'll say... they were doomed regardless). Look at how much GeoW increased the debt, when you count the wars, which he didn't do because that would make him look bad. Who was the last president with a balanced budget? Several years in a row?

Most of that 14 trillion is on Bush. Deny it with support and numbers, or shut up.
 
2012-09-28 12:11:41 AM

Mrtraveler01: fanbladesaresharp: impaler: Deftoons: I'd say an economy under a good President would show significant signs in recovery in both employment percentages as well as labor participation after four years

GDP and corporate profits are at record highs.

Both graphs 1 year before Obama took office.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

So when he wins, is he going to pull back on that $14 TRILLION debt his guys OK'd? In two years or 30? Or never?

It's funny that you ask this question while I just saw Romney on TV in VA railing AGAINST budget cuts in Defense.

That's right, Romney is against cuts in government spending...as long as they're in defense.

So no, I don't take the GOP seriously when it talk about wanting to balance the budget. Thanks for asking.


OH come on now. Clinton closed bases all over the place. Have you noticed any military presence in or around San Francisco since 1994 among other places? Cutting back on defense spending nowadays without an active war to pay the soldiers and contractors (and their families and the money they spend later in the private sector) is like peeling the last peel off a banana and call it a savings. Sometimes I think O-man just borrowed from Clintons playbook and Romney, well...fark....he's saying what this week?
 
2012-09-28 12:19:04 AM

fanbladesaresharp: OH come on now. Clinton Bush I closed bases all over the place. Have you noticed any military presence in or around San Francisco since 1994 among other places? Cutting back on defense spending nowadays without an active war to pay the soldiers and contractors


The early 90s defense cuts were under Bush I. They were the right thing to do. we were no longer fighting a cold war.

The drawn out nature of the cuts means some took effect in Clinton's presidency, but Clinton doesn't get credit for that smart policy.
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report