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.

(USA Today)   7.7%   (usatoday.com) divider line 205
    More: Cool, San Rafael, employers added, consensus forecasts, radio transmissions  
•       •       •

5711 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 10:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 09:05:16 AM  
Thanks Obama.
 
2013-03-08 09:12:53 AM  
Up voting.  U6 dropped also so the haters got nowhere to run.
 
2013-03-08 09:22:50 AM  
that's not counting the dead, elderly, children, enfeebled or people in prison.  That brings the REAL TRUE unemployment rate up to 145%

damn you, Obama!
 
2013-03-08 09:27:40 AM  
This doesn't count all the people who quit their jobs and killed themselves and their entire families because of Obama's anti-business regs.
 
2013-03-08 09:32:19 AM  

sigdiamond2000: This doesn't count all the people who quit their jobs and killed themselves and their entire families because of Obama's anti-business regs.


Okay, I LOL'd.
 
2013-03-08 09:37:21 AM  

sigdiamond2000: This doesn't count all the people who quit their jobs and killed themselves and their entire families because of Obama's anti-business regs.


What about all the millions of patriots locked up in Obama's FEMA detention camps? If you count them, U3 should be around closer to 23%.
 
2013-03-08 09:38:14 AM  

sigdiamond2000: This doesn't count all the people who quit their jobs and killed themselves and their entire families because of Obama's anti-business regs.


Yep. If you count all those, the unemployment numer is actually 66.6%
 
2013-03-08 09:40:05 AM  
Well, if Romney/Ryan had won we'd be at 20% employment. Everyone would be working three jobs at $2.50 an hour. Thanks 0Bama!
 
2013-03-08 09:46:05 AM  
The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?
 
2013-03-08 09:59:26 AM  
we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.
 
2013-03-08 10:01:28 AM  
I'll wait for the job numbers from the Obama Is Ruining This Country Foundation before I make any judgments.
 
2013-03-08 10:18:03 AM  
Under a tax cutter (Bush) the unemployment went from 4.2% to 7.8%.

Under a tax raiser, unemployment went from 7.8% to 7.7%

Conclusion: raising taxes destroys jobs and cutting taxes creates jobs.
 
2013-03-08 10:22:51 AM  
The skinny: Link, .pdf
 
2013-03-08 10:24:15 AM  
And the housing rebound is sparking job gains in a range of industries, from construction to furniture sales and mortgage lending.

Really good news.

/My HOV stock doubled
 
2013-03-08 10:25:03 AM  
GOP to contest numbers immediately because of "Socialist media bias."
 
2013-03-08 10:25:27 AM  
See, all those Republican job creation bills are working.
 
2013-03-08 10:25:32 AM  
Using drones on the unemployed has paid off!

Nice news, actually. No matter how haters might care to spin it.
 
2013-03-08 10:25:54 AM  

Unemployment rate: Men (7.1), women (7), Teenagers (25.1), white (6.8), black (13.8), Asian (6.1) Hispanic (9.6)

- Zachary A. Goldfarb (@Goldfarb) March 8, 2013

College graduates have an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. High school graduates have an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.

- Zachary A. Goldfarb (@Goldfarb) March 8, 2013

There is a massive gap in the unemployment rate between those who attended college -- 6.7% -- and those who finished it -- 3.8%.

- Zachary A. Goldfarb (@Goldfarb) March 8, 2013
 
2013-03-08 10:26:40 AM  
And we continue to kick Europe's ass.
 
2013-03-08 10:26:44 AM  
They're all low-paying part time jobs, labor force participation rate went down, shadow stats, cooked books, it hurts when I pee...
 
2013-03-08 10:27:58 AM  
The horror of sequestration in action.
 
2013-03-08 10:27:59 AM  
thinkprogress.org
 
2013-03-08 10:28:03 AM  
Trickle down on me, baby! It really works! Thank you, you rich, money hoarding billionaires!
 
2013-03-08 10:28:09 AM  
CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!

The Department of Labor is faking the numbers so that when it goes up next month, they can blame the sequester.

QUICK, BOOK ME ON FOX NEWS!
 
2013-03-08 10:28:31 AM  
i.imgur.com

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.
 
2013-03-08 10:28:59 AM  

MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.


Jobs numbers are pre-sequestration, post-tax increase.
 
2013-03-08 10:29:03 AM  

MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.


Nobody claimed that sequestration would take effect before it took effect.
 
2013-03-08 10:29:03 AM  

MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.


These are February numbers. Sequestration began March 1. If anything, this shows that the idea of "uncertainty depressing the economy" is nonsense.
 
2013-03-08 10:30:07 AM  
So, where's all that talk of a "jobless recovery" now?
 
2013-03-08 10:30:12 AM  

max_pooper: sigdiamond2000: This doesn't count all the people who quit their jobs and killed themselves and their entire families because of Obama's anti-business regs.

What about all the millions of patriots locked up in Obama's FEMA detention camps? If you count them, U3 should be around closer to 23%.



Since they are working in forced labor camps, they count as employed.
 
2013-03-08 10:30:24 AM  

MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.


I wish Republicans understood the economy and lagging indicators.
 
2013-03-08 10:31:18 AM  

HeartBurnKid: So, where's all that talk of a "jobless recovery" now?


It still is. While this is a relatively good numbers report, its still not amazing. Even at 250K per year, it would still take years to get back to full employment.
 
2013-03-08 10:31:48 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.


Now imagine what the rate would have been if we hadn't cut so much public sector payroll...
 
2013-03-08 10:31:49 AM  
Huh, I expected that to be Congressional aproval ratings.
 
2013-03-08 10:32:15 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Unemployment rate: Men (7.1), women (7), Teenagers (25.1), white (6.8), black (13.8), Asian (6.1) Hispanic (9.6)- Zachary A. Goldfarb (@Goldfarb) March 8, 2013

College graduates have an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. High school graduates have an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.- Zachary A. Goldfarb (@Goldfarb) March 8, 2013

There is a massive gap in the unemployment rate between those who attended college -- 6.7% -- and those who finished it -- 3.8%.- Zachary A. Goldfarb (@Goldfarb) March 8, 2013



So...we're supposed to blame Israel?
 
2013-03-08 10:32:29 AM  

max_pooper: sigdiamond2000: This doesn't count all the people who quit their jobs and killed themselves and their entire families because of Obama's anti-business regs.

What about all the millions of patriots locked up in Obama's FEMA detention camps? If you count them, U3 should be around closer to 23%.


Those people have jobs they're just not getting paid.
 
2013-03-08 10:32:55 AM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Huh, I expected that to be Congressional aproval ratings.


I don't think they have improved that much.
 
2013-03-08 10:33:27 AM  

NateGrey: MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.

I wish Republicans understood the economy and lagging indicators.


But my convenient, non-sensical, talking points exist in the now!

/4th dimensional thinking is for elitist liberal snobs
 
2013-03-08 10:34:09 AM  
Just wait till after the election is over. Then we will be able to see Fartbongo's real job numbers!

Do you know what's really sad? If Romney would have won, he would be taking full credit for this. Yet Obama was responsible for job losses in 2008.
 
2013-03-08 10:34:36 AM  

EighthDay: Now imagine what the rate would have been if we hadn't cut so much public sector payroll...


Unemployment rate if level of government employment was same as end of 2008? 7.2%.

- Justin Lahart (@jdlahart) March 8, 2013
 
2013-03-08 10:34:36 AM  

DamnYankees: HeartBurnKid: So, where's all that talk of a "jobless recovery" now?

It still is. While this is a relatively good numbers report, its still not amazing. Even at 250K per yearmonth, it would still take years to get back to full employment.


FTFY
 
2013-03-08 10:35:25 AM  
Obama is cooking the books to deflect from the real need for "austerity now" in the form of  getting rid of all civilian government employees and social programs.

Disaster Capitalism requires a disaster.
 
2013-03-08 10:35:29 AM  

Granny_Panties: Do you know what's really sad? If Romney would have won, he would be taking full credit for this. Yet Obama was responsible for job losses in 2008.


This was a big worry of mine. Had Romney won, conservative would have received the credit for an inevitable recovery and would have done great, underserved damage to the reputation of liberalism.
 
2013-03-08 10:35:47 AM  
The Bush Recovery in action folks.
 
2013-03-08 10:36:05 AM  

theknuckler_33: DamnYankees: HeartBurnKid: So, where's all that talk of a "jobless recovery" now?

It still is. While this is a relatively good numbers report, its still not amazing. Even at 250K per yearmonth, it would still take years to get back to full employment.

FTFY


Oops. Thanks.
 
2013-03-08 10:36:24 AM  
Better late than never. Now start buying stuff so I can write some more orders here at work.

/going to need a whole bunch more job growth to absorb all of the Sequester layoffs.
 
2013-03-08 10:37:09 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.


The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.
 
2013-03-08 10:37:26 AM  

mrshowrules: Up voting.  U6 dropped also so the haters got nowhere to run.


You say that; check comment sections on any articles and you will see people talking about how "real" unemployment rate is still in the upper-20's to mid-30's and rising once you work in all the number fudging the government is doing.
 
2013-03-08 10:38:07 AM  

o5iiawah: The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.


How are we spending "more and more"? Government spending has been falling for about 3 years.
 
2013-03-08 10:38:23 AM  
7 is the new 5 thanks to changes in the way the numbers are crunched mandated by Democrats in Congress in 2007.
 
2013-03-08 10:38:58 AM  
I have already been infromed via facebook that the REAL number is 14.4%, if they calculated things the way they did back at the arbitrarily-selected date of January 2009.
 
2013-03-08 10:39:29 AM  

o5iiawah: Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.


Look again.
 
2013-03-08 10:39:35 AM  

mrshowrules: Under a tax cutter (Bush) the unemployment went from 4.2% to 7.8%.

Under a tax raiser, unemployment went from 7.8% to 7.7%

Conclusion: raising taxes destroys jobs and cutting taxes creates jobs.


You have not properly unskewed those numbers, and thus they are not meaningful for comparison purposes.
 
2013-03-08 10:40:06 AM  

MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.


Notsureifserious.jpg.exe.html

Most of the cuts to employment so far in the sequestration are forced furlough days.  IE, civilian defense department employees being forced to only work four days a week (at a 20% pay cut).  They still have a job, so they aren't unemployed.  Eventually, however, there will be additional job cuts, plus those people who just got a 20% pay cut aren't buying movie tickets/new cars/new houses/whatever, so the people who make that stuff get laid off.  But it's way to recent for that stuff to show up in the figures yet.
 
2013-03-08 10:40:10 AM  

EighthDay: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.

Now imagine what the rate would have been if we hadn't cut so much public sector payroll...


7.2% is the number I've seen on Twitter this morning.
 
2013-03-08 10:40:15 AM  
Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Obama
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Currently: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 1.28% decrease


Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation when their budgets first took place

Bush
01/01/2002: 5.7%
12/31/2009: 9.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 73.68% increase

Obama
01/01/2010: 9.9%
Currently: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 22.22% decrease
 
2013-03-08 10:40:52 AM  

o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.

The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.


So three times the replacement number is a "rats ass hair above" in your opinion?
 
2013-03-08 10:41:28 AM  

Four years ago, we had 22.6 million government jobs. Now it's 21.8 million. We've cut 740,000 government jobs. data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES...

- Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) March 8, 2013


Socialism!
 
2013-03-08 10:42:58 AM  

DamnYankees: Granny_Panties: Do you know what's really sad? If Romney would have won, he would be taking full credit for this. Yet Obama was responsible for job losses in 2008.

This was a big worry of mine. Had Romney won, conservative would have received the credit for an inevitable recovery and would have done great, underserved damage to the reputation of liberalism.


I always thought a fairer measure would be by budget/Fiscal Year for which the President is responsible.

Obama's first budget/FY started in October 2009 and the U3 was at 10%.  That is a 2.3% drop to present.

Bush's first budget started in October 2001 and ran to October 2009.  The U3 went from 5.3% to 10% in that period.  That was a 4.7% increase.
 
2013-03-08 10:43:02 AM  

mrshowrules: Up voting.  U6 dropped also so the haters got nowhere to run.


U6 generally tracks U3.
 
2013-03-08 10:44:02 AM  
Thank You And God Bless You George W. Bush
 
2013-03-08 10:44:47 AM  

NateGrey: Thanks Obama.

 
2013-03-08 10:49:31 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: EighthDay: Now imagine what the rate would have been if we hadn't cut so much public sector payroll...

Unemployment rate if level of government employment was same as end of 2008? 7.2%.- Justin Lahart (@jdlahart) March 8, 2013


Nice.

So if we hadn't been cutting spending left, right, and center, our employment rate would be much closer to "normal," which would help firm up the economic recovery and get us chugging along again.

Instead, we're stuck limping along for the foreseeable future.
 
2013-03-08 10:50:06 AM  
www.washingtonpost.com


Worst Free Market hating SHOOSHULIST EVAH!!!!
 
2013-03-08 10:50:50 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: See, all those Republican job creation bills are working.


You mean the ones restricting abortion?
 
2013-03-08 10:51:20 AM  

EighthDay: So if we hadn't been cutting spending left, right, and center, our employment rate would be much closer to "normal," which would help firm up the economic recovery and get us chugging along again.


Not to mention the enjoyable fringe benefits, such as non crumbling bridges.
 
2013-03-08 10:51:32 AM  
This is the Herbert Hoover recovery. I knew it would happen eventually.
 
2013-03-08 10:51:52 AM  
Good news, despite repub determination to sabotage the economy and Democratic incompetence at stopping them. Essentially, you can't keep a huge, efficient, motivated value creator like US economy down, try as you might. One has to wonder why the party which claims to be the fiscally responsible one is so determined to destroy the economy (through austerity, sequestration, debt ceiling crises, etc.) in order to prove that the other party is determined to what only a bunch of complete idiots or crazy people would want to do--destroy the economy.
 
2013-03-08 10:52:37 AM  

humanshrapnel: [thinkprogress.org image 320x240]


Heh.  What's the date on that?
 
2013-03-08 10:52:44 AM  

Deneb81: MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.

Jobs numbers are pre-sequestration, post-tax increase.


Currently on the FoxNews front page:

i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-08 10:53:17 AM  

Type_Hard: Deneb81: MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.

Jobs numbers are pre-sequestration, post-tax increase.

Currently on the FoxNews front page:

[i46.tinypic.com image 233x258]


Oh for farks sake.
 
2013-03-08 10:53:31 AM  
The Socialist Obama that Republicans have created is responsible for the 666% "REAL" unemployment rate that Republicans have made up.
 
2013-03-08 10:53:49 AM  

Type_Hard: Deneb81: MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.

Jobs numbers are pre-sequestration, post-tax increase.

Currently on the FoxNews front page:

[i46.tinypic.com image 233x258]


to be fair, how are you shocked to learn that the GOP and Fox doesn't understand how economics works
 
2013-03-08 10:54:25 AM  

mrshowrules: DamnYankees: Granny_Panties: Do you know what's really sad? If Romney would have won, he would be taking full credit for this. Yet Obama was responsible for job losses in 2008.

This was a big worry of mine. Had Romney won, conservative would have received the credit for an inevitable recovery and would have done great, underserved damage to the reputation of liberalism.

I always thought a fairer measure would be by budget/Fiscal Year for which the President is responsible.

Obama's first budget/FY started in October 2009 and the U3 was at 10%.  That is a 2.3% drop to present.

Bush's first budget started in October 2001 and ran to October 2009.  The U3 went from 5.3% to 10% in that period.  That was a 4.7% increase.


Those are basis point drops, not percentage drops.  10% to 7.7% is a 23% decrease.  5.3% to 10% is an 88.6% increase.
 
2013-03-08 10:54:37 AM  
7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.
 
2013-03-08 10:55:10 AM  
 
2013-03-08 10:55:33 AM  

o5iiawah: The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.


Do you think that when someone retires his/her job just vanishes?
 
2013-03-08 10:56:05 AM  
Sounds like the current spin is "they can only say they're adding jobs by revising the jobs added downward for the previous months every month", despite the revisions last year averaging a net increase in jobs added of 24,000 per month.
 
2013-03-08 10:56:16 AM  
It's all business confidence because Mitt Romney returned to the private sector part-time.

Checkmate, libs.
 
2013-03-08 10:57:19 AM  

LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.


Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?
 
2013-03-08 10:58:39 AM  

coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?


Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?
 
2013-03-08 10:59:36 AM  
Remember folks, when the economy is doing well, it's because it took economic changes YEARS to take hold and therefore ACTUALLY is the result of the policy of former "our side" politics. Sometimes it takes the economy 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, or 28 years for the country to reap the rewards of economic policies...

But when the economy is down, it is the result of IMMEDIATE "their side" politics, like the mere act of getting elected, that cause economic downturn...
 
2013-03-08 11:00:13 AM  
Oh boy, rev up that spin machine. Remember kids, unemployment going down/jobs added/DOW at record highs is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. OBAMA IS THE WORST SOCIALIST IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY.
 
2013-03-08 11:00:14 AM  

LargeCanine: coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?

Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?


In the event you're NOT a troll, shill, or imbecile.

This is data from February.

Sequester didn't start until March.

Do you understand how time works?
 
2013-03-08 11:00:36 AM  

o5iiawah: The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire. Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.


You really live in a fantasy land, don't you? 7.7% isn't "OMG WE ALL HAVE JOBS" but it's a damn sight better then where it was when the other guy left the office.

and if it only takes 80K to replace the jobs lost when people retire, then haven't we cleared that threefold last month? So I fail to see the problem with this. Perhaps you can explain it to me
 
2013-03-08 11:01:36 AM  
For some perspective on how much we have lowered our economic expectations:

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-03-08 11:01:55 AM  

EighthDay: LargeCanine: coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?

Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

In the event you're NOT a troll, shill, or imbecile.

This is data from February.

Sequester didn't start until March.

Do you understand how time works?


I see you're not familiar with the TimeCube. Time is not an abstract concept that moves in Euclidean fashion. Your ignorance is astounding, even by Fark Lib  tm standards
 
2013-03-08 11:02:08 AM  
We get it, he's black.
 
2013-03-08 11:02:24 AM  

EighthDay: LargeCanine: coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?

Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

In the event you're NOT a troll, shill, or imbecile.

This is data from February.

Sequester didn't start until March.

Do you understand how time works?


Not since Obama stepped into his time machine.  Farked up the whole timeline...
 
2013-03-08 11:02:56 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?



The disastrous effects of the Obama tax hikes were offset by the spending cuts that the Republicans bravely negotiated into the sequester.
 
2013-03-08 11:03:38 AM  

LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.


The recovery isn't as fast as I want, therefore no recovery is happening.
 
2013-03-08 11:04:30 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: I see you're not familiar with the TimeCube. Time is not an abstract concept that moves in Euclidean fashion. Your ignorance is astounding, even by Fark Lib tm standards


I am ashamed for my ignorance and will report to the Conservative Reeducation Camp immediately.
 
2013-03-08 11:04:47 AM  

LargeCanine: Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?


sequester doesn't work that way. It's not instantaneous. Next month, we'll feel the effect. but you knew that already, right?
 
2013-03-08 11:04:58 AM  
slowly... slowly... hold... hold...
 
2013-03-08 11:08:09 AM  

LargeCanine: coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?

Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?


imshopping.rediff.com

(Farking) potato time.  How does it work?
 
2013-03-08 11:09:36 AM  

doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.


those are government jobs and don't count.
 
2013-03-08 11:10:03 AM  

LargeCanine: coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?

Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?


Funny thing: cuts going into effect 3/1/2013 and actually being scheduled for April of that year do not affect hiring for the period of 2/1/2013-2/28/2013. Don't worry, there will be plenty of people saying cutting spending lowered the unemployment rate this time around.
 
2013-03-08 11:11:57 AM  

Curious: doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.

those are government jobs and don't count.


as a metric of economic health, not really
 
2013-03-08 11:12:11 AM  

LargeCanine: Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?


Is this what Republicans actually believe? Can someone get these trolls a calendar.
 
2013-03-08 11:13:21 AM  

LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.


you're right congressional republicans have succeeded in their goal of slowing america's economic recovery. are you happy?
 
2013-03-08 11:13:23 AM  

somedude210: LargeCanine: Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

sequester doesn't work that way. It's not instantaneous. Next month, we'll feel the effect. but you knew that already, right?


Point of order: We'll START feeling the effects in a month. The furlough parts won't be felt for another month after that.    And it will build from there.
 
2013-03-08 11:13:31 AM  

LargeCanine: coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?

Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?


When did the sequester take place? What month are the jobs #s from?
 
2013-03-08 11:13:33 AM  

NateGrey: LargeCanine: Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

Is this what Republicans actually believe? Can someone get these trolls a calendar.


Calendars have too many numbers and facts... They are useless to them.
 
2013-03-08 11:13:40 AM  
So this is how a 1000 years of darkness starts, eh?
 
2013-03-08 11:14:57 AM  
i must be a socialistcommieamericahater to wonder how many of these new jobs carry benefits, grievance procedures, union protection ...
 
2013-03-08 11:15:30 AM  
TFA:  Employers added a much-better-than-expected 236,000 jobs in February

When your boss cuts your hours below 30 to avoid the healthcare mandate, you go out and find another part-time job to pay the bills.
 
2013-03-08 11:16:12 AM  

PanicMan: somedude210: LargeCanine: Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

sequester doesn't work that way. It's not instantaneous. Next month, we'll feel the effect. but you knew that already, right?

Point of order: We'll START feeling the effects in a month. The furlough parts won't be felt for another month after that.    And it will build from there.


considering that GDP dropped the last quarter of FY2012 just from DoD cutting back on what they spend money on, yeah, this is gonna be felt. It won't be immediate, it won't be cats and dogs living together chaos that happens overnight, it'll be slow, deliberate and breathtakingly beautiful in the destruction that it will bring

unless, of course, we get rid of the "across the board" part of the cuts and just have the departments cut what they feel needs to be cut to make the % of cuts they need
 
2013-03-08 11:17:23 AM  

mentula: i must be a socialistcommieamericahater to wonder how many of these new jobs carry benefits, grievance procedures, union protection ...


unions protection? shiat, I hope they're better jobs than that ;)
 
2013-03-08 11:18:20 AM  

Polly Ester: TFA:  Employers added a much-better-than-expected 236,000 jobs in February

When your boss cuts your hours below 30 to avoid the healthcare mandate, you go out and find another part-time job to pay the bills.


and then your boss will biatch about how he pays so much in the cost of his healthcare and how freeloaders ruin everything or some such, not understanding that Obamacare was put in place to prevent abuse of the system which drove up prices
 
2013-03-08 11:18:39 AM  

DamnYankees: For some perspective on how much we have lowered our economic expectations:

[pbs.twimg.com image 630x378]


That's hardly the norm and should not be our 'expectations'.
 
2013-03-08 11:20:19 AM  

NateGrey: LargeCanine: Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

Is this what Republicans actually believe? Can someone get these trolls a calendar.


Yes, this is what they believe.  They believe that economic data is real time and consequences are instantaneous, which is why Obama was responsible for all the job losses in the early part of 2009.  Study it out!
 
2013-03-08 11:20:43 AM  

hugram: Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Obama
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Currently: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 1.28% decrease


Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation when their budgets first took place

Bush
01/01/2002: 5.7%
12/31/2009: 9.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 73.68% increase

Obama
01/01/2010: 9.9%
Currently: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 22.22% decrease


I thought the budgets ran October to September?
 
2013-03-08 11:21:34 AM  

Stile4aly: Those are basis point drops, not percentage drops.  10% to 7.7% is a 23% decrease.  5.3% to 10% is an 88.6% increase.


True.
 
2013-03-08 11:22:02 AM  
These jobs numbers have nothing to do with the sequester, which was signed to law on March 1. I love how after one week, the media portrays the sequester as having no impact, if not a positive impact on the economy. I'm a fed and my program is being cut as a result of the sequester (a decision I respect). We're still in the process of notifying our contractors officially that our contract is being terminated. While I won't be furloughed or laid off, those who will should receive a 30-day advance notification. The impact from the sequester is not immediate, much like an individual does not have to move under a bridge the day he is let go from his job.
 
2013-03-08 11:22:26 AM  

skullkrusher: Curious: doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.

those are government jobs and don't count.

as a metric of economic health, not really


He meant the government jobs don't count because the measurement was about private-sector jobs increasing in February.
 
2013-03-08 11:23:05 AM  

dericwater: skullkrusher: Curious: doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.

those are government jobs and don't count.

as a metric of economic health, not really

He meant the government jobs don't count because the measurement was about private-sector jobs increasing in February.


ah, I read that as a snark. This is true.
 
2013-03-08 11:23:40 AM  

Polly Ester: TFA:  Employers added a much-better-than-expected 236,000 jobs in February

When your boss cuts your hours below 30 to avoid the healthcare mandate, you go out and find another part-time job to pay the bills.


FTFBLSR:

In February, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged up by 0.1 hour to 34.5 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2
hour to 40.9 hours, and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.2 hour to 33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $23.82. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1
percent. In February, average hourly earnings of private-sector production
and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents to $20.04. (See tables B-3
and B-8.)


Average number of hours worked increased instead of decreased this last month, as did wages. If you want to make an accusation about how this is bad news, read the damn BLS release first.
 
2013-03-08 11:23:58 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?


Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.
 
2013-03-08 11:24:42 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: mrshowrules: Up voting.  U6 dropped also so the haters got nowhere to run.

U6 generally tracks U3.


There were many months when the U6 ticked up when the U3 ticked down and conservatives would point to labour force contract as say it was bad.

If they both increased, they would say it was bad.

If just the U3 went up, they said it was bad.

With both ticking down, they don't know what to say except for "took long enough"
 
2013-03-08 11:26:10 AM  

jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.


You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.
 
2013-03-08 11:27:23 AM  
Plus your argument only makes sense if jobs are out there but there otherwise weren't people unemployed applying for them and the number of underemployed individuals shot up, which would have spiked U6 unemployment (hint, it didn't.)
 
2013-03-08 11:27:32 AM  

bv2112: These jobs numbers have nothing to do with the sequester, which was signed to law on March 1. I love how after one week, the media portrays the sequester as having no impact, if not a positive impact on the economy. I'm a fed and my program is being cut as a result of the sequester (a decision I respect). We're still in the process of notifying our contractors officially that our contract is being terminated. While I won't be furloughed or laid off, those who will should receive a 30-day advance notification. The impact from the sequester is not immediate, much like an individual does not have to move under a bridge the day he is let go from his job.


Partly yes, partly no. The Dow and the S&P500 are forward looking indicators. That they're going up despite the sequester hints that the sequester may not have a terrible impact on the economy. Then again, those who are betting on that claim may not realize the enormity of the sequester.
 
2013-03-08 11:28:00 AM  

jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.


People create jobs when they see economic opportunity. That opportunity can be tempered by outside factors such as healthcare costs, inflation etc but I have never heard of anyone saying I have extra money so I am going to hire to fill a position where there is no demand for additional output. Jobs are ultimately driven by consumers.
 
2013-03-08 11:29:25 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.


right. Poor people do... wait, that's not right. No, original statement was correct. Rich people do just not in bad times, generally speaking.
 
2013-03-08 11:30:16 AM  

EighthDay: LargeCanine: coeyagi: LargeCanine: 7.7% is slightly less terrible. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Maybe this summer will be the "summer of recovery" that we have been promised for 4 years.

Lowest tax rates in U.S. history.  When exactly are the Job Creators going to give us that Golden Laffer Shower?

Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

In the event you're NOT a troll, shill, or imbecile.

This is data from February.

Sequester didn't start until March.

Do you understand how time works?


If ever right-wing dogma required everyone to be blind, dudes like him would be mockingly referring to "liberal See-ers" and their scarequote eyes unscarequote.
 
2013-03-08 11:30:17 AM  

dericwater: Partly yes, partly no. The Dow and the S&P500 are forward looking indicators. That they're going up despite the sequester hints that the sequester may not have a terrible impact on the economy. Then again, those who are betting on that claim may not realize the enormity of the sequester.


I agree, though I still have fears of this being yet another bubble. A look at the S&P charts over the past 20 years is a bit of a buzzkill.
 
2013-03-08 11:33:56 AM  
Truth be told, the gov't doesn't have much control over the economy, despite what either side will tell you.

Everyone on this thread had more to do with the recovery than our elected officials.    Thus far all they have done this year is point fingers.  Meanwhile everyone else has picked up the baton and soldiered on.
 
2013-03-08 11:35:10 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 11:36:05 AM  

sigdiamond2000: This doesn't count all the people who quit their jobs and killed themselves and their entire families because of Obama's anti-business


Nice. With the money they save, the company can hire 400 more employees.
 
2013-03-08 11:38:15 AM  

bv2112: dericwater: Partly yes, partly no. The Dow and the S&P500 are forward looking indicators. That they're going up despite the sequester hints that the sequester may not have a terrible impact on the economy. Then again, those who are betting on that claim may not realize the enormity of the sequester.

I agree, though I still have fears of this being yet another bubble. A look at the S&P charts over the past 20 years is a bit of a buzzkill.


during the 1999 stock bubble, the S&P 500's P/E was 40. It is about 18 now.
 
2013-03-08 11:43:02 AM  

DamnYankees: o5iiawah: The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.

How are we spending "more and more"? Government spending has been falling for about 3 years.


This. The only sectors losing jobs really is the public sector where Congress and state governments are laying off the workers at a rate that not been higher since the end of WW2. The unemployment rate would be drastically lower otherwise. It really hurting in the southern states where they sliced away all the budget for public workers and used that money for big tax breaks for their friends and making points about the evils of Government, and they can;t even do that right because the economy is still getting better.
 
2013-03-08 11:44:36 AM  

dumbobruni: bv2112: dericwater: Partly yes, partly no. The Dow and the S&P500 are forward looking indicators. That they're going up despite the sequester hints that the sequester may not have a terrible impact on the economy. Then again, those who are betting on that claim may not realize the enormity of the sequester.

I agree, though I still have fears of this being yet another bubble. A look at the S&P charts over the past 20 years is a bit of a buzzkill.

during the 1999 stock bubble, the S&P 500's P/E was 40. It is about 18 now.


The P/E is a good indicator whether it's a bubble or not. The S&P's number is not a good indicator of whether it's a bubble or not. A low S&P number with a high P/E would be more indicative of a bubble than if the P/E is low.
 
2013-03-08 11:45:52 AM  
As I posted in another thread, it's important to remember context when we talk about employment numbers.  This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

static4.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-08 11:46:46 AM  

DamnYankees: As I posted in another thread, it's important to remember context when we talk about employment numbers.  This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 833x500]


yay capitalism, eh comrades?
 
2013-03-08 11:48:07 AM  

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: As I posted in another thread, it's important to remember context when we talk about employment numbers.  This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 833x500]

yay capitalism, eh comrades?


Not really a capitalism issue. Some of those other countries were pretty socialistic.
 
2013-03-08 11:49:13 AM  

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: As I posted in another thread, it's important to remember context when we talk about employment numbers.  This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 833x500]

yay capitalism, eh comrades?

Not really a capitalism issue. Some of those other countries were pretty socialistic.


hehe I was making a joke but I wasn't being sarcastic
 
2013-03-08 11:53:57 AM  
These numbers are bullshiat since Fart Obummer didn't harmonize the statistical quarks. Typical lib math. Just goes to show you 0bummer will do anything to be reelected. Study it out Rush Beck told me so.
 
2013-03-08 11:54:50 AM  
Republicans before getting elected: JOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBS
Republicans after getting elected: BENGHAZI DRONES BENGHAZI DRONES  BENGHAZI DRONES  BENGHAZI DRONES

What'll they bullshiat next?
 
2013-03-08 11:58:27 AM  
Just imagine what the numbers could have been if Congress had actually worked with the President during his first term. Yet you still hear from the right wing gas bags how he is the one trying to destroy the nation.
 
2013-03-08 11:59:04 AM  

EyeballKid: Republicans before getting elected: JOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBS
Republicans after getting elected: BENGHAZI DRONES BENGHAZI DRONES  BENGHAZI DRONES  BENGHAZI DRONES

What'll they bullshiat next?


According to my facebook, the latest assault on freedom is that the White House tours have been temporarily shutdown to the public for the Sequester, so now the terrorists have won and we're all speaking German.
 
2013-03-08 12:00:45 PM  

InmanRoshi: EyeballKid: Republicans before getting elected: JOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBSJOBS
Republicans after getting elected: BENGHAZI DRONES BENGHAZI DRONES  BENGHAZI DRONES  BENGHAZI DRONES

What'll they bullshiat next?

According to my facebook, the latest assault on freedom is that the White House tours have been temporarily shutdown to the public for the Sequester, so now the terrorists have won and we're all speaking German.


ze gud!
 
2013-03-08 12:01:14 PM  

NateGrey: LargeCanine: Hey, wait, I thought the Sequester was supposed to be a disaster and cost jobs or something. So, its not now?

Is this what Republicans actually believe? Can someone get these trolls a calendar.


If it is stupid and divorced from reality, you can be fairly certain Republicans believe it.
 
2013-03-08 12:07:55 PM  

Curious: those are government jobs and don't count.


ultimately it's money being taken out of the economy with the end result being less money being paid to business and therefore fewer jobs.  how does that not count again?
 
2013-03-08 12:11:46 PM  

dericwater: He meant the government jobs don't count because the measurement was about private-sector jobs increasing in February.


lots of private sector jobs depend on government contracts.  for example here in MA the defense industry is huge and private sector companies like iRobot have been shedding jobs on account of the sequester for at least a quarter now.
 
2013-03-08 12:12:50 PM  
The ghost of Hearst nods approvingly.
 
2013-03-08 12:13:06 PM  

skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.

right. Poor people do... wait, that's not right. No, original statement was correct. Rich people do just not in bad times, generally speaking.


Labor demand creates jobs.  Consumer demand creates labor demand.  Increased labor pool increases consumer demand for some products, and reduces it for others.

Rich people perform their function as the source of stock.  They aren't going to employ capital as stock, with all the risk associated with that employment.  If they can't expect a return on their investment that is higher than the rate of interest they'd receive by lending that money to a bank, they aren't going to employ it thus.

THEY don't create a damned thing.  The system does.  They are simply cogs in the machine.  As are we all.  As labor, the system needs me as well.  In the absence of labor, no goods could be converted into goods of increased value.  In the absence of stock, no labor can be employed in that conversion.

At this particular moment in history, we have a labor boon.  So the power is with the owners of stock.

There's nothing permanent, or even secure about that arrangement.

That's not, of course, what OP meant.
 
2013-03-08 12:14:28 PM  
And all private sector! Sure, they are only for navigating obamacare and produce absolutely nothing but it's private sector growth!
 
2013-03-08 12:14:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?


Job losses trickle down over decades. The payroll tax will add 5 percentage points to unemployment in 2023
 
2013-03-08 12:15:35 PM  

Graffito: o5iiawah: The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.

Do you think that when someone retires his/her job just vanishes?


Sometimes.  I worked for a company that provided early retirement packages for 15+ year employees, and their positions weren't always filled afterwards.  Usually, one person who already had a job took on the retired person's workload.
 
2013-03-08 12:17:50 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: If ever right-wing dogma required everyone to be blind, dudes like him would be mockingly referring to "liberal See-ers" and their scarequote eyes unscarequote.


It's the first time I've ever noticed his username, so I tagged him, replied, and released.  We'll see if he's a new "troll and run" account or just a well-infromed conservative.
 
2013-03-08 12:19:32 PM  

doublesecretprobation: dericwater: He meant the government jobs don't count because the measurement was about private-sector jobs increasing in February.

lots of private sector jobs depend on government contracts.  for example here in MA the defense industry is huge and private sector companies like iRobot have been shedding jobs on account of the sequester for at least a quarter now.


Let me correct my statement for the dim-bulbs here.

Government employment (or unemployment) aren't TABULATED because the measurement measures private-sector employment.
 
2013-03-08 12:23:12 PM  

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.

right. Poor people do... wait, that's not right. No, original statement was correct. Rich people do just not in bad times, generally speaking.

Labor demand creates jobs.  Consumer demand creates labor demand.  Increased labor pool increases consumer demand for some products, and reduces it for others.

Rich people perform their function as the source of stock.  They aren't going to employ capital as stock, with all the risk associated with that employment.  If they can't expect a return on their investment that is higher than the rate of interest they'd receive by lending that money to a bank, they aren't going to employ it thus.

THEY don't create a damned thing.  The system does.  They are simply cogs in the machine.  As are we all.  As labor, the system needs me as well.  In the absence of labor, no goods could be converted into goods of increased value.  In the absence of stock, no labor can be employed in that conversion.

At this particular moment in history, we have a labor boon.  So the power is with the owners of stock.

There's nothing permanent, or even secure about that arrangement.

That's not, of course, what OP meant.


Look, talking about "Job Creators" is an ideologically driven exercise. Talking about how rich people don't create jobs is also an ideologically driven enterprise.
When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.

Why did I open that business? Well, because I saw a demand for whatever it is I am producing. That demand indirectly lead to the creation of those jobs -  those jobs are a response to that demand. Just like polio indirectly lead to the creation of the polio vaccine.

the polio vaccine was not created by Jonas Salk. It was created by polio. Salk never would have come up with a vaccine for something that didn't exist. Ergo, he didn't "create" it. That is absurd and no one would ever say that.

Let's not be ridiculous for the sake of ideological bullshiat
 
2013-03-08 12:29:29 PM  
I haven't read the thread, but I came here to find out, from the GoP shills, why this is a bad thing.
 
2013-03-08 12:32:30 PM  

jst3p: I haven't read the thread, but I came here to find out, from the GoP shills, why this is a bad thing.


Obama purposefully had them only express the percentage to 1 decimal place. It was actually 7.77 and as we all know, 777 is a representation of the Holy Trinity to some Christian faiths. Study it out, libtardo
 
2013-03-08 12:32:31 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.


Nonsense - when times are good, and profitable investment opporunities abound, they invest their money in those enterprises - as self-interest would prompt any sensible person to do. But this lame-brained idea that letting them out of paying their taxes in hard times will help the economy is brain-dead. The money goes straight to the safest, most locked-down place they can put it.
 
Bf+
2013-03-08 12:35:14 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.com
/foxnews
 
2013-03-08 12:39:34 PM  
My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.
 
2013-03-08 12:42:40 PM  

doublesecretprobation: Curious: those are government jobs and don't count.

ultimately it's money being taken out of the economy with the end result being less money being paid to business and therefore fewer jobs.  how does that not count again?


you haven't been paying attention the last few years. the government doesn't create jobs ergo government employees don't have jobs. heck how many of them are in mitt's 47%. it's time we cut the takers off.

as for business they are makers and will quickly move into the vacuum creating real jobs.
 
2013-03-08 12:50:32 PM  
The shills in this thread are no good today.  WHAR SHILLS WHAR???

Step it up guys, you're usually my friday lunch entertainment.  I'm bored.
 
2013-03-08 12:51:04 PM  

skullkrusher: jst3p: I haven't read the thread, but I came here to find out, from the GoP shills, why this is a bad thing.

Obama purposefully had them only express the percentage to 1 decimal place. It was actually 7.77 and as we all know, 777 is a representation of the Holy Trinity to some Christian faiths. Study it out, libtardo


Plus: Benghazi!
 
2013-03-08 12:52:50 PM  

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


Given the mountains of evidence you are looking at you are right to remain skeptical.

Oh wait, your unemployed brother is your indicator of how the economy is doing? You are kinda dumb.
 
2013-03-08 12:53:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Curious: doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.

those are government jobs and don't count.

as a metric of economic health, not really


Because the money earned by public employees doesn't spend the way money earned by private employees does. Not like they'll be buying any homes or cars or toys for the kids from the private sector, right? Heck, they don't even buy food. They just go back into their pods at night and draw nutrition directly from a big pool of tax dollars.

Remember, everyone, when a dollar is taxed, it disappears from the economy entirely and is never seen again in any form. It is neither invested in private industry nor spent on public interests that help private industry. It simply vanishes, poof.
 
2013-03-08 12:58:11 PM  

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.


The world needs ditch diggers too.
 
2013-03-08 01:07:19 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The shills in this thread are no good today.  WHAR SHILLS WHAR???

Step it up guys, you're usually my friday lunch entertainment.  I'm bored.


Give them some rest, they just spent 13 hours fellating Rand Paul.
 
2013-03-08 01:13:28 PM  

peasandcarrots: skullkrusher: Curious: doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.

those are government jobs and don't count.

as a metric of economic health, not really

Because the money earned by public employees doesn't spend the way money earned by private employees does. Not like they'll be buying any homes or cars or toys for the kids from the private sector, right? Heck, they don't even buy food. They just go back into their pods at night and draw nutrition directly from a big pool of tax dollars.

Remember, everyone, when a dollar is taxed, it disappears from the economy entirely and is never seen again in any form. It is neither invested in private industry nor spent on public interests that help private industry. It simply vanishes, poof.


it's almost as if you didn't even read what I said and responded with whatever tired response you heard someone else say.
here, let me explain. The government (federal especially, but also state and local to an extent) don't operate like businesses (or households). They don't operate for a profit, they operate to provide services. As a result, they are not constrained in their hiring the same way a business would be. They don't need to be making money to expand. They have (virtually) unlimited borrowing power in the case of the Feds. They can hire more people in a downturn (Public works projects?) while, generally, a business might not be able to.
As a result, public sector employment isn't a the metric for judging economic health that private sector employment is since it isn't constrained by the macro environment in the way that private sector employment is.

Do you understand?
 
2013-03-08 01:14:41 PM  

jso2897: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.

Nonsense - when times are good, and profitable investment opporunities abound, they invest their money in those enterprises - as self-interest would prompt any sensible person to do. But this lame-brained idea that letting them out of paying their taxes in hard times will help the economy is brain-dead. The money goes straight to the safest, most locked-down place they can put it.


precisely. You managed to state the truth (which happens to coincide, to a large degree, with the "liberal" perspective) without sounding like a farking ninny
 
2013-03-08 01:15:48 PM  

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


If your brother is only half as dumb as you, then no wonder he is still unemployed.
 
2013-03-08 01:20:44 PM  

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


Maybe your brother is just an incompetent buffoon that nobody wants to hire.  Did you ever think of that?
 
2013-03-08 01:48:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.

The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.

So three times the replacement number is a "rats ass hair above" in your opinion

?

We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency?  Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point.  After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7%  An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it.  If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.
 
2013-03-08 01:50:40 PM  

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


My brother has a high school degree and has been working for a year, always able to find a job.
I believe things are getting better because I actually see some evidence.
Keep your accurate numbers and truths.
MSM is trustworthy.
 
2013-03-08 02:05:19 PM  

Curious: you haven't been paying attention the last few years. the government doesn't create jobs ergo government employees don't have jobs. heck how many of them are in mitt's 47%. it's time we cut the takers off.

as for business they are makers and will quickly move into the vacuum creating real jobs.


Governments might create jobs, but in the USA, where the government is almost purely parasitic, it does not create wealth. In a communist country, where government owns the means of production, it does create wealth--not very efficiently, though. In the USA, government might facilitate wealth creation, but actual wealth creation is in the hands of private enterprise. Government's job is to build roads, manage the postal system, provide and administer the law. Government jobs are parasitic. They exist only through extortion of wealth from others. All taxes are, after all, ultimately collected at gunpoint.
 
2013-03-08 02:05:46 PM  

o5iiawah: An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it. If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


According to what economists?

o5iiawah: If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


It is working, more slowly than we typically see but this was a global financial meltdown.
 
2013-03-08 02:10:28 PM  
o5iiawah:

We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency?  Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point.  After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7%  An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it.  If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.

THIS!
 
2013-03-08 02:17:13 PM  

o5iiawah: We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency? Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point. After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7% An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it. If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


The stimulus did not kicked in on 01/20/2009...
s3.amazonaws.com

Notice has the unemployment rate started dropping soon after the stimulus went into effect...
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-03-08 03:06:51 PM  
Looks like the same old crap with cooked books to me. I see no improvement and going on BLS proves that.
 
2013-03-08 03:30:21 PM  

skullkrusher: When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.


In a macroeconomics sense, though, you didn't open that business for no reason.  You opened a business because you wanted to make money.  You think that your business can make more money by increasing the supply of your product and or service.  You can't increase supply without hiring more people.  The number of people you hire is predicated on the expected demand and subsequent increase in supply.

All you did was decide you wanted to start making bookmarks.  If people hadn't come to you, asking for more bookmarks than you could produce, you wouldn't need more labor.  If you don't need more labor, you don't hire more labor.  The people responsible for you hiring more labor are the people who drive your demand.  Consumers.

Employers have no actual power over the size of their labor force.  They *control* the size of their labor force, but they don't really get to choose it.  The market chooses it for them.  Some employers think they can reduce the labor force and still meet deadlines and order size requirements.  MANY employers thought they could do this in 2009.  Now they are all bringing headcount back up because everybody's precious "metrics" are eating it, big-time.

Demand goes up, you hire.  Demand goes down, you fire.  So no, like you say it isn't the kindness of your heart, but cold calculation.

Aggregate the cold calculations of all employers in the country and you have our UE rate.  Which represents the aggregate demand of labor vs the aggregate demand of the goods and services that labor can provide.

You'll notice that in this evaluation, the employer is another source of supply and demand, and not an engine.  The engine is the system.  The actors are the parts of the machine.  Among which number those we affectionately call "job creators"

You bring the money, I'll bring the workers.  But if nobody brings the demand, we're going out of business pretty quick.
 
2013-03-08 03:32:00 PM  

SploogeTime: Looks like the same old crap with cooked books to me. I see no improvement and going on BLS proves that.


No improvement from 10% in October 2009 to today?  Did you notice anything happening when it when from 4.2% in 2001 to 10% in October 2009 (the end of Bush's last budget)
 
2013-03-08 03:34:45 PM  

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.

In a macroeconomics sense, though, you didn't open that business for no reason.  You opened a business because you wanted to make money.  You think that your business can make more money by increasing the supply of your product and or service.  You can't increase supply without hiring more people.  The number of people you hire is predicated on the expected demand and subsequent increase in supply.

All you did was decide you wanted to start making bookmarks.  If people hadn't come to you, asking for more bookmarks than you could produce, you wouldn't need more labor.  If you don't need more labor, you don't hire more labor.  The people responsible for you hiring more labor are the people who drive your demand.  Consumers.

Employers have no actual power over the size of their labor force.  They *control* the size of their labor force, but they don't really get to choose it.  The market chooses it for them.  Some employers think they can reduce the labor force and still meet deadlines and order size requirements.  MANY employers thought they could do this in 2009.  Now they are all bringing headcount back up because everybody's precious "metrics" are eating it, big-time.

Demand goes up, you hire.  Demand goes down, you fire.  So no, like you say it isn't the kindness of your heart, but cold calculation.

Aggregate the cold calculations of all employers in the country and you have our UE rate.  Which represents the aggregate demand of labor vs the aggregate demand of the goods and services that labor can provide.

You'll notice that in this evaluation, the employer is another source of supply and demand, and not an engine.  The engine is the system.  The actors are the parts of the machine.  ...


yep... as I said, it isn't based on altruism but it is reality. Rich people create jobs. Not because they're nice. Not because they're patriots. Because they want to make money. To claim otherwise makes you look like an idiot as the person I was originally responding to did
 
2013-03-08 04:09:33 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: skullkrusher: When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.

In a macroeconomics sense, though, you didn't open that business for no reason.  You opened a business because you wanted to make money.  You think that your business can make more money by increasing the supply of your product and or service.  You can't increase supply without hiring more people.  The number of people you hire is predicated on the expected demand and subsequent increase in supply.

All you did was decide you wanted to start making bookmarks.  If people hadn't come to you, asking for more bookmarks than you could produce, you wouldn't need more labor.  If you don't need more labor, you don't hire more labor.  The people responsible for you hiring more labor are the people who drive your demand.  Consumers.

Employers have no actual power over the size of their labor force.  They *control* the size of their labor force, but they don't really get to choose it.  The market chooses it for them.  Some employers think they can reduce the labor force and still meet deadlines and order size requirements.  MANY employers thought they could do this in 2009.  Now they are all bringing headcount back up because everybody's precious "metrics" are eating it, big-time.

Demand goes up, you hire.  Demand goes down, you fire.  So no, like you say it isn't the kindness of your heart, but cold calculation.

Aggregate the cold calculations of all employers in the country and you have our UE rate.  Which represents the aggregate demand of labor vs the aggregate demand of the goods and services that labor can provide.

You'll notice that in this evaluation, the employer is another source of supply and demand, and not an engine.  The engine is the system.  The actors are the parts of the ...


I could argue all day that the job was created when demand increased to the point that you needed an additional laborer.  You're just doing your job by hiring them the same way that the laborers are doing their jobs of producing goods through labor.  Laborers don't manufacture goods that have no market, and you don't hire laborers to produce additional goods if there is no demand.  It's not a function of rich people.  It's a function of the system.  If rich person A didn't pay poor person B to make good C, and person D wanted good C in quantities unproduceable by those already under the employ of person A, then coconuts.

/Just realized what time it is.
//I can't actually argue all day.  That was a lie.  But I'd like to.  Because I think you're just taking a purposefully simplistic view in order to have the upper hand in the semantics game.
 
2013-03-08 04:38:17 PM  

BeesNuts: I could argue all day that the job was created when demand increased to the point that you needed an additional laborer.


like how the polio vaccine was created when polio mutated into polio. Or how the labor you provide was not created by you but rather the demand for that labor. It's silly, it isn't semantics.

BeesNuts: You're just doing your job by hiring them the same way that the laborers are doing their jobs of producing goods through labor. Laborers don't manufacture goods that have no market, and you don't hire laborers to produce additional goods if there is no demand. It's not a function of rich people. It's a function of the system. If rich person A didn't pay poor person B to make good C, and person D wanted good C in quantities unproduceable by those already under the employ of person A, then coconuts.


I think you're trying to assign some connotative meaning to what I am saying. Demand does not create jobs. Demand creates the motivation to create jobs. Jobs are created when someone is hired. Just as wealth is created when you go to work every day and put your time in to help your company create value. The demand for your company's product or service is the reason WHY you "create" your labor, not the creator of the labor itself
 
2013-03-08 04:46:31 PM  

MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.


I'm sure someone will someday explain to you how time flows in a linear fashion. Until you are able to grasp that concept you might want to hold off on posting.
 
2013-03-08 04:47:35 PM  
Yeah the US took a stimulus approach and it (barring the damage caused by the republicans forcing of some austerity) has worked. Europe believed the Germans and went austerity, and is dead in the water. TAKE A HINT PEOPLE.
 
2013-03-08 04:49:55 PM  

skullkrusher: Demand does not create jobs. Demand creates the motivation to create jobs.


Why are you attributing the verb "create" to the action of the employer, though? That's the issue, in that you might say you are using that word without any connotation, but in reality every word has a connotation, and creation has a good, powerful one. If you would just say that demand created the motivation to offer jobs, that might be more neutral.
 
2013-03-08 05:00:08 PM  
If we don't cut taxes for the wealthy immediately, these kinds of positive reports will be a thing of the past.
 
2013-03-08 05:03:11 PM  

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: Demand does not create jobs. Demand creates the motivation to create jobs.

Why are you attributing the verb "create" to the action of the employer, though? That's the issue, in that you might say you are using that word without any connotation, but in reality every word has a connotation, and creation has a good, powerful one. If you would just say that demand created the motivation to offer jobs, that might be more neutral.


because hours ago I was responding to "You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have."

They do - all the time. Not because they're nice. Not because they want to help people but they do create jobs and to claim otherwise is farking dumb.

Desire for a product does not create that product. People see a demand for a product and they invest money in equipment and people to create that product. Hell, a guy could see a need for a landscaper in his neighborhood and create a job for himself in providing that service. Overgrown lawns didn't create that job. The guy who went out and bought a lawnmower and advertised and got customers did.
 
2013-03-08 05:06:20 PM  

skullkrusher: Desire for a product does not create that product. People see a demand for a product and they invest money in equipment and people to create that product. Hell, a guy could see a need for a landscaper in his neighborhood and create a job for himself in providing that service. Overgrown lawns didn't create that job. The guy who went out and bought a lawnmower and advertised and got customers did.


This doesn't make any sense. If the existence of a job requires two different inputs (demand for the product that job creates and the capital investment to hire the labor), why does only one of those variables get credited with the "creation"? They both have a part in creating the job. There's a reason that no rich person on Earth is hiring someone for the job of "skunk feces eater" - there's no demand for that service. So clearly you have 2 necessary conditions. Neither of them can claim the power of "job creation" for themselves.
 
2013-03-08 05:10:46 PM  

DamnYankees: This doesn't make any sense. If the existence of a job requires two different inputs (demand for the product that job creates and the capital investment to hire the labor), why does only one of those variables get credited with the "creation"?


because it doesn't require those two inputs. All is required is hiring someone to perform a service.
Can demand alone create a job? Of course not. Can a person with cash to pay someone create a job? Of course.
 
2013-03-08 05:15:22 PM  

skullkrusher: Can demand alone create a job? Of course not. Can a person with cash to pay someone create a job? Of course.


Why are you saying "can"? The question is "does".  Do people with cash offer jobs when there's no demand for that person's service?

The answer is, by definition, no. Demand is a necessary part of the equation. Without demand, the person with the cash doesn't do anything. Now, he can certainly hire someone to fulfill his own, personal demand. But that's still demand.
 
2013-03-08 05:34:38 PM  

Silly_Sot: All taxes are, after all, ultimately collected at gunpoint.


not mine. i'm happy to help pay for roads, education, (some) defense and the folks to administer all that. if you feel that the only way you are going to help promote the common good is to be forced it's time to go somewhere that you will willingly contribute.

in paying for the things i like yes, i also pay for things i don't like. that's how our system works. and i have ways to address those concerns. ineffectual ways but my congressperson is still taking my email.
 
2013-03-08 05:35:39 PM  

DamnYankees: Why are you saying "can"? The question is "does". Do people with cash offer jobs when there's no demand for that person's service?


because "can" is the important word if you're trying to claim that they are both necessary for job creation. They're not. I can create a job for skunk feces eaters whether there is demand for such a thing or not. That's part of the risk. If I create such a job and there is no demand for that service, the job will eventually be destroyed.

The demand provides the motivation. It does not actually create the job.

DamnYankees: The answer is, by definition, no. Demand is a necessary part of the equation. Without demand, the person with the cash doesn't do anything. Now, he can certainly hire someone to fulfill his own, personal demand. But that's still demand.


much like the creation of a vaccine for a disease does not happen if that disease doesn't exist. However, we would never say that the disease created the vaccine.
I have a pile of books on the floor. I could really use a shelf so I build one. Did the pile of books on the floor create the shelf or did I?
I probably wouldn't build a shelf if I didn't need it - the pile of books provides the motivation -  but the need for it doesn't actually build the shelf.

I am not a supply sider so this is not to minimize the role that demand plays in economic growth. Demand prompts supply which, in turn, spurs demand but it is a closed circle, generally speaking, with both sides feeding off of one another. Without supply, there can be demand but not for very long. Without demand, there can be supply but not for very long.

Again, this is just a continuation of a response I made to a stupid comment.
 
2013-03-08 08:22:09 PM  

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: Why are you saying "can"? The question is "does". Do people with cash offer jobs when there's no demand for that person's service?

because "can" is the important word if you're trying to claim that they are both necessary for job creation. They're not. I can create a job for skunk feces eaters whether there is demand for such a thing or not. That's part of the risk. If I create such a job and there is no demand for that service, the job will eventually be destroyed.

The demand provides the motivation. It does not actually create the job.

DamnYankees: The answer is, by definition, no. Demand is a necessary part of the equation. Without demand, the person with the cash doesn't do anything. Now, he can certainly hire someone to fulfill his own, personal demand. But that's still demand.

much like the creation of a vaccine for a disease does not happen if that disease doesn't exist. However, we would never say that the disease created the vaccine.
I have a pile of books on the floor. I could really use a shelf so I build one. Did the pile of books on the floor create the shelf or did I?
I probably wouldn't build a shelf if I didn't need it - the pile of books provides the motivation -  but the need for it doesn't actually build the shelf.

I am not a supply sider so this is not to minimize the role that demand plays in economic growth. Demand prompts supply which, in turn, spurs demand but it is a closed circle, generally speaking, with both sides feeding off of one another. Without supply, there can be demand but not for very long. Without demand, there can be supply but not for very long.

Again, this is just a continuation of a response I made to a stupid comment.


And what does all that have to do with the way the economy actually works? No one creates a job for the sake of creating jobs. They're created in response to demand. It makes no sense to separate the two or assign importance to one over the other.

I think you're confusing it with agency. As in, the man who builds the bookshelf has agency and the books do not. That doesnt mean both aren't necessary. You're not going to create a bookshelf factory if there is no demand for it.
 
2013-03-08 09:35:08 PM  
I just want to know what the mean and median wage of those 236,000 jobs are, otherwise the numbers are useless.
 
2013-03-08 09:50:38 PM  

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.

The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.

So three times the replacement number is a "rats ass hair above" in your opinion?

We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency?  Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point.  After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7%  An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it.  If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


Actually, after 5 years and trillions of dollars spent, unemployment rapid increase from 7.8 to 10 was halted and then spun around back down to 7.7. But hey, snapshots in time are the most effective way of showing the health of the economy, right?
 
2013-03-08 09:58:00 PM  

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


I just started a new job, one that pays decently and offers me full medical coverage. Is that sufficient evidence?

It's not?

Then neither is your anecdote about your brother.

/statistics, how do they work!?
 
2013-03-08 10:38:20 PM  

Thrag: MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.

I'm sure someone will someday explain to you how time flows in a linear fashion. Until you are able to grasp that concept you might want to hold off on posting.


But he has already posted! Suck it, TIMELIB.
 
2013-03-08 11:22:23 PM  
Weather is not climate, you dolt.
 
2013-03-08 11:24:37 PM  
We have less government jobs, unemployment continues to fall, we ended one money-wasting war, and will be done with the other one next year, and the stock market is on fire. What was the GOP so mad about? Oh, yeah. He's BLACK!!!!!1!1!!
 
2013-03-09 12:34:37 AM  
Boy, we've really set our standards low, haven't we?  We're still a far cry from the 5% unemployment rate that is generally considered normal, underemployment is still rather high, and people actively looking for jobs is still at low compared to historical levels.  The pendulum is swinging back, and the unemployment rate should continue to drop for a little while, but between the stats I just listed and what the strong stock markets mean (odd how people say the rich get richer, but out of the other side of their mouth, cheer when they get richer), I still don't see how anyone can think the economy is doing well right now.  It still seems like it is underperforming, and a drop back into another recession may happen a lot sooner than we think.
 
2013-03-09 09:38:14 AM  

skullkrusher: jso2897: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.

Nonsense - when times are good, and profitable investment opporunities abound, they invest their money in those enterprises - as self-interest would prompt any sensible person to do. But this lame-brained idea that letting them out of paying their taxes in hard times will help the economy is brain-dead. The money goes straight to the safest, most locked-down place they can put it.

precisely. You managed to state the truth (which happens to coincide, to a large degree, with the "liberal" perspective) without sounding like a farking ninny


Well, whenever I am right, it usually is a coincidence.
 
2013-03-09 02:29:41 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.


Bill Gates begs to differ.
 
2013-03-10 09:55:35 AM  
OK, but I'm stuck in a low-end public service job making 1/4 of my pre-recession salary and staring down the barrel of retirement with literally no savings, but "HEY, SUCCESS EVERYWHERE!"

Fark you all
 
2013-03-10 07:06:16 PM  

jst3p: According to what economists?


Look empirically at the healthiest economies in world history - specifically those that do so on their own merit and are not some mullah-ocracy sitting on massive amounts of oil.  Chile, the Balkans, Canada..prime examples of how sustainable growth and restrained entitlements are best for economies.

self-borrowing only works when you are the world reserve.  Other countries that have tried it have failed miserably.

efgeise: Actually, after 5 years and trillions of dollars spent, unemployment rapid increase from 7.8 to 10 was halted and then spun around back down to 7.7. But hey, snapshots in time are the most effective way of showing the health of the economy, right?


The way unemployment is calculated is perhaps the definition of moving the goalposts.  GDP growth is crawling along at fractions of a percent, we have a negative savings rate (meaning we spend way more than we earn, crushing the Keynesians belief that we need to spend more) and the labor force participation rate is falling along with an aging entitlement class.

farkers like to joke about how the unemployment rate doesn't count this, or doesn't count that but ultimately it does only factor in people who are actively looking for work and cant find it.  Those who are out of work and have said "fark it," are living off savings, other entitements, credit cards, or who are underemployed are not counted.  7.8% is not good. Neither is 7.7%.  Neither number is really indicative of the current economic situation.
 
2013-03-10 09:45:32 PM  

DamnYankees: And we continue to kick Europe's ass.


Really? That's a pretty anemic kick.

Norway 3.0%
Switzerland 3.1%
Austria 3.9%
Germany 5.4%
Iceland 5.7%
Russia 6.4%
Malta 6.6%
Romania 6.9%
Belgium 7.5%
Denmark 7.7%
Netherlands 7.7%
United Kingdom 7.7%
Finland 7.9%
Sweden 8.1%
Poland 10.6%
France 10.7%
Italy 11.1%
Portugal 15.8%
Spain 26.1%
 
2013-03-11 04:20:04 PM  

kg2095: DamnYankees: And we continue to kick Europe's ass.

Really? That's a pretty anemic kick.

Norway 3.0%
Switzerland 3.1%
Austria 3.9%
Germany 5.4%
Iceland 5.7%
Russia 6.4%
Malta 6.6%
Romania 6.9%
Belgium 7.5%
Denmark 7.7%
Netherlands 7.7%
United Kingdom 7.7%
Finland 7.9%
Sweden 8.1%
Poland 10.6%
France 10.7%
Italy 11.1%
Portugal 15.8%
Spain 26.1%



I don't know sh*t about Econ or most business matters, but take your list and re-arrange it according to population and then maybe see how it stacks up?  Or maybe even GDP?

I'm thinking is not all that difficult to keep a tiny country of say 5-10 million people employed....
 
2013-03-11 05:20:46 PM  

srschatzer: kg2095: DamnYankees: And we continue to kick Europe's ass.

Really? That's a pretty anemic kick.

Norway 3.0%
Switzerland 3.1%
Austria 3.9%
Germany 5.4%
Iceland 5.7%
Russia 6.4%
Malta 6.6%
Romania 6.9%
Belgium 7.5%
Denmark 7.7%
Netherlands 7.7%
United Kingdom 7.7%
Finland 7.9%
Sweden 8.1%
Poland 10.6%
France 10.7%
Italy 11.1%
Portugal 15.8%
Spain 26.1%


I don't know sh*t about Econ or most business matters, but take your list and re-arrange it according to population and then maybe see how it stacks up?  Or maybe even GDP?

I'm thinking is not all that difficult to keep a tiny country of say 5-10 million people employed....


Why would I rearrange by population? They are percentages which make population irrelevant. Apart from that many of those countries have more than 50 million people - a bit more than 5 to 10 million, what?

The US had an unemployment rate below 4% for much of the 1990s despite a population of around 290 million - you really were kicking Europe's ass in those days. And you had a budget surplus and a more even distribution of wealth. Then little Georgie took the presidency and the rest as they say in the classics is a godamn bloody tragedy.
 
Displayed 205 of 205 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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