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
    More: Cool, San Rafael, employers added, consensus forecasts, radio transmissions  
•       •       •

5715 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 10:21 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report