Wages were considered the most important issue in the economy, not job growth. This is why many states held referendums in favor of minimum wage increases.
Despite the job gains, average hourly wages haven't budged, which gives you an idea of the types of jobs the economy has created within the last 6 years.
Quality, not quantity.
Wages were considered the most important issue in the economy, not job growth. This is why many states held referendums in favor of minimum wage increases.
Despite the job gains, average hourly wages haven't budged, which gives you an idea of the types of jobs the economy has created within the last 6 years.
Quality, not quantity.
IIt is impossible to know how accurate a measurement of a number is compared to another measurement of the same number is unless you know what that number you are measuring actually is.
.
Btw, according to the NOT seasonally adjusted household survey, there were actually 270,000 FEWER Americans employed in November compared to October.
Plus a whopping (again NOT seasonally adjusted) 735,000(!) less Americans employed full time in November compared to October.
Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
This report just gets uglier and uglier.
Is it really that amazing to see jobs increase at Christmas time?
What DA60 is saying about part time jobs may be true, but as long as the average workweek is increasing, I think that we are headed in the right track.
From today's report:
The average workweek has been shrinking for over a hundred years, I see no reason why anyone would expect that this trend would change now. Today's forty hour a week job would have been considered "part time" a hundred years ago, when the average workweek was 70 hours.
Is it really that amazing to see jobs increase at Christmas time?
So why didn't you bother to mention that WEEKLY wages seem to have gone up by 2.6%, a significant increase?
Seriously ???
So there's no discernible contributing factors that would explain why we're seeing a increase in part time positions ?
No Regulation ? No policy ? No mandate ? No LAW ????
It's part of trend thats beyond our control ?
Lol......
Sure there are reasons. These reasons go back a hundred years or more. A hundred years ago the average workweek was 70 hours, and the 40 hour work week would have been considered a part time job. Following that trend, by the end of this century, the 10 or 15 hour workweek will be the new full time.
The trend towards more part time workers didn't just start with Obama, if that is what you are implying. It also existed under Bush, and almost every other president in recent history, although I will admit that it jumped to a new level due to the Great Bush Recession (prior to Obama being elected):
It peaked around 2009, and it has stayed at this new "norm" every since.
And if you look at the report, you would notices that the number of people who are working part time because they can't find a full time job didn't increase last month, despite the fact that more people are working part time. This means that those people who accepted part time jobs last month did so because they WANTED part time jobs. Also, the average work week actually INCREASED!!!
Oh there's one really substantial reason you've seem to have forgotten.
ObamaCare's new Regulations forcing Businesses who hire full time to incur substantial cost increases..
I mean c'mon. You cant be this partisan.
Its one of the reasons why this is the worst post WWII recovery in our Nation's history.
Blaming it on some nebulous trend is bad enough but not admitting that the ACA hasn't substantial impact on the lack of new full time positions is just willful ignorance.
I'm not partisan at all, nor did I forget about Obamacare. I'm just not seeing any evidence that connects Obamacare, to shorter working hours. We've been working shorter and shorter working hours for more than a century.
There is no reason to believe that Obamacare is having that effect. Most large employers already paid for insurance, so I don't see how that would have effected them again. Most smaller employers, the types that tended to have part time employees, are exempt from the employer mandate.
Do you have any evidence that indicates Obamacare is having anything to do with more part timers, other than anti-obamacare rhetoric? And can you explain why the percentage of part time employees was increasing BEFORE Obama was even elected? Or why it soared up during the time gap between the start of the Great Bush Recession but prior to Obamacare?
Seriously, if you have any evidence that indicates causation, I'd like to see it. And rhetoric isn't evidence, it's just talk.
I'm not partisan at all, nor did I forget about Obamacare. I'm just not seeing any evidence that connects Obamacare, to shorter working hours. We've been working shorter and shorter working hours for more than a century.
There is no reason to believe that Obamacare is having that effect. Most large employers already paid for insurance, so I don't see how that would have effected them again. Most smaller employers, the types that tended to have part time employees, are exempt from the employer mandate.
Do you have any evidence that indicates Obamacare is having anything to do with more part timers, other than anti-obamacare rhetoric? And can you explain why the percentage of part time employees was increasing BEFORE Obama was even elected? Or why it soared up during the time gap between the start of the Great Bush Recession but prior to Obamacare?
Seriously, if you have any evidence that indicates causation, I'd like to see it. And rhetoric isn't evidence, it's just talk.
RighTEAs swarm the best jobs report number yet, as they do once a month.
Wishing they could have the good old days six years ago when we were losing 740,000 jobs a month.
Imagine the joy from rightists if President Romney had a job differential of + 1,061,000 jobs from Nov. 2008 .
I'm actually shocked no one attributed the increase to the new GOP controlled Congress.
Maybe Limbaugh and Hannity haven't said that yet.
Big colorful graphics made with superficial dats from the Daily Kos might impress you, but not me.
I would rather spend a whole 3 minutes getting to the bottom of what seems like good news for Obama and the Democrats.
You know, just because of the obvious tendencies Obama has to not offering up the whole truth.
Obama's like a really crooked Used Car Salesman.
You just can't take anything he says seriously.
I'm actually shocked no one attributed the increase to the new GOP controlled Congress.
Maybe Limbaugh and Hannity haven't said that yet.
Instead of pointing to monthly swings as indicators per usual, why not look at the actual trends? The number of those working part time has increased by 250k in the last year while over 2.5 million full time positions have been added in the same time period.Btw, according to the NOT seasonally adjusted household survey, there were actually 270,000 FEWER Americans employed in November compared to October.
Plus a whopping (again NOT seasonally adjusted) 735,000(!) less Americans employed in November compared to October.
Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
This report just gets uglier and uglier.
Big colorful graphics made with superficial dats from the Daily Kos might impress you, but not me.
I would rather spend a whole 3 minutes getting to the bottom of what seems like good news for Obama and the Democrats.
You know, just because of the obvious tendencies Obama has to not offering up the whole truth.
Obama's like a really crooked Used Car Salesman.
You just can't take anything he says seriously.
If we divide a Trillion dollars by all of the jobs that this Administration claims that they have created with that stimulus...
Are the wonderful job numbers touted by the Administration the result of fundamental growth or are they marginalized by the expanding population growth and the resultant natural expansion of the jobs market?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?