• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Economy Jobs Report: U.S. adds 255k jobs; Stock Market hits all-time High


You just changed the subject. I wonder why that is?
 
pinqy said:
You just changed the subject. I wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

Apparently when you talk about context it is on your terms not the reality and appropriate time frame, wonder why?
 
Conservative said:
Apparently when you talk about context it is on your terms not the reality and appropriate time frame, wonder why?
Click to expand...

You CHANGED the context. the topic was the employment situation report, and more specifically, part time for economic reasons. When I point out that what you tried to paint as negative was not statistically significant and not part of the trend, you switch to talking about spending, the debt, and the stimulus, none of which are relevant. It seems your only context is "Obama sucks" and everything that you can possibly point to that you think supports that is connected.
 

and your data is from... where again?
 

So your chart didn't paint a positive picture by picking the time frame and ignoring the current state compared to the start of the recession? We aren't better off by any standards. And yes, I don't have to claim Obama sucks, the data proves it
 
Conservative said:
So your chart didn't paint a positive picture by picking the time frame and ignoring the current state compared to the start of the recession? We aren't better off by any standards. And yes, I don't have to claim Obama sucks, the data proves it
Click to expand...

No...I was going by the current trend. You posted the July to August change as being relevant and negative. My chart showed that that is not the current trend. The beginning of the recession wasn't part of the context. So you switched context from current activity to comparison of two static points. You CHANGED to compare to pre-recession. I "ignored" it just like I didn't mention local unemployment for Fresno. But if you want the larger time period.....


But you have to pick your argument. Are things getting worse currently, as you first were claiming, or are things getting better but not as good in all respects as pre-recession. Choose.
 

Yes, that chart isn't accurate as BLS shows 6 million part time employees for economic reasons and that trend isn't even close to what the numbers where when the recession began. I love how trends that still have worse results than when the recession began or when that worse President in US History, Bush, was in office are touted as a success. Context is something you will never grasp with a liberal in the WH
 
Conservative said:
Yes, that chart isn't accurate as BLS shows 6 million part time employees for economic reasons
Click to expand...
Ummm that chart IS the BLS numbers. Those are the two main components of part time for economic reasons, and I thought the context of the difference in the two was relevant. Not included are those 270,000 who worked part time because it's the off-season for their industry (most normally work full time in-season) nor are the 187,000 who worked part time because they started or ended a job that week.


No? Let's look at the full one then, as an index where we set it at 100 for December 2007:

So it is now 31% higher than when the recession started, down from 98% higher.

Is it going up or down?
 

So, tell me how many part time employees for economic reasons were there the last two months and where is that reflected in that chart?

 

july a big month for tourism.....and part time jobs and we can see this with the jobs going to the very young and seniors.. the fuel costs got low and helped but now the fuel costs have risen
 

Normally it seems you follow me all over the forum but when confronted with actual data you seem to run. Is Post 60 actual data and where is that reflected on what you call a BLS chart? When the recession began there were 4 plus million part time employees for economic reasons with a total employment of 146 million and now there are over 6 million part time employees for economic reasons on a labor force of 151 million with 10 million more Americans than in 2007. How is that positive improvement?
 
The New York times piece is not as rosie as the street."The Bureau of Labor Statistics showing only 151, 000 job gains in August – well below the gains in June and July. Unemployment held steady at 4.9 %". We still have a way to go,and Middle class wages are still below par. That is one reason the economy is still lagging; in past recession Middle class consumer spending lifted the economy out of recession. Until we see decant wage increase across the middle class, we are going to see a lagging recovery. Obama has done well, but we are not out of the woods yet.

Nearly eight years of refusal to pass an infrastructure jobs bill by the Tea Party is proving to be a major reason as well for a slow recovery. This election is important, If we don't elect new and brighter members of the House and Senate this time around, we will have a slow recovery. In short, far Right Tea Party types like Ted Cruz need to be handed their Pink Slips, if not we are going to have an even slower recovery with less middle class purchasing power.
 
Conservative said:
Is Post 60 actual data and where is that reflected on what you call a BLS chart?
Click to expand...
Sometimes it is more useful and easier to look at the change in a data series. The best way to do that is to normalize the series with the starting date number being set to 100 and everything else expressed in those terms.
So for the index chart, The number of people part time for economic reasons is arbitrarily set to 100 for December 2007. In other words, in my chart, 4,618,000 = 100 In September 2011, the real number was 9,109,000 and so appears on the chart as 100*(9,109,000/4,618,000) = 198.5
And for August 2016, the real number is 6,053,000 so 100*(6,053,000/4,618,000) = 131.1
This is an easier way to look at the change as everything is in relation to December 2007. So the height, 198.5 is 98.5% higher than the start of the recession. And the current 131.1 is 31.1% higher.

Indexes are the way to go when looking at change from a fixed point.


Because it did NOT go from 4 million up to 6 million. It went from 4 million to 9 million and has come down from there.

You are trying to portray it as though part time for economic reasons is going UP from 4 million, when it's coming DOWN from 9 million.

Direction is more important than level. Is 7% a good or bad unemployment rate? it's bad if it's coming up from 5% and good if it's coming down from 9%.
 

Really? What was the Obama stimulus bill if not for shovel ready jobs? What happened with that bill, 142 million employed in 2009 to 139 million employed in January 2011. Seems you have a very selective memory and the left leadership loves you
 

Yes it did at a cost of 8.8 trillion dollars. So in the liberal world taking the number from 4 million up to 9 million then down to 6 million is a 3 million improvement? Wonder if it were a Republican if you would be so complimentary? I see it as 2 million worse regardless of who is in the WH. Seems the left cannot admit when there is failure and always has selective use of numbers
 
Conservative said:
census bureau, BLS, Treasury all of course rightwing sites, right?
Click to expand...

Just wondering, since you threw the data out there. Let's see..

Discouraged workers August 2015: 624,000 August 2016 576,000

From the BLS site here

Couldn't find any data from 2007. 2008 would be a better choice anyway, after the recession began. Looks like the figures are going the right direction.

Do you really think the Republican controlled Congress is doing such a poor job that the economy is going downhill?
 

I have posted the data but it goes right over your head, it was 400+ and today we are still almost 200,000 more, and then there are 6 million part time for economic reasons(Post 60) so much for the booming Obama economy. I think the Republican Congress is doing a piss poor job but that isn't surprising which is why I am voting for Trump, time for some real change.
 
Conservative said:
Yes it did at a cost of 8.8 trillion dollars.
Click to expand...
Show me where 8.8 trillion dollars was spent specifically to lower the number of people working part time for economic reasons.


So in the liberal world taking the number from 4 million up to 9 million then down to 6 million is a 3 million improvement?
Click to expand...
you don't think going from 9 million to 6 million is an improvement???? Or are you claiming the downward trend has stopped?


Wonder if it were a Republican if you would be so complimentary?
Click to expand...
I'm not being complimentary, I'm stating facts. And of course I'd say the same thing for a Republican president: I've never voted for a democrat presidential candidate.


I see it as 2 million worse regardless of who is in the WH.
Click to expand...
ok, you can look at it that way, but you have to acknowledge that it was 5 million worse and now only 2 million worse. It's dishonest to represent it as if it has been only going up.

Basically, reading just your posts, it sounds as if the number of part time for Econ reasons is going up.
 
Last edited:

8.8 trillion dollars is the amount the debt has grown since Obama took office, why if not to grow the economy and create jobs?

Of course 9 to 6 is an improvement but not compared to what it was when the recession started. The deficit going from 1.3 trillion to 1.1 trillion is an improvement too but still adds to the debt

Part time for economic reasons, discouraged workers, the unemployed show why Obama's performance isn't being recognized the way the left wants it to be
 
outrageous how the media allows the corrupt govt to LIE ... why does the media do this... yep becausse they also are just as corrupt and they work together

with the media and democrats push for MORE MONEY with bigger markets they now are pushing the one billion muslims that will enslave women and take the blacks jobs... just maybe some of these will wake up to elect trump and then trump hammers the crooked media

here s how the blacks have been used and abused by the democrats

//////////////////////////

The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey gathered data on the jobless rate of non-institutionalized men, 20 to 34 years old, averaged over the period, 2010-2014, for 34 major US cities. The data paint a grim picture for black men, particularly in the Midwestern industrial and the Mid-Atlantic cities. Like Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. all had black jobless rates above 45 percent. In these cities, more young black men were either jobless or imprisoned than employed.

Black joblessness in southern and western cities was modestly lower — as low as 31.7 and 23.3 percent, respectively, in Dallas and Seattle.
 

Maybe you don't keep up with things, but the economy has been roaring since 2014, and was well on the way to recovery a few years after the Great Recession began in 2007. It hit its high in 2009, and took several years, as was predicted by experts. The economy improved every year after it hit its zenith in 2009.

Imagine how much more quickly our country would have gotten back on track, if the Republicans had worked with the Dems, instead of obstructing to try to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I wonder how that worked out for them?:roll:
 

Let'see who is "keeping up." How many "First Time Jobless Claims" have been made since January 1, 2014? What is a "First time Jobless Claim?" How much can a newly unemployed person draw? How long can he or she draw? What effect does long term joblessness have on our economy.
 

Do you understand leadership? Stop buying the leftwing spin and tell me exactly what Obama wanted that the GOP rejected. He got his stimulus and when that failed rather than working with the GOP he implemented ACA and poisoned the well. Telling McCain, "I won, you lost" isn't leadership and it is the President's responsibility to set the tone but Obama has zero leadership skills and operates like a college professor with the other equal branch of the federal govt. This country would have come out of the recession much fast with a pro growth economic policy, not subsidizing his base
 

Trump represents some real change, no doubt. It's like a change from a sore toe to a broken leg, but definitely a change.

We'd be better off to vote out the incumbents who are running for another term in Congress. There are enough of them to make a real difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…