• 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. Employers Add 169k jobs

A record 90 million people in the U.S. over the age of 16 are not in the labor force.

90,473,000: Record Number Not in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama | CNS News


Notice the lack of liberal responses to this thread and now you go and post this? That is a great way to drive Obamabots away, confuse them with data and facts. Only 90 million? Only up 10 million? But he is trying and if people would stop "hating" him the results would be better. Oh, by the way it is GW Bush's fault.
 
over 300k dropped out of the labor force, 866,000 people became discouraged, the labor participation rate dropped to a 35 year low at 63.2%, and zero construction jobs were created.
Undoubtedly a sub-par report, but you're plainly incorrect in your wording. The 866k figure you cite is the cumulative number of those discouraged from seeking employment due to labor market conditions, not a month over month increase.

Among the marginally attached, there were 866,000 discouraged workers in August, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data arenot seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.

Employment Situation Summary
 
Undoubtedly a sub-par report, but you're plainly incorrect in your wording. The 866k figure you cite is the cumulative number of those discouraged from seeking employment due to labor market conditions, not a month over month increase.



Employment Situation Summary

Discouraged workers is cumulative, it is a monthly number and discouraged workers aren't counted in the unemployment calculation that is reported but is in the U-6 number.
 
Discouraged workers is cumulative, it is a monthly number and discouraged workers aren't counted in the unemployment calculation that is reported but is in the U-6 number.
The changes are reported upon monthly. The 866k figure is culmulative, not a monthly gain as you claim.
 
The changes are reported upon monthly. The 866k figure is culmulative, not a monthly gain as you claim.

Better tell that to BLS because they disagree with you.
 
Better tell that to BLS because they disagree with you.
No they do not. Under the subsection of Marginally attached individuals, you'll find the total amount of those not in the work force due to poor job prospects is 866,000, up slightly from 844,000 at the same time last year, hence the BLS terming of the year over year difference as "virtually unchanged".

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.pdf
 
Better tell that to BLS because they disagree with you.

Last time I argued this with you, I was a BLS employee, so you're wrong. The monthly number of discouraged, like all other figures published that don't explicitly say "change" is the total number.
 
No they do not. Under the subsection of Marginally attached individuals, you'll find the total amount of those not in the work force due to poor job prospects is 866,000, up slightly from 844,000 at the same time last year, hence the BLS terming of the year over year difference as "virtually unchanged".

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.pdf

I had this same argument with another poster here and believed as you did so I wrote BLS and got an answer stating that discouraged workers were a monthly report. Year over year means the same month last year as this year. Not one month did GW Bush ever have over 800k in discouraged workers and there were many months when Obama had over a million. Those people aren't counted as unemployed and the more discouraged workers the better the unemployment percentage is going to be.
 
Last time I argued this with you, I was a BLS employee, so you're wrong. The monthly number of discouraged, like all other figures published that don't explicitly say "change" is the total number.

Does it really make a difference? The number is too high, the number isn't counted in the official unemployment rate, and never did GW Bush have any numbers as high as Obama.
 
I had this same argument with another poster here and believed as you did so I wrote BLS and got an answer stating that discouraged workers were a monthly report. Year over year means the same month last year as this year. Not one month did GW Bush ever have over 800k in discouraged workers and there were many months when Obama had over a million. Those people aren't counted as unemployed and the more discouraged workers the better the unemployment percentage is going to be.
Yes, it is a monthly report...that doesn't mean the number of new discouraged. People can, and will be, discouraged for months. Look at the numbers: A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex. see how they add up? It would make no sense if that were new discouraged.
 
Yes, it is a monthly report...that doesn't mean the number of new discouraged. People can, and will be, discouraged for months. Look at the numbers: A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex. see how they add up? It would make no sense if that were new discouraged.

That was never the point, of course some people remain discouraged for months which is why it isn't a cumulative number, it is a monthly number and last month it was over 800k and is ignored when talking about Obama performance.
 
That was never the point, of course some people remain discouraged for months

Then why have you been falsely claiming it was the number so became discouraged that month?

it is a monthly number and last month it was over 800k and is ignored when talking about Obama performance.
Right....866,000 in August.....down from 988,000 in July...an improvement.
 
The point is one month the numbers are low. Good for the GOP! One month the numbers are high. Good for the Dems!

The point is the unemployment problem goes way beyond the Democrats and the Republicans.

If you have the time, listen to this fantastic podcast from Common Sense with Dan Carlin:
Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website

Basically, the jobs are not coming back. As long as Bangladeshis can be forced to work for pennies as a factory crumbles beneath their feet, the US labor force cannot compete. Only a rejection of globalization and the restoration of regional trade policies can reverse the trend.
 
Then why have you been falsely claiming it was the number so became discouraged that month?


Right....866,000 in August.....down from 988,000 in July...an improvement.

Yep, some of those discouraged have now dropped out of the labor force completely. Congratulations! Labor force dropped, employment number dropped, labor participation rate is the worst in 35 years. The number of discouraged is a monthly number and that has always been my point. sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
Yep, some of those discouraged have now dropped out of the labor force completely. Congratulations! Labor force dropped, employment number dropped, labor participation rate is the worst in 35 years. The number of discouraged is a monthly number and that has always been my point. sorry if I wasn't clear.

Yeah, when you wrote "866,000 people became discouraged" it seemed like you meant 866,000 people became discouraged rather than the total number. As for the drop, some started looking and some of those found jobs...some decided they no longer wanted one, and some went over the 12 month cut-off. The reason for the time limit is that by that point, they're no more likely to start looking than those who say they don't want a job.
 
Yeah, when you wrote "866,000 people became discouraged" it seemed like you meant 866,000 people became discouraged rather than the total number. As for the drop, some started looking and some of those found jobs...some decided they no longer wanted one, and some went over the 12 month cut-off. The reason for the time limit is that by that point, they're no more likely to start looking than those who say they don't want a job.
44

Bottomline, the Obama economic plan has led to the lowest labor participation rate in 35 years and thus is a disaster. Far too many including Obama have no understanding of the private sector and his economic policies reflect that. The best news for the economy and the private sector would be Obama announcing his resignation.
 
Actually, the problem predates Obama's administration and dates back to Greenspan/Clinton. Those two set the trajectory we are on. We are now still living in the aftermath of their bubble.

Of course Bush and Obama should have taken the hit and cut the budget. They didn't and so we are still stumbling along.

Ahhh you go further back to Reagan trickle down did not exactly work!!
 
Ahhh you go further back to Reagan trickle down did not exactly work!!

Not sure where you get your information but bls, bea, and the U.S. treasury say you are wrong, Reagan economy created 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, and increased govt. revenue by 60%. Now you people can continue to try and divert from the Obama disaster but the numbers just make you look and sound foolish. Get some pride and stop believing what the left tells you. BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury are great sites and prove the liberal rhetoric wrong.
 
Not sure where you get your information but bls, bea, and the U.S. treasury say you are wrong, Reagan economy created 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, and increased govt. revenue by 60%. Now you people can continue to try and divert from the Obama disaster but the numbers just make you look and sound foolish. Get some pride and stop believing what the left tells you. BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury are great sites and prove the liberal rhetoric wrong.

The Mystery Of Income Inequality Broken Down To One Simple Chart - Forbes


Umm it pretty much common knowledge. Plus you are sighting jobs created. You do realize Reagan almost tripled the debt in doing so. Plus income disparity started getting out of control under him. Which was his handlers sole premise. Not saying Clinton didn't have a hand in it as well. However Republicans are the worst about it and what is really sick is they think they had nothing to do with it. I guess that's why they want history books rewritten, 50 years from now will the bible say Reagan died on the cross for your sins??? You live in a state where income equality is at a record low or are you just blind to that fact? It called serfdom and that is what the rich want and they paid a lot to get it.
 
The Mystery Of Income Inequality Broken Down To One Simple Chart - Forbes


Umm it pretty much common knowledge. Plus you are sighting jobs created. You do realize Reagan almost tripled the debt in doing so. Plus income disparity started getting out of control under him. Which was his handlers sole premise. Not saying Clinton didn't have a hand in it as well. However Republicans are the worst about it and what is really sick is they think they had nothing to do with it. I guess that's why they want history books rewritten, 50 years from now will the bible say Reagan died on the cross for your sins??? You live in a state where income equality is at a record low or are you just blind to that fact? It called serfdom and that is what the rich want and they paid a lot to get it.


Yes, Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion dollars and we got a peace dividend out of that, doubling of GDP, 60% increase in Income tax revenue, and 17 million jobs. Not a bad return on that investment. Wonder what the debt service is on the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt vs. the 6.4 trillion Obama debt?

You and others like you just don't get it and probably never will. The rest of us will be paying for that ignorance for a long time. Doubt seriously you were around in the 80's or old enough to understand what Reagan inherited. Too bad you and others like you are spending so much time demonizing Reagan that you are ignoring that this country was built on equal opportunity not equal outcome.
 
Yes, Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion dollars and we got a peace dividend out of that, doubling of GDP, 60% increase in Income tax revenue, and 17 million jobs. Not a bad return on that investment. Wonder what the debt service is on the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt vs. the 6.4 trillion Obama debt?

You and others like you just don't get it and probably never will. The rest of us will be paying for that ignorance for a long time. Doubt seriously you were around in the 80's or old enough to understand what Reagan inherited. Too bad you and others like you are spending so much time demonizing Reagan that you are ignoring that this country was built on equal opportunity not equal outcome.


You say ignorance last time I checked the debt was 12 trillion before Obama took office. Plus had Bush stayed on the path that was laid down by Clinton we would have very little debt. So who is really being ignorant??? Bush and Republicans from his era are the main causes of the debt or do you forget the wasted money on the wars. Medicare part d, and the tax cuts that produced nothing except making his buddies very wealthy.
 
Back
Top Bottom