It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama: The jobs president that Republicans were looking for?

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You totally danced around that one. The reason its brought up is you are trying to say that the numbers of unemployed are conflated by a larger older age population. I am saying that is not the case due to the fact that people do not automatically become unemployed or retired upon hitting 55. So what does that say about your numbers of unemployed?




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot



lol

I agree with your post, just couldn't resist



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: Flatfish
All of us are currently classified as "unemployed," none of us are old enough to collect Social Security and none of us are on public assistance of any kind.


That's the thing about unemployment. If you aren't collecting an unemployment check you aren't classified as unemployed by the unemployment office. Your family isn't even being counted by the system.


I think that's where you're mistaken.

I believe they're counting us as a part of the eligible workforce that has given up looking for employment. I've repeatedly heard that this demographic includes those who are not applying for, or have long since expired, their unemployment benefits.

It's my understanding that the demographic in question includes everyone of working age, (16 to 65 yrs old) who is no longer seeking employment and I believe I fall within that category.

Then again, we could be talking about two different things.

One being the official unemployment statistic based on the number of people seeking employment and/or drawing unemployment benefits.

And the second one being this statistic, (that's being cited to infer that the official numbers are intentionally false) regarding the number of eligible people who have given up on both, seeking employment and/or applying for unemployment benefits.

It's the second category that I believe I'm being counted in.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Indigo5
Put bluntly...Either yourself or the media you are relying on is being dishonest.

They do in fact track people who can't find a job and stop looking...and most every other category.


They're tracked but not usually part of the numbers quotes for unemployment. The unemployment rate usually quotes one rate (U2 I think it is? Not sure on the name) while a more complete picture is one of the other rates.


That is a good summary of the ploy used by right wing media.

I would ask you to answer your own question...There are multiple measures. The U-3 is what economists around the world find most relevant to measure a workforces employment picture, but there are several other measures as you mentioned.

I would recommend you fully understand the definition of those other measures, examine them carefully to comprehend who is and who is not included and then examine the trend over both short-term and long-term.

Any economist...left or right leaning...can not take the "the U-3 is not the "real unemployment" number" propaganda seriously. More so when a typicial BS article will say there are other measures...but not specify...or specify another rate, without showing the trend.

Yes...U-6 is in fact higher than U-3...but looking at it charted over time, it is falling in lock synch along with U-3 and it has ALWAYS sat higher than U-3 as a second measure...so it doesn't benefit the hit-piece unless you strip the figure of context.

Again....Here is the GOP oft cited U-6 on top and the standard U-3 on bottom...

So...you can shout the U-6 is the "real" number and it is much higher than the common U-3...as long as you don't (a) fully define what is being measured in U-6 and (b) Never show that it is actually dropping along with the U-3 unemployment rate!




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Indigo5

You totally danced around that one. The reason its brought up is you are trying to say that the numbers of unemployed are conflated by a larger older age population. I am saying that is not the case due to the fact that people do not automatically become unemployed or retired upon hitting 55. So what does that say about your numbers of unemployed?



Unemployed (U-3) is not the "Participation Rate"..Like you infer above

And I highly recommend you understand what is precisely being measured by both or any measure.

Political propaganda relies on people not willing or able to understand specific measures designed for economic analysis.

Give me a specific question about a specific measure otherwise your questions are mixing different measures and who they measure as if they are all the same.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
How the Government Measures Unemployment


The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.

The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


Call me when labour force participation rate is going up and unemployment rate is going down.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.


I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.

The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)


I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.


Let me guess, you look around your town to determine if climate change is a hoax, as well?

You can't just simply ignore all data, facts, and numbers and opt, instead, to look out your window and go with your gut feeling.


Climate change IS a hoax. But way to be off-topic to get your agenda in there.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
How the Government Measures Unemployment


The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.

The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


Call me when labour force participation rate is going up and unemployment rate is going down.


Don't hold your breath!

As long as " baby boomers" who retire early are counted as part of the "eligible labor force," your "participation rates" won't be setting any records any time soon.

It's not like we didn't know this huge influx of retirees was coming.

Shouldn't the fact that we don't want to work have any bearing whatsoever?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.


I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.

The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)


I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.


Wow that is not what the data said in the OP at all. In fact it said the opposite. The number of Private sector jobs have increased dramatically since the initial decrease as part of the Great Recession and the number of Government jobs has decreased. There is no shedding of private jobs at this time.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: blargo

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.


I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.

The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)


I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.


Wow that is not what the data said in the OP at all. In fact it said the opposite. The number of Private sector jobs have increased dramatically since the initial decrease as part of the Great Recession and the number of Government jobs has decreased. There is no shedding of private jobs at this time.


I think he's trying to say, "you can either believe him or your lying eyes."



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
As long as " baby boomers" who retire early are counted as part of the "eligible labor force," your "participation rates" won't be setting any records any time soon.

Retirees aren't counted in the labour force. Only employed and unemployed. A key criteria in unemployed is the requirement of seeking employment. Something a person fully retired is not doing, regardless of age.


It's not like we didn't know this huge influx of retirees was coming.

Correct. And, if all things remained equal, that should have translated to an increased wage due to labour shortages. But, all things did not remain equal...like they ever do.


Shouldn't the fact that we don't want to work have any bearing whatsoever?

If you don't want to work, I doubt you care about unemployment rates, labour force, labour force participation rates, or how those refelct the health of the economy. So, no, in this regard, it has no bearing.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Like I said, it depends on how you tabulate it. Ultimately it doesn't really matter which rate you use but rather how many jobs you're adding. Like I said earlier in the thread, we have gained jobs. The problem is that the majority of these jobs are of a low quality. They're in the 25-29 hour per week range and at a far lower wage than the jobs they're replacing. Now more than ever people are working two jobs, that means that just to keep pace we're needing to add 2 jobs for every job we lose and when doing that, the people working are still doing so at a lower wage and at a lower quality of life.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
How the Government Measures Unemployment


The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.

The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


Call me when labour force participation rate is going up


You mean when we start whacking the elderly in nursing homes? Or when it becomes impossible for people to retire?

If the GOP eliminates healthcare and SS, Medicare etc. you might get your wish?




Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.

Among the reasons cited for the trend:

1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.

2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”

3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”




According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”

www.factcheck.org...



Millions of "baby boomers" — a generation typically defined as those born during the post-war baby boom that took place between 1946 and 1964 — have retired from the workforce over the past six years.

This is putting massive downward pressure on the total labor force participation rate, which currently stands at 63.0%

www.businessinsider.com...


Now...what you are inferring is that the 92 Million not participating are discouraged workers? Not retirees or disabled etc.?

well there is actually a measure for that...



Among the marginally attached, there were 665,000 discouraged workers in October, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in October had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

www.bls.gov...



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: blargo

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.


I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.

The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)


I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.


Wow that is not what the data said in the OP at all. In fact it said the opposite. The number of Private sector jobs have increased dramatically since the initial decrease as part of the Great Recession and the number of Government jobs has decreased. There is no shedding of private jobs at this time.


And I am saying that this data is a steaming pile of bullsh*t. Clear enough? I don't believe it because EVERY other economic indicator out there contradicts it. The real unemployment rate is well over 20%.

Explain to me why Target is closing stores. Explain why Heinz is laying off 2,500 people.. it is happening all over. A "healthy economy" does not shed private sector jobs like that. Take a freaking class or something.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Read my explanation. Higher paying jobs are being replaced by lower paying jobs. This causes people to need multiple jobs which effectively cuts the new job rate in half, and it reduces income. Purchasing power keeps going down year after year, thanks to improperly calculated CPI people simply can't afford to buy much of anything anymore. Purchasing power for the bottom 90% is dropping by about 4% per year right now. That's why stores are closing. They cut 3 40 hour/week jobs and replace it with 4 30 hour per week jobs. We gain 33% on the job numbers right there but there's no change in total hours worked and people make less money to go out and shop.

The unemployment rate isn't all that high, but the underemployment rate is out of control.

Throw in that productivity increases are also off the charts and a company like Heinz just doesn't need to employ those 2500 people anymore. The only fix is to drop to a 20-30 hour work week or to adopt an economic system that assumes a portion of the population doesn't need to work.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
You mean when we start whacking the elderly in nursing homes? Or when it becomes impossible for people to retire?

Since people in nursing homes and the chronically ill wouldn't be counted in the labour force...no. But, that does not fit your agenda, so I should not be surprised that you would jump to that conclusion.


If the GOP eliminates healthcare and SS, Medicare etc. you might get your wish?

I could care less what the Dems or GOP do...I'm not American.



1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.

2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”

3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”

Whomever wrote this is a joke.

Straight from BLS:

Who is not in the labor force?

As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job.





According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”

See above.



Millions of "baby boomers" — a generation typically defined as those born during the post-war baby boom that took place between 1946 and 1964 — have retired from the workforce over the past six years.

This is putting massive downward pressure on the total labor force participation rate, which currently stands at 63.0%

See above.

Now...whom should I believe? People offering opinion pieces or the actual source of the data? Source wins, hands down, every time.



Now...what you are inferring is that the 92 Million not participating are discouraged workers? Not retirees or disabled etc.?

I made no inference, so...

You should spend more time reading BLS's actual data, and less time reading the political co-op pieces.

As I stated earlier, call me when participation rates are up and unemployment rates are down.
edit on 10-11-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: blargo

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.


I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.

The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)


I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.


Wow that is not what the data said in the OP at all. In fact it said the opposite. The number of Private sector jobs have increased dramatically since the initial decrease as part of the Great Recession and the number of Government jobs has decreased. There is no shedding of private jobs at this time.


And I am saying that this data is a steaming pile of bullsh*t. Clear enough? I don't believe it because EVERY other economic indicator out there contradicts it. The real unemployment rate is well over 20%.



I love when people simply say stuff without any supporting evidence as if since they simply said it, it is true. I cite my own mouth! See the link to the last post where I said something!


Explain to me why Target is closing stores. Explain why Heinz is laying off 2,500 people.. it is happening all over. A "healthy economy" does not shed private sector jobs like that. Take a freaking class or something.


Explain to me how the hell the news can say it is raining in Seattle when I can look out my window here in Chicago and see sunshine!! Just total BS!! And it was 70 degrees in Florida yesterday, this whole "winter" is coming thing is a Hoax!



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Flatfish
As long as " baby boomers" who retire early are counted as part of the "eligible labor force," your "participation rates" won't be setting any records any time soon.

Retirees aren't counted in the labour force. Only employed and unemployed. A key criteria in unemployed is the requirement of seeking employment. Something a person fully retired is not doing, regardless of age.


It's not like we didn't know this huge influx of retirees was coming.

Correct. And, if all things remained equal, that should have translated to an increased wage due to labour shortages. But, all things did not remain equal...like they ever do.


Shouldn't the fact that we don't want to work have any bearing whatsoever?

If you don't want to work, I doubt you care about unemployment rates, labour force, labour force participation rates, or how those refelct the health of the economy. So, no, in this regard, it has no bearing.



I'm not talking about the "official unemployment statistic or rate" and how in the world would they know whether or not I've been seeking employment?

I'm talking about the statistic regarding the number of people who the Republicans claim are actually unemployed but not being counted in the "official unemployment rate" precisely because of the fact that they aren't filing for benefits.

So if they're not counting me in that number, who the hell are they counting?

They have no way of knowing that I'm voluntarily retired because I don't yet qualify for any govt. benefits, but they do know that according to my age, I should be part of the "eligible workforce."

Tell me again why I'm not being counted?

And don't be stupid! I have children & grandchildren and I'm every bit as concerned about our nation's economic health and prosperity as anyone else.





edit on 10-11-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join