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.

 

29.7 Million Seek Work

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
People ask, why all the talk about dogs and contraceptives? The reason is: jobs.


Tomorrow the Labor Department will release its April employment report. If the rate goes down, the administration will brag a bit, but they won't dwell on it. They know that the unemployment rate does not reflect the actual number of people who need work. Did you ever wonder how many of them are really out there?



Let's put it in pre-recession, real numbers perspective. In July 2007, at the peak of the bling-years boom, there were 146.1 million people employed, 7.1 million unemployed, and 4.5 million working part-time "for economic reasons," which, added to the unemployed, gives the number for "underemployed” (U6). There were 78.7 million people not in the labor force. The unemployment rate was 4.6%.



Last month, in March 2012, there were 142 million employed, 12.7 million unemployed, 7.7 million U6, and 87.9 million "not in the labor force". The unemployment rate is now (supposedly) 8.2%.


www.breitbart.com...

Wow Really?

Yeah it is Breitbart but www.usdebtclock.org... put's those number's in to perspective.

141 million in the workforce
22 million unemployed
46 million on welfare

Tomorrow the labor report will be released and we will see what is what but if that is indeed accurate?

The past 3 and half years has been a complete joke.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I think the real reason for unemployment is that we, Americans are lazy. You can easily get a job at any restaurant(fast food is an incredibly easy job to get) or retail. Yeah, sure a lot of our jobs have been replaced by machines or outsourced. But as everyone knows we do not want to work for low pay or have a crummy job, but who says you can't work your way up at these places? It's much easier to live off of the government. We should stop the welfare and unemployment checks. I'm sure people would get jobs then, instead of just complaining that their dream job doesn't exist or isn't there anymore.

~my 2 cents



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The policy that proceeded this last 3 1/2 years were worse.

It is a lot easier to take a healthy economy and run it into the ground in 8 years

than it is to take a depressive economy and turn it around in 4 years.

Bush took a STRONG economy and mismanaged it so bad, that it became historically

bad.

Obama has taken a historically BAD economy and help foster it back towards health.

You are hoping that America is stupid enough to forget when and how this started, I think

your strategy is not a very good one because not everyone is as fanatical as you.

A broken leg happens in a second, while recovering from what took a second to create can take

a lot longer to repair, that is a rule of nature and most people understand that premise.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
That's why i love ATS there is no place faster that goes from zero to blame Bush.

Second



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
That's why i love ATS there is no place faster that goes from zero to blame Bush.

Second


So if someone chopped off your leg, is it the doctors fault that you now limp?

That is how pathetic your argument translates -

The economy is improving every month, but you have to propagate lies and distortion

because otherwise you have NOTHING.

Bush did cause this situation the same as if someone chopped off your leg and caused
your limp.

Deal with it, unemployment is the lowest in three years, you should be happy for America.
edit on 4-5-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


80 million people would disagree with that and that's a




edit on 4-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunglower
I think the real reason for unemployment is that we, Americans are lazy. You can easily get a job at any restaurant(fast food is an incredibly easy job to get) or retail.


That's absurd. Sure, for a single guy in his late teens or early twenty's, with no bills or debt, you can take a minimum wage (or less) job in the service industry and scrape by. But what if, for example, you have kids and the daycare is more expensive than you can earn in a day? What if you have a household of two parents, both working minimum wage jobs who cat even afford to feed their kids and pay their rent?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


80 million people would disagree with that and that's a




edit on 4-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Your graphic is all distortion, thanks for proving my point



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sunglower
 


You are kidding, right? I have a 17 year old son who has applied at every fast food, retail, grocery and gas station within 30 miles of our home. He has heard nothing. I mean nothing, from a single place. Not one phone call. I did his resume, so I know that it is proper. He has no previous work experience. Tell me, why can't he get a job. He is trying, and is not lazy. I on the other hand, I graduated from college last year. Top of my class, member of two honors societies with a scholarship from a local hospital. I have applied for every job in my respective field for at least 6 months. I have applied for customer service jobs (that's what I did for 15 years before I went back to college). I also can not find a job. I can't afford to work at Mickey Dee's, I have 3 kids and $90,000 worth of student loans. $8.00 an hour wouldn't pay for my gas to get there.

Maybe before you start calling people lazy, you should walk a mile in their shoes. I know that there are people who abuse the system and it is a shame. But then there are people like me, who aren't even in the system. I can't believe how callous some people can be.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
People ask, why all the talk about dogs and contraceptives? The reason is: jobs.


Agreed. Both parties focus on such distractions because they both know the jobs arent returning any time soon. The notion that Romney or the Republicans have any more solutions than the Dems is ridiculous. Both parties are overseeing the transition of america from a country that has a healthy middle class to a country with an economy similar to India or S america.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 

You have an idea which may be widely shared, so I'd like to address it briefly.

It is a lot easier to take a healthy economy and run it into the ground in 8 years

than it is to take a depressive economy and turn it around in 4 years.

Actually, that's not true. It is the easiest thing in the world to take an American economy just coming out of recession and make it stronger than ever in four years. Every single recession since WWII has been not just turned around but made better than it was before in less than four years after the start of the recovery.

The amazing thing isn't that Obama has accomplished what he has, the amazing thing is that he has figured out a way to stall a recovery for longer than any other president in the last seventy years.

Council on Foreign Relations Charts

Economist Charts

Business Insider Charts

In fact a very good argument can be made that this is the worst recovery in all of American history, but for now let's stick with the facts of this "recovery" which doesn't feel like a recovery to anyone I know.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

The amazing thing isn't that Obama has accomplished what he has, the amazing thing is that he has figured out a way to stall a recovery for longer than any other president in the last seventy years.


In fact a very good argument can be made that this is the worst recovery in all of American history, but for now let's stick with the facts of this "recovery" which doesn't feel like a recovery to anyone I know.


I notice you dont seem to be taking into account that the entire global economy is teetering on total crash and the likelihood of an improvement in the US economy in such a time is incredibly unlikely.

Comparing this 'recession' to any other time in US history is just simply not accurate.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 

You have an idea which may be widely shared, so I'd like to address it briefly.

It is a lot easier to take a healthy economy and run it into the ground in 8 years

than it is to take a depressive economy and turn it around in 4 years.

Actually, that's not true. It is the easiest thing in the world to take an American economy just coming out of recession and make it stronger than ever in four years. Every single recession since WWII has been not just turned around but made better than it was before in less than four years after the start of the recovery.

The amazing thing isn't that Obama has accomplished what he has, the amazing thing is that he has figured out a way to stall a recovery for longer than any other president in the last seventy years.

Council on Foreign Relations Charts

Economist Charts

Business Insider Charts

In fact a very good argument can be made that this is the worst recovery in all of American history, but for now let's stick with the facts of this "recovery" which doesn't feel like a recovery to anyone I know.


This recession was not a typical recession, it was a free fall... Tell me Charles, why don't you
show me which recession consumed 750,000 a month that occurred since WWII.

You cannot do it, because there is nothing you can compare it to, there is nothing CLOSE
Charles which makes me suspect you are not debating in good faith, just like Neo. You
are taking advantage of the severity of the situation and ignoring the severity at the same time
in a very strategic way. You know it too, fortunately a retarded cactus can comprehend the way
you are contriving your argument, Charles.

From the bottom of this recession to even this months modest gains there is a 860,000 positive
job correlation. You can't tell me that is not a huge improvement.

It doesn't feel like a recovery because half of America is hell bent on keeping America
crippled psychologically, because those people fear the political consequences of
a recovery, because it means Obama will get reelected. It also means that a Liberal
successfully cleaned up the mess left by Corporate conservatism. We all know the
consequences success will have on the validity of Conservatism and I know conservatives
fear that.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by charles1952

The amazing thing isn't that Obama has accomplished what he has, the amazing thing is that he has figured out a way to stall a recovery for longer than any other president in the last seventy years.


In fact a very good argument can be made that this is the worst recovery in all of American history, but for now let's stick with the facts of this "recovery" which doesn't feel like a recovery to anyone I know.


I notice you dont seem to be taking into account that the entire global economy is teetering on total crash and the likelihood of an improvement in the US economy in such a time is incredibly unlikely.

Comparing this 'recession' to any other time in US history is just simply not accurate.


It is more than NOT ACCURATE, it is ridiculous beyond all measure.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Dear stanguilles7,

Thank you for your response. You are correct that I was not taking the global economy into account. And I would sort of agree with you that comparing this recession to another recession is inaccurate. It is inaccurate in the sense that I can't "compare" the girlfriend of Person A to that of Person B, but still, after seeing several girlfriends you can draw reasonable comparisons.

No recession will ever be identical to another recession, but if you say you can't compare them, then how can anyone say that one recession is "worse" than another? You have to be able to compare them. The President, Federal Reserve, banks, and investment houses compare this recession to others every week in making their predictions and forecasts.


the likelihood of an improvement in the US economy in such a time is incredibly unlikely.
If you are correct, is this being reflected in Obama's speeches? If he told us the truth you've found perhaps we would be better able to prepare. It also becomes a little difficult to believe that Bush found the policies (supported by a Democrat congress for the last two of his years) to create this monster of a world-wide recession.

Besides, are world-wide recessions that impossibly rare? Here are the first sentences from two Wiki articles:

The recession of the early 1990s describes the period of economic downturn affecting much of the world in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The early 1980s recession describes the severe global economic recession affecting much of the developed world in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

www.ask.com...
www.ask.com...

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952


No recession will ever be identical to another recession, but if you say you can't compare them, then how can anyone say that one recession is "worse" than another? You have to be able to compare them. The President, Federal Reserve, banks, and investment houses compare this recession to others every week in making their predictions and forecasts.



Sure, you can compare and contrast them. But what you did was try and EQUATE the current 'recession' with previous ones. That is inaccurate because your claim was that the current POTUS should have been able to get the US out of the current recession in a few years, and then tried to compare FAR SMALLER national recessions with a current global economic meltdown. Not even apples and oranges. You are comparing Apples and freight trucks.




If you are correct, is this being reflected in Obama's speeches? If he told us the truth you've found perhaps we would be better able to prepare. It also becomes a little difficult to believe that Bush found the policies (supported by a Democrat congress for the last two of his years) to create this monster of a world-wide recession.


I've said nothing in support of Obama or the Dems. Indeed the problem is with both parties, as I have previously stated. I'm just saying that there is little any administration could do with the current climate.


Besides, are world-wide recessions that impossibly rare? Here are the first sentences from two Wiki articles:


No world-wide 'recession' (fiscal implosion) has ever been as far-reaching as the current one. And this is just the beginning. Wait until the EU collapses.

Star for your polite response, tho.

edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Dear stanguilles7,

I'm beginning to see something that I've done that might have contributed to the sense of confusion I have. I did talk about recessions, and I'm beginning to see that wasn't very helpful in presenting my thoughts.


But what you did was try and EQUATE the current 'recession' with previous ones. That is inaccurate because your claim was that the current POTUS should have been able to get the US out of the current recession in a few years,
See, this is where I screwed up. Both in what I said and in the impression I created.

Let me try to fix it. What I'm trying to say is that now that the recovery has been going for just a little bit short of three years, we should be much further along. We always have been, this far after a recovery started. If the problem is that the rest of the world is having economic problems that are so big they are preventing the US from staging a recovery, then one, I'd like to know how that happened (it never has before, except maybe Middle East oil prices), and two, why did we fool around with the stimulus package and money printing? That would make the world situation worse.

There is the idea that the Democrats believe so strongly in Keynesian economics that they decided to pull out all the stops and go full bore following his ideas. Perhaps those ideas weren't correct. They have been heavily criticized, they lead to the "Spend more when you're in debt" policies.


and then tried to compare FAR SMALLER national recessions with a current global economic meltdown. Not even apples and oranges. You are comparing Apples and freight trucks.
Well, maybe not that bad. Unemployment during the 1981-82 recession was a bit worse than it's been in this one, so I suppose I could argue they're not wildly different.

In general, I'm disappointed in the pace of this recovery. Either government policies could make a difference or they couldn't. If they couldn't they had no business spending like they have. If policies could make a difference, did they choose the right ones? I think not, but there are some things that can't be proved in the world of economics.

One of my worries is that there is no way to have a discussion. If one side says this recovery can't be compared to any other recovery, and our policies are the best possible ones (even if growth has been 0.1% annually for the last ten years) then there is no reason to try anything else except voting for a new government to see what their policies would result in.

I'm babbling, forgive me.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
What I'm trying to say is that now that the recovery has been going for just a little bit short of three years, we should be much further along.




Sorry to jump around like a man on fire here but, we are very far along... the difference between
January 2009 and April 2012 is nearly 900,000 jobs swing in the positive direction. The Dow
was under 8,000 it is above 13,000, exports are up 34% in April, America's car manufacturing
industry survived and is stronger than it has been in over a decade, Oil Production is at some of
it's highest in US history...

Now I will not say that it is not hard for many, but I want to know how far along do you think it
should be Charles?

BTW 81-82 are not even in the same magnitude as '08 - I really wonder who you think you are
joshing around here, we all remember how terrifying that was.
edit on 4-5-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
What I'm trying to say is that now that the recovery has been going for just a little bit short of three years, we should be much further along.


WE 'should' be? Why? What specific things should have been done in your opinion that havent been?


There is the idea that the Democrats believe so strongly in Keynesian economics that they decided to pull out all the stops and go full bore following his ideas.


You are aware those are the same Republican policies that receded the current administration, right?




In general, I'm disappointed in the pace of this recovery. Either government policies could make a difference or they couldn't. If they couldn't they had no business spending like they have. If policies could make a difference, did they choose the right ones? I think not, but there are some things that can't be proved in the world of economics.


So what are the policies you think should have been used and what party has proposed implementing them?


Take care



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
If the govt. wanted to restore trust in them, the first thing they'd do is start publishing ACCURATE numbers.
Also the cost of living index is fudged to heck and back - it needs to be item to item comparison IE beef shouldn't be steak one year and pink slime the next, showing the same cost = no rise in cost of living.

The whole thing is a joke and anyone with half a brain knows it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join