It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


December Jobs Report: U.S. Creates 74,000 Jobs, Unemployment Rate Down To 6.7%

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by nwtrucker

That's great that they have developed high priced and inefficient technologies to bring resources into a market where people cannot afford to purchase them because of the cost, aside from the fact those jobs provided in those industries are potentially only temporary.

I suppose the cleanup and environmental recovery jobs from the mess it all makes could be considered a boost to the economy also, even though those jobs are more than likely only temporary too.

This entire mess can only go in one direction, hope won't change anything.

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by beezzer

I did. You missed my point. Government offers less, puts it as a benefit, and people are over-joyed!

Awww.... how was I supposed to know you were being sarcastic?

You didn't put a winking smiley there or nothin!!!


posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:39 PM
Here's another thought.

How many have simply started going Gault (or going Greece)?

A lot of people have given up on tax liable work, but are they still working while drawing benefits from the state. Is there a thriving gray and black economy going, especially in more rural areas?

The implications of this are actually terrifying. What are those nearly 92 million people doing with their time, other than sitting around depressed?. Many, of course, are on some version of welfare. Some are panhandling. We see the homeless on the streets of all our big cities. Others are moving into a shadow economy, much of it illegal (drugs, prostitution), not paying taxes on whatever they earn. It’s truly a sad situation. No wonder so many states are moving toward legalizing grass. Everyone wants to zone out.

Simon assumes that the underground economy would mostly be illegal, and if you count the angle of it being free of taxes, it would be. However, how many people are picking up odd jobs on a barter or cash basis for friends and neighbors or even just people around town to help supplement that benefits check? How many are discovering that they can be better off that way than they ever were working as wage slaves and being taxed?

What does that mean if things don't start to change in a big way from the top down and soon?

Will we soon start to look like this:

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner

High priced?? When you have something better then comment. The prices are dropping. The product is cleaner than ever.

I will take 'temporary" construction jobs as ALL construction jobs are temporary! Hello? The support industry is manufacturing based and isn't temporary either.

A little competition for Buffet's railroad interests is also a good thing, from what I can see.

Inefficient? In a couple of short years, we've made the Mid-east oil nearly irrelevant.

The natural gas production on top of the oil production has given us the breathing space to recover and even perhaps develop even better energy sources.

You wouldn't happen to work for the Saudis, would you???

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:41 AM
Yey! More service sector jobs that pay almost half as much as things like manufacturing and don't even keep up with the cost of living in most urban regions of the country. (So you may be employed, but are still very much in need of welfare.) They really need to show the undlerlying numbers and mean income of these new jobs vs. jobs lost or jobs created in previous years or quarters and then index that to inflation in terms of today's dollars.

Economic vitality isn't just about jobs, but amount of per-capita income which is available to spend freely. Something the government economists don't seem to like showing. The long term trend (outside the few goods that have become cheaper over years such as electronics) will likely show a decline in purchase power since the 1990s for the majority of the population.

Real economic growth is when new jobs pay as good or better than the old ones in terms of keeping up with inflation. That's what I'd like to see.

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

You know they are only going to be able to fudge the numbers for a short time more, because they are almost out of fudge. It is easier to work with truth then lies. The truth gives one a starting point. One does not know where to start with the lies.

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 11:58 AM


posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by Tarzan the apeman.

Meanwhile because of the over usage of fudge in Washington. It causes a shortage for the regular public and prices go sky high for fudge.
chocolate lovers are sadden. cryb:

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 02:38 AM

These American companies turned their back on the American people, plain and simple.

As a people, we have failed to keep our government in check... that's the real truth!

Obama has given it lip service, but has effectively done nothing. I wish he would spend the political capital he doles out for setting up the gun grab and spend it instead on removing the Bush era out sourcing tax credits. But, one thing is certain, if someone agrees with the "spread the wealth" sentiment then you should support the "spread the jobs" sentiment or be rightly labeled a hypocrite. India is by far poorer than the U.S., so sending jobs there is certainly spreading some wealth to the less forunate; which many Americans here at ATS support.

Look no further than Target. Target Technologies, developer of Target's proprietary POS software, is headquartered and operated in India. We could send India computers, sure that's a little wealth distribution, but it's far more effective to send them high quality software development opportunities. It's kind of like, "Why give a man a fish dinner and feed him for only a single night when you can teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime?"

Fact is though, the tax credits for corporations to specifically ship US jobs, and good ones not just answering phones, to India was largely political and had nothing to do with Bush's desire to see India do well. India was quite dismayed at how the U.S. was cozying up to Pakistan in the war on terror; so we threw them a bone in the form of incentivizing US big business to ship jobs India's way and keep them quiet on Kashmir.

On a side note, while everyone is focused on Iran, Israel, and the future of Palestine; I personally think Kashmir is at the center of a ticking nuclear bomb that will start the cascade of World War III. India and Pakistan put their grievances on hold while we sent Pakistan drones and India jobs; now that those U.S. wells are running dry look for them to get back at each other's throats.

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 02:42 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yeah unemployment went down, they cut the emergency unemployment payments, throwing millions of folks off unemployment just before Christmas. Whoever wrote this article needs to be put on that unemployment list as they are obviously too stupid to be a journalist.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 06:47 AM



I love how the administration touts lower unemployment numbers while ignoring the fact people have given up on looking for a job.

A small point, but if you have "given up" looking for work then you are not unemployed. I suppose if you want to count people not looking for employment as unemployed, then you need to chuck in all sorts e.g. retired, idle rich (and poor) and so on.


Exactly. You would have to count people like me, who quit work in order to be a stay-at-home mom. I don't consider myself "unemployed". I also know a couple of men who became "stay-at-home dads" as well - intentionally.

If people are not considered unemployed then why are we paying them unemployment benefits?

There are about 90 million people who dropped out of the labor force +/-. Not all of them are stay at home moms.

Secondly I would like to know how many of those 74k jobs created are government jobs. Also, how many government jobs have been created in the last few years.
edit on 10-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Their point is that you are NOT paying them unemployment benefits. In order to receive unemployment benefits, YOU MUST BE SEARCHING FOR A JOB. I live in Maryland, so I'll quote my state's website:

Unemployment insurance provides benefits to persons who are unemployed through no fault of their own and who are ready, willing and able to work, and actively seeking work.

My wife is not working, but she doesn't count toward the tally as there is no record of her being unemployed since she doesn't file unemployment. If she were looking for a job and could prove it, then she would file and would have a count toward the tally. WHat do you expect them to do, sent everyone in America a letter asking "are you employed, 'Yes', 'No'"? That's the only way that a true number could be calculated because there's no record for so many people who choose not to work.

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 07:00 AM

reply to post by paraphi

but if you have "given up" looking for work then you are not unemployed.

un- 1
1. Not
2. Opposite of; contrary to

past tense: employed; past participle: employed

give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

a Small point... but you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

In other news.... the ministry of plenty is delighted to announce that monthly chocolate rations have been increased from 12 ounces, to 10 ounces.
edit on E5Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:16:31 -060030America/ChicagoAmerica/Chicago by ENrgLee because: combatting orwellian newspeak

Unemployment statistics like these are only calculated based on the number of people that have applied for and been approved to receive unemployment benefits. Otherwise, the departments have absolutely NO RECORD of the individual living at whatever residence with social security number of XXX-XX-XXXX being unemployed. A stay at home mother, father, housemate, whatever... can NOT receive unemployment benefits as s/he is not actively seeking work and would NOT be considered unemployed by the respective state which the individual resides. That's the point. Arguing literal terms of a definition does not prove statistical data gathered in this report showing unemployment is low.

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 08:37 AM
reply to post by GenerationGap

If understand all that I read, then, President Bush gave away American jobs to India to start a war?

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 08:52 AM
It truly is bizarre and incredible how everyone on a conspiracy website understands how and tells the truth about the federal governments reckless behavior and how serious and dangerously bad the economy is.
The world is growing into chaos and people on this website knows it is dangerous and out of control.

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by paraphi

The whole "not counting people who are unemployed" thing isn't really an accurate description. The numbers they count are those who are currently making an unemployment claim. So once your unemployment has run out, you are thrown into that number as no longer "unemployed". They use the term "gave up looking for work" to justify lowering the number based on one of the requirements to collect unemployment, which is "Must be able, willing, and actively seeking work". If you are no longer collecting, you are no longer required to do so, thus you aren't counted. It's an attempt to misrepresent data. Hope that clears it up for you.

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 07:43 PM
Canada loses 45900 jobs in the same month and unemployment goes up 0.3%.


The answer is obvious

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

I'm sort of wavering between looking and just giving up entirely, even though I am getting help with a vocational rehabilitation service.

Hell, I know I shouldn't be picky, but I'm mentally disabled and not qualified for most positions.

I already know if I fill out applications this year, they will all be rejected

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:38 PM


If people are not considered unemployed then why are we paying them unemployment benefits?

Not sure if you are familiar with unemployment benefits, but they require you to be looking for work and demonstrate the same.

There are about 90 million people who dropped out of the labor force +/-. Not all of them are stay at home moms.

Right...some retired, some accepted early pensions as manufacturers re-orged or eliminated pension programs, many down-sized to accommodate single income amongst couples and families etc. etc.

One other thing often disregarded is that as people live longer, the number of Americans not working will always increase year over year. As crass as it sounds...folks used to die younger.

Secondly I would like to know how many of those 74k jobs created are government jobs. Also, how many government jobs have been created in the last few years.

The numbers don't count government employment, it's private sector creation.

That said...
Bloated Government? Federal Employment at 47-Year Low

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by Indigo5

Not sure if you are familiar with unemployment benefits, but they require you to be looking for work and demonstrate the same.

They actually require that you have held down a job for a certain length of time, then have lost that job, through no fault of your own, also.

The numbers don't count government employment, it's private sector creation.

It is only the military that aren't counted, civilians working government jobs are actually employed... they even have to be paid minimum wage.

edit on bu312014-01-15T14:45:18-06:0002America/ChicagoWed, 15 Jan 2014 14:45:18 -06002u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by ThichHeaded

In case people are wondering, there are 315 or so million people in the US as of 2010 or something.. So this would make the total people not working around 1/3 of the US population.

Does that 315 million include under aged and senior citizens? What would be the percentage of unemployed if we subtract them from the equation? If 90 million people are out of the job market, wouldn't that equate to roughly 40% of the adult population?
edit on 15-1-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in