U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2011, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,803 posts, read 7,557,443 times
Reputation: 4501

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
No, we have 9% unemployment because the economy never really recovered from the 2001 recession. In fact, net increase in private payroll between then and Obama taking the office was... NEGATIVE. More jobs were lost than were created through the two recessions.
So what is your point. First of all, you're hand picking data in two points in time, rather than the entire swath. Secondly, hand pickings this data to somehow scrape together legitimacy for the Obama presidency might make you feel better, but it doesn't change the number of those unemployed. 100,000 new jobs created, and 250,000 new college grads.. Only to a partisan hinge would that sound like good news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2011, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,821,962 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
So what is your point. First of all, you're hand picking data in two points in time, rather than the entire swath. Secondly, hand pickings this data to somehow scrape together legitimacy for the Obama presidency might make you feel better, but it doesn't change the number of those unemployed. 100,000 new jobs created, and 250,000 new college grads.. Only to a partisan hinge would that sound like good news.
How many jobs were added between 2001 and 2009? That should tell you why the unemployment rate is where it is at. In fact, you might not be aware of another fact that unemployment doesn't rise just as soon as recession begins. It usually trails by a few months, as well as the recovery.

Yes, 157K jobs (I'm hoping that is only private sector employment, not including government jobs) is bad. But considering the state of job growth until about Dec 2009, at least it delivers some promise. Or, would you rather have the job growth as seen between Jan 2001 and Dec 2009?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,803 posts, read 7,557,443 times
Reputation: 4501
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
How many jobs were added between 2001 and 2009? That should tell you why the unemployment rate is where it is at. In fact, you might not be aware of another fact that unemployment doesn't rise just as soon as recession begins. It usually trails by a few months, as well as the recovery.

Yes, 157K jobs (I'm hoping that is only private sector employment, not including government jobs) is bad. But considering the state of job growth until about Dec 2009, at least it delivers some promise. Or, would you rather have the job growth as seen between Jan 2001 and Dec 2009?
If negative jobs were added between 2001 and 2009, then why was the unemployment rate low during that time period, while the population grew by 10%? I'm not talking about net growth, I'm talking about jobs that were simply added.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 02:08 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,146 posts, read 33,571,533 times
Reputation: 14138
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
How many jobs were added between 2001 and 2009?

Obviously, more than we had Americans. Look at all the illegal alien parasites, that flooded into the booming economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,821,962 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
If negative jobs were added between 2001 and 2009, then why was the unemployment rate low during that time period, while the population grew by 10%? I'm not talking about net growth, I'm talking about jobs that were simply added.
Proof that unemployment rate is not a good measure to understand the reality. For the same reason that the real unemployment rate is higher than what is advertised. I am sure you will agree with me on that.

How many jobs do you think were added during that period of exceptionally low employment? One could argue that job growth was better during Reagan's two terms than Bush's two terms. Some may believe it isn't even debatable (I would be among them). However, if you look at unemployment rate during Reagan's 8-years, they were substantially high, almost as bad for two years since Obama took the office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Obviously, more than we had Americans. Look at all the illegal alien parasites, that flooded into the booming economy.
What jobs are you talking about? Who's employing them? I'm sure those are the high paying jobs we had until recently?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,113 posts, read 2,515,284 times
Reputation: 2276
I'm not going to sneer my nose at 157,000 jobs.

Unfortunately, when you take into account the baby boom echo of 1982-1995, plus the uptick in legal and illegal immigration, it's going to take a major economic surge to dent the unemployment rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Southeast
4,296 posts, read 6,257,660 times
Reputation: 1445
I would say ADP slightly missed the mark.

Hiring slowed to a near-standstill in June - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 10:32 AM
 
899 posts, read 707,691 times
Reputation: 590
And once again, the obamabots defending his brilliant policies are slapped upside the head with a dose of reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 11:51 AM
 
5,397 posts, read 6,872,274 times
Reputation: 4043
I guess ADP should now stand for

Another Dopey Prediction

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
It creates an environment of uncertainty. This is a large part of why hiring hasn't picked up.
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It's not the debt ceiling creating that environment of uncertainty for businesses.
No, it's obama's tax hikes, coming tax hikes, regulatory brutality of business, the coming nightmare of obamacare that is causing the uncertainty in business and individuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10 View Post
I guess ADP should now stand for

Another Dopey Prediction

The last two years they are in a perpetual state of "unexpected surprise".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top