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.
Obama can't do it alone. I assure you Obama will bring up the fact that many companies are sitting on record profits but they are choosing to not hire. And why should they? Americans are getting used to longer hours and stagnant wages.
The top continues to care mostly for themselves. I don't blame them. They probably figure they are really going to be exposed during this election cycle. Gotta grab all the money while they can.
I say they are intentionally cutting people from the rolls that should still be a part of the labor force.
People...its ALL about getting the UE rate down..so obama AND the media can tout how much it has dropped, but NOT how many people (tens of millions) have been lopped off the rolls.
Obama can't do it alone. I assure you Obama will bring up the fact that many companies are sitting on record profits but they are choosing to not hire. And why should they? Americans are getting used to longer hours and stagnant wages.
The top continues to care mostly for themselves. I don't blame them. They probably figure they are really going to be exposed during this election cycle. Gotta grab all the money while they can.
They are sitting on their money because this government has proven that it's erratic, unpredictable, illogical, and it creates laws, regulations and federal mandates that are hostile to them, and their businesses.
They are sitting on their money because this government has proven that it's erratic, unpredictable, illogical, and it creates laws, regulations and federal mandates that are hostile to them, and their businesses.
Now, logically explain these numbers (average growth in private sector payroll per month) to the best of your capacity:
2001: -192.7K
2002: -64.8K
2003: 10.5K
2004: 159.2K
2005: 192.7K
2006: 154.9K
2007: 67.7K
2008: -315.2K
2009: -415.3K
2010: 104.0K
2011: 174.3K
2012: 210.3K*
For 2012, of course, we've only four months to compute from, but so far, it is the best year in that regard, even with just 130K private sector jobs added in April. And while at it, please do tell which of these years would you say represented the kind of excellence in job growth you preach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Obama and the BLS are lopping even more people off the rolls to get that UE rate down as much as possible.
The obligatory lie, to start a thread: Violates TOS. Unfortunately, our moderators promote it.
If you were expecting 10% year-over-year economic growth, I can see how this would be mediocrity.
I expect 4-5% once in a while, not 1-2%. We need to create about 250,000 each month just to keep up with people switching jobs, and the new people entering the job market after graduating from high school and college.
You are settling for mediocrity! We cannot prosper as a nation with an apathetic shrug and a "well, it's better then nothing" attitude.
Those pathetic numbers represent what Obama has bought us with $5 trillion in debt. This is what happens when you give a country club Marxist control of the country.
Newsflash: Obama didn't create the economic safety net. It's the government we already had responding to a severe economic downturn.
The economic downturn cut government revenue and required additional spending on Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Food Stamps and other safety-net programs. It would have happened even if McCain had won in Nov. 2008. In other words, Obama policies hasn't expanded government causing deficits. That would have happened anyway.
But if you are saying that Obama is a Marxist (which I do not, incidentally) and "Marxist control" of the country brought us to where we are, you are unwittingly praising "Marxist" policies. What I find ironic is that conservatives denounce Europe but are so willing to embrace the failed austerity economic policies that Europe has embraced. If conservatives were in control, they'd be slashing spending left and right and we'd be in the same economic upheaval as Europe.
Last summer, things looked bad on both sides of the Atlantic. There were fears of double-dip recessions, and stubbornly high unemployment rates. Stock markets swooned.
Now, the pictures appear very different. The unemployment rate in the United States has been steadily falling, while the unemployment rate in the euro zone has climbed to its highest level since the currency was introduced more than a decade ago. There is still some double-dip talk in the United States, but in many European countries it is a reality.
In the United States, the Institute for Supply Management said this week that its survey of manufacturers showed continued improvement. As a group, companies say that overall business is better and that new orders are doing very well. They say they expect to continue adding workers. In the euro zone, a similar purchasing managers survey indicated that conditions were deteriorating.
Now, logically explain these numbers (average growth in private sector payroll per month) to the best of your capacity:
2001: -192.7K
2002: -64.8K
2003: 10.5K
2004: 159.2K
2005: 192.7K
2006: 154.9K
2007: 67.7K
2008: -315.2K
2009: -415.3K
2010: 104.0K
2011: 174.3K
2012: 210.3K*
For 2012, of course, we've only four months to compute from, but so far, it is the best year in that regard, even with just 130K private sector jobs added in April. And while at it, please do tell which of these years would you say represented the kind of excellence in job growth you preach.
I comment on the hostile laws, regulations, tax increases, mandates and rhetoric, coming from the president and his administration, to explain why business owners are sitting on their cash, and you come back with payroll numbers????
They ARE sitting on their money, because they are afraid of what Obama will do to them next.
Obama signs a bill, which no republican voted for, that gives special tax rebates to people buying corporate jets. He boasts that the purpose is "stimulating the economy". Then a few months later, he is pounding his fist on the podium, publicly demonizing people for buying corporate jets, and taking the very tax break that he himself signed into law.
Obama signs an extension of the Bush tax rates, boasting that "You can't raise taxes" with a poor economy. A few months later he is pounding his scrawny fist again, demanding congress pass new tax increases.
Every few months 0bama's EPA and HHS unveil new burdensome healthcare law or mandate, or new environmental laws and regulations, all of which increase their costs of doing business.
Is it any wonder all businesses are hoarding their profits, and refusing to expand or invest in their businesses? They have no clue what new **** storm 0bama will unleash on them next.
I expect 4-5% once in a while, not 1-2%. We need to create about 250,000 each month just to keep up with people switching jobs, and the new people entering the job market after graduating from high school and college.
You are settling for mediocrity! We cannot prosper as a nation with an apathetic shrug and a "well, it's better then nothing" attitude.
To do that, we have to stop firing teachers and police. The true economic picture has been that private employment is rebounding, where government jobs are still declining. 600,000 teachers nationwide have lost there jobs.
We have become so mediocre that we will be speaking Chinese and German before too long
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.
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.
