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.
For those who are concerned that U3 rate isn't accurately reflecting the true employment situation, you can also look at the broader U6 rate which also declined by .2% in November 2012. The U6 rate is now just .2% higher than January 2009.
The trend line shows an improving employment situation since the end of 2009.
I wouldn't think so. I've heard UPS, FEDEX and others are looking for help, but those were temporary jobs, and the uptick in people finding jobs must be because of the holidays, which is not any different than November 2010, 2009, 1998, or any other years.
So after Jan. 1, 2013, we'll see UE rise again.
We may, or may not. And here is why (UE up or down in January compared to December):
Jan 2001: UE Up, Private Sector Employment Up
Jan 2002: UE Steady, Private Sector Employment Down
Jan 2003: UE Down, Private Sector Employment Down
Jan 2004: UE Steady, Private Sector Employment Up
Jan 2005: UE Down, Private Sector Employment Up
Jan 2006: UE Down, Private Sector Employment Up
Jan 2007: UE Up, Private Sector Employment Up
Jan 2008: UE Steady, Private Sector Employment Down
Jan 2009: UE Up, Private Sector Employment Down
Jan 2010: UE Down, Private Sector Employment Down
Jan 2011: UE Down, Private Sector Employment Up
Jan 2012: UE Down, Private Sector Employment Up
With practically every possible combination above, there is no correlation (also because UE uses a different metric than private sector employment).
What did Mitt Romney say or do in his campaign that would specifically address issues concerning Black Americans?
Mitt Romney went to ONE inner city neighborhood early in his campaign, got criticized and then ran like a b*tch with his tail between his legs.
Remember this is the guy who said "I don't care about poor people! We have a safety net. If it's broke we'll fixed it"
Black Americans had two choices either choose the Democratic candidate or choose the candidate supported by bigots like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly along with many other racists, and hate mongers.
Never, ever, EVERY said that. Enough with the propagandist lies.
So, genius. Tell me what exactly Obama is doing to help inner city folks? And targeting blacks to help - wouldn't that be completely racist?
Financial deregulation started with Clinton, and he greased the wheels to allow easy home owners for low income families. The blame still falls on the Democrats!
The housing bubble was not the result of "greas[ing] the wheels to allow easy home owners for low income families." Many middle and high income people were obtaining sub prime loans.
Correct. He signed a bill by three republicans: Gramm, Leach & Bliley. I don't think he could have stopped it however (overwhelming majority in the congress to override veto). What I do blame him for is, being one of them, not even threatening to veto. Mindless deregulation is generally not a bright idea, but that of practices that had taught lessons decades earlier, was beyond stupidity.
Sure it's Obama's economy - but that doesn't CHANGE the fact of what he had to START with. He came into office in economy that was shedding 3/4 of a MILLION jobs/month, a housing industry in complete collapse, a stock market in freefall and the banks in complete fiscal lock-up. That's just a FACT.
Now, we're creating generally between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs/month, the housing industry is coming back (and home prices rising), the stock market has risen dramatically and the banks are healthy again - but the HOLE was HUGE and we're still making our way out of it.
Ken
There is no WAY the economy, 4 years ago, was so awful that it took him this long to go nowhere. The recession ended in 2009. He's had 3 non-recession years to turn it around. Again, it was in NO WAY to awful that it would take this long to turn it around.
Unless of course you did everything WRONG to fix it. Which he did.
Financial deregulation started with Clinton, and he greased the wheels to allow easy home owners for low income families. The blame still falls on the Democrats!
I think the republican congress owns what you're speakin' of. Bush kept warning them, as well as economists, yet the republican congress did nothing to regulate, when they could have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
No, more like 100,000 with the demographic changes included.
Ken
Isn't 100K considered weak, anemic?
Last edited by NoJiveMan; 12-07-2012 at 11:13 AM..
Pretty much nothing changed. 300,000 people fell off the UE role. That's not good news. You should be seeing that number increase as people gain growing confidence in the economy and start looking for work. All the seasonal hiring is pretty much done and anywhere from 600,000 to 1,000,000 will go back into the UE category for a little while. If we were seeing 300,000+ increases in jobs people would be gaining that confidence in the economy.
All this report basically said is things are stagnating and still the same 10,000 people a day are retiring.
There is no WAY the economy, 4 years ago, was so awful that it took him this long to go nowhere. The recession ended in 2009. He's had 3 non-recession years to turn it around. Again, it was in NO WAY to awful that it would take this long to turn it around.
Unless of course you did everything WRONG to fix it. Which he did.
He HAS turned it around. We've 3 years of steady job production - but the HOLE we started with was HUGE. Look at the GRAPH!
Ken
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.