Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 12-07-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,243,959 times
Reputation: 2279

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
And the point of this was????
To give some people a better understanding of what U1 thru u6 means. Are you attacking me for posting the meaning? or are you wanting an argument?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2012, 12:54 PM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,243,959 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Have you seen this "good" news from the Department of Labor about the past 6 months jobs creations? That 146,000 for this month doesn't make much good sense to me with these numbers floating around.

73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government | CNS News

Economy Adds 146,000 Jobs - WSJ.com


Quote:
Friday's report revealed an economy divided in two camps: Service-related businesses, a broad category including retail, health care and other areas, are fueling much of the nation's job growth. Retail employment alone added more than 50,000 jobs last month. However, the goods-making part of the economy—manufacturing and the housing market—didn't contribute to job growth in November. Construction employment fell by 20,000 last month, while manufacturing lost 7,000 jobs. Government hiring was roughly flat, but declined by about 50,000 in October.
CNS News, really?

Keep eating up the pablum, it's good isn't it?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,847,443 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
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.
The end of the recession just means we started growing again. It doesn't mean that the economy had been restored to its prior levels.

Many people are still dealing with their loss of wealth that occurred 4 to 5 years ago. There was a huge loss of wealth in 2008 and for some it will take many years to recover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,421,542 times
Reputation: 4190
The only UE rate that matters is yours. If you're employed it's 0%. If you're not and need a job it's 100%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,827,269 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Have you seen this "good" news from the Department of Labor about the past 6 months jobs creations? That 146,000 for this month doesn't make much good sense to me with these numbers floating around.

73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government | CNS News
Okay, let us assume that to be true. We also know private sector has added 755K jobs in these five months. Based on the claim some of your are running around with (you're not the first to quote the exact link), 755K is only 27% of all jobs created in five months. Using basic math, that translates to 2.8 million jobs in just five months!

Wow!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 01:31 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,337,717 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731 View Post
"Yes but "working age" doesn't mean "joining the workforce". Half of those turning 18 are WOMEN - and women of CHILDBEARING AGE so some of those woman don't join the workforce right away - they get married (or not) and HAVE A KID. That affects the labor participation rate. You don't have that issue at the far end as people age their way into retirement age - woman that age aren't HAVING KIDS.

In addition, people don't necessarily join the labor market at age 18 (or 16). Many continue on with SCHOOL and only join the labor market LATER - and of those who go to school some never end up joining the labor market at all because (again) some of THOSE are women who end up married (or not) and pregnant. "

Where are you living - the 1950's!! For years now, women are waiting to have kids - hence less employed paying into SS, that has caused such a fuss.

Also, I started working at 16 in retail - before that I had a paper route, babysat, and cleaned houses. Due to the high cost of college, parents unemployed ect... more and more kids are starting to work to save for college, have a little extra for themselves ect..

It would have been wonderful if my 2 boys hadn't had to work and could have just concentrated on school - but that's not the way of the world for the lower and middle class these days.
I live NOW. I never said NO young woman work, but the fact there is ALWAYS a percentage of young mothers who DON'T. According to BLS statistics the number of young mothers who work is between 53.2% and 76.1%. That means that anyone looking at the number of people aging their way INTO the workforce needs to take into account that somewhere between ONE HALF and ONE QUARTER of the young female population will either NOT enter the workforce AT ALL or will LEAVE IT at some point. That's a pretty big chunk of the total people at the younger age of the workforce so either way it means that when you are comparing the young people aging their way into the workforce with the older folks aging their way out of the workforce you can't ignore that fact that those young people aging their way into the "workforce years" include many young mothers who either never actually ENTER the workforce AT ALL or LEAVE IT AGAIN shortly thereafter - and it's roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of those young mothers. That's a pretty big chunk of the new "workforce":

"...Mothers with younger children are less likely to be in the labor
force than mothers with older children. In 2011, the labor force
participation rate of mothers with children under 6 years old
(63.9 percent) was lower than the rate of those whose youngest
child was 6 to 17 years old (76.1 percent). The participation
rate of mothers with infants under a year old was 55.8 percent.
Among mothers with infants, there was little difference in the
participation rate of married mothers (56.9 percent) and those
with other marital statuses (53.2 percent). However, the
unemployment rate for married mothers of infants, at 6.4 percent,
was considerably lower than the rate for mothers with other
marital statuses (24.2 percent)."


Employment Characteristics of Families Summary

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 12-07-2012 at 01:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 01:39 PM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,944 posts, read 5,585,553 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi View Post
And now, folks, the other shoe. 540,000 people dropped from the Labor Force. So you see, it is all a big LIE, 'cause Obama is a big LIAR, and those who support him are huge FOOLS.

Whose troll moniker are you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 01:45 PM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,944 posts, read 5,585,553 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
Liberals again, not being honest with the numbers. How many people dropped out of the work force?
Add up the number who retired, died, or quit to home school their kids and you'll have your number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,280,580 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
Economy Adds 146,000 Jobs - WSJ.com



CNS News, really?

Keep eating up the pablum, it's good isn't it?
Here we have a normal liberal attack of the messenger with not one word about the message. That is one of your favorite methods to cover up anything you can't deal with, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Alaska
7,507 posts, read 5,755,367 times
Reputation: 4891
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52 View Post
146,000 private sector jobs added, unemployment dips to 7.7%.

Analysts were saying that Sandy would have a big negative effect on both numbers. Just think how good they'd be w/o that boat anchor dragging them down. I heard a report on the radio last night on the way home from work that "underlying" economic factors were all looking positive, too. Wish I could remember the details.

Anyway, the recovery seems to be picking up a little steam. Still a way to go, but we're moving forward.
For Christs sake it's the Christmas season and these are temp jobs. Come back in February
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top