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.
That's because THIS report is just dealing with the U-3 UE rate rather than the more complete U-6 UE rate (ie the "real" UE rate wingnuts are constantly referring to). THAT "real" rate has fallen significantly (see the comments and link below).
This is from your link - notice it's JUST talking about the more narrow U-3 (standard) UE rate, NOT the more complete U-6 rate:
"...The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in February but has shown little movement, on net, since September 2012. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.0 million, also edged lower in February. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for whites (6.8 percent) declined in February while the rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women (7.0 percent), teenagers (25.1 percent), blacks (13.8 percent), and Hispanics (9.6 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)..."
The U-3 (standard UE rate) showed "little movement, on net, since September 2012" but the U-6 (the more complete rate that includes those who dropped off the UE rolls and those no longer looking for work) dropped nearly half a point in that time - falling from 14.7% to 14.3% reflecting the fact that over that period of time folks moved from the "no longer looking" category to the "actively looking" category - thus replacing those in the "actively looking" U-3 category who found jobs. Had those U-6 folks NOT done so, the U-3 (standard UE rate) would have dropped that half a point or so, instead IT remained high while the backlog of discouraged workers (ie the U-6 category folks) fell. So it's hardly "stagnant" when the "total" number of unemployed has fallen nearly half a point in 5 months. This is not "gangbusters" improvement, but it's definitely "improvement".
Did you ever realize that there were other investment options besides the stock market? I know of very few, if any, fellow "millionaires" who were made wealthy by the stock market. In fact, I cannot think of one.
Beyond the Wall Street banksters and Buffet, can you name me "stock investment" millionaires? I can name you about 30-40 "millionaires" that live on our street. None of them acquired their wealth through the markets.
Did you ever realize that there were other investment options besides the stock market? I know of very few, if any, fellow "millionaires" who were made wealthy by the stock market. In fact, I cannot think of one.
Beyond the Wall Street banksters and Buffet, can you name me "stock investment" millionaires? I can name you about 30-40 "millionaires" that live on our street. None of them acquired their wealth through the markets.
Why is this, Ken?
Sure, there's other investment options other than the stock market - which pretty much undermines claims made by other wingnuts that the ONLY reason the stock market has risen is because there are NO OTHER OPTIONS.
But regarding the answer to your question: George Soros for one, Peter Lynch for another, Carl Icahn for a third. Then there's Charles Schwab, T. Boone Pickens...
Why is it that when liberals complain about Wal-mart paying their employees so little, the answer from the conservatives is that these people are free to find a better paying job. They can go to school and get a degree in an in-demand field, they can work harder and move up, they can start their own business, pull themselves up from their boot straps, etc. No one is to blame for their situation except for themselves. They're poor because they choose to be. They're lazy and spend all their money on cars, shoes, istuff, eating out, etc. Queue random anecdotes about someone who came to the United States with 25 cents in their pocket and worked 100 hours a week and lived off of ramen noodles and became a multi-millionaire.
Yet at the same time, they blame Obama for Americans being poor, not having enough money to save, stagnating wages, etc. It's no longer the poor people's fault for choosing to be poor, it's Obama's fault.
Which is it? It seems that which argument gets used is purely a matter of expediency.
Why is it that liberals draw wild conclusions from short, direct statements which have nothing to do with the statement made?
Walmart pays next to nothing because there are lines of people begging for a job. Supply and demand. Obama may want to do away with the free market, but until then, libs are just going to have to find some other way to achieve prosperity. Prosperity is earn, not dictated, or doled out by the government.
Why is it that liberals draw wild conclusions from short, direct statements which have nothing to do with the statement made?
Walmart pays next to nothing because there are lines of people begging for a job. Supply and demand. Obama may want to do away with the free market, but until then, libs are just going to have to find some other way to achieve prosperity. Prosperity is earn, not dictated, or doled out by the government.
If you want to know why liberals do something, find one and ask them.
So, prosperity is earned, not doled out by the government. But being poor apparently is doled out by the government. Poor people, e.g. Wal-mart workers, don't make much money because of supply and demand. Yet people are going to have trouble contributing to savings because of Obama? Not because they're not working to earn their prosperity, or because their skills are limited and in high supply, or because they spend their money on istuff and sneakers. Apparently being poor is a choice and there's no excuse for being poor...unless that excuse is a politician from the other team and it's politically expedient to blame them.
Being poor is very often a choice, or rather, the result of a long list of choices. Blaming it on the sitting president, whether there's an R or a D next to their name, is a lame excuse.
It's not "bad" in the sense that we shouldn't be racking up large amounts of debt to foreign interests ... it's just a "bad sign" when China stops buying US treasuries, because of the underlying message that they realize what you and others apparently can't see.
OK, so it's bad if the buy it, and its bad if they don't? LOL You can't make it up.
Did you ever realize that there were other investment options besides the stock market? I know of very few, if any, fellow "millionaires" who were made wealthy by the stock market. In fact, I cannot think of one.
Beyond the Wall Street banksters and Buffet, can you name me "stock investment" millionaires? I can name you about 30-40 "millionaires" that live on our street. None of them acquired their wealth through the markets.
Why is this, Ken?
So, YOU KNOW for a fact that those millionaires on your street () do not have any investments in the stock market
We can all be glad that Obama's "chicken little" act over the sequester was so far off base. The sequester went through, cuts in proposed spending took place, the economy is now soaring to new heights. Unemployment rates also fell.
With this great news, I think we can all admit it's time to further cut government spending. End the long-term unemployment handouts and slash the food stamps. No more excuses.
So, YOU KNOW for a fact that those millionaires on your street () do not have any investments in the stock market
"Yeah, I was at my 'millionaires only' country club last week, and we were all bashing the stock market while lighting up our cigars with thousand dollar bills."
We can all be glad that Obama's "chicken little" act over the sequester was so far off base. The sequester went through, cuts in proposed spending took place, the economy is now soaring to new heights. Unemployment rates also fell.
With this great news, I think we can all admit it's time to further cut government spending. End the long-term unemployment handouts and slash the food stamps. No more excuses.
You DO understand that the UE rate fall just reported is from LAST month right?
You know - BEFORE the sequester?
How much the sequester impacts things remains to be seen, but certainly BEFORE sequester traction was being gained. AFTER sequester- we''ll see. Personally I suspect the economy will STILL move forward - just not as much.
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.
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.
You can't make it up.
) do not have any investments in the stock market 
