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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2013, 10:07 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,401,256 times
Reputation: 4798

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
The next few months are going to be rough on unemployment as the Republican sequester continues to destroy up to 1 million jobs. Imagine what it would be like if Republicans weren't constantly trying to make the economy worse and instead were actually working together with the President instead their usual obstructionism.
If the US economy is only going to be creating or saving jobs by spending $1+ trillion every year it doesn't have then the US economy is doomed for failure. It's pretty sad you folks can't seem to grasp that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2013, 10:22 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,401,256 times
Reputation: 4798
Employment Level:
Jan. 2006 - 143,457,000
March 2013 - 143,286,000

LFPR
June 1978 - 63.3%
March 2013 - 63.3%

The Employment-population ratio is only .4% points away from what it was in March of 1953. I guess baby-boomers are indirectly responsible for that, too, with one parent staying home to take care of them while they were children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 12:58 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,401,256 times
Reputation: 4798
Average amount paid:
Jan 1967 - $73.21
2013 dollars: $508.89

Jan. 1977 - $195.40
2013 dollars: $748.60

Jan. 1987 - $439.16
2013 dollar - $897.52

Jan. 1997 - $672.69
2013 dollars - $973.06

Jan. 2007 - $957.24
2013 dollars - $1,071.85

March 2013 - $1,155.96

Just remember that the next time a liberal or democrat (or the even more slimy liberal-democrat) freaks out over any sort of cuts or increases in payroll taxes for Social Security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,105,746 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
I think it is embarrassing that you had to post those numbers. Grown people don't know there are more entering the workforce than retiring?? We have positive population growth in the US and they can't put two and two together???? The clueless and agenda driven will continue to blather on.
Yeah, and just think.....they get to vote.

Commiserating....

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
What I find hypocritical is Republicans complaining about a weak jobs report and pointing at "Obama's failed policies" when they refused to pass Obama's jobs bill last year that economists said would add a million jobs.
Economists? Like who? Krugman?

Right.

If and when the Morons ever figure out what the problem really is, and come to understand it, then perhaps they might be able to come up with an effective solution.....

....until then....nothing will happen very slowly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
People become eligible for Social Security at age 62.
Yeah, and....?

I've only posted the damn US Census Bureau questionnaire 50 freaking times.

Guess what?

"Are you on Social Security?" is not one of the questions asked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Beginning in 2011, 10,000 people a day turn 65- about 300,000 a month.

Not all of them apply for SS or Medicare at 65. Many who aren't able, postpone Social Security until age 70.

The crude death rate for all ages is about 6,744 per day- about 202,000 a month. It's reasonable to assume 20-25% of these deaths are seniors.
That would all be very fascinating if it had anything to do with Liberals' attempts at spinning the unemployment numbers.

"How many people living in your household are dead?" is not one of the questions asked on the questionnaire, although perhaps it should be.

Let us review:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population: The number of persons over the age of 16 who are not incarcerated or institutionalized. Dead people do not count. I believe the actual question is, "How many persons in your household are age 16 or older?

Civilian Labor Force: culled from the Civilian Non-Institutional Population, this is the number of persons in an household that are:

1] Age 16 or older; and
2] Desire to work; and
3] Are available to work

The answer to all 3 questions must be "YES."

Employed: The number of persons in an household age 16 or older who are working full time or part time.

Employment-Population Ratio: The number Employed divided by the Civilian Non-Institutional Population

Labor Force Participation Rate: The Civilian Labor Force divided by the Civilian Non-Institutional Population

Unemployed: The number of persons age 16 or older who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks.

If you have not looked for a job in the last 4 weeks then you are not "Unemployed."

To be counted as "Unemployed" you must answer "YES" to each of the following questions:

1] Do you want to work?; and
2] Are you available to work?; and
3] Have you looked for a job in the last 4 weeks?

If you answer "NO" to any one of those questions, then you are not "Unemployed."

Note that UE Benefits play no role whatsoever in determining who is or isn't Unemployed, or who is or isn't in the Civil Labor Force, or who is or isn't in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population

Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler View Post
This is the new normal people. I will be shocked if America ever has an unemployment rate below 7% ever again. Without bubbles, America's economy cannot thrive, and there won't be any economic bubbles for decades to come.
I agree in part. The issue is not "bubbles" so much as global development will continue for the next 30-40 years, and during that time, the US cannot compete globally, because Americans are paid too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Unemployment Rate:
March 1978: 6.3%
March 1979: 5.8%
March 1980: 6.3%
March 1981: 7.4%
March 1982: 9.0%
March 1983: 10.3%
Did you adjust the rate to account for the new definitions implemented in 1994?

Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
I did not say that. I was talking unemployment. Private sector jobs are expanding. Public sector jobs are contracting. That is one reason why UE is so high.
No, the reason unemployment is so high is because you cannot compete globally.

I figure by about 2037 or so, you’ll figure it out.

If by chance you do, you know....figure it out.....perhaps you can program your smart-phone to remind you to send a text message to Obama, so he’ll finally know what the problem was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
A tailspin? No. A drop in the pace of hiring? Yes.
A drop would be 268,000 to 235,000.

This is a ~67% decline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
everyone on this forum agrees this month's jobs' report is bad. No need for sarcasm.
I told you it would take ~90-120 days for the effects of the FICA tax holiday end to take effect and by year’s ends you’d lose nearly every job you gained.



Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Private sector is the one that has kept net jobs in the positive territory. We have now see 37-straight months with positive job growth in the private sector.

Private Sector Employment:
Feb 2010: 106.85 million
Mar 2013: 113.33 million
Change: +6.48 million

Public Sector Employment:
Feb 2010: 22.47 million
Mar 2013: 21.87 million
Change: -600K

In fact, public sector employment is lowest since Jan 2006.
Still pushing the same lies.

No such thing as “37-straight months with positive job growth.â€

Why do you do that? Is it genetic? Part of your pathology? Out of spite? Malice? Hatred? Willful ignorance?

CEU0500000001

2010 (# Employed)

January 104,998,000
February 105,046,000
March 105,733,000
April 106,778,000
May 107,487,000
June 108,266,000
July 108,337,000
August 108,489,000
September 108,120,000 ----job losses

October 108,538,000
November 108,735,000
December 108,592,000 ----job losses
2011
January 106,210,000 ----job losses
February 106,649,000
March 107,466,000
April 108,662,000
May 109,438,000
June 110,359,000
July 110,414,000
August 110,589,000
September 110,356,000 ----job losses
October 110,766,000
November 111,015,000
December 111,002,000 ----job losses
2012
January 108,847,000 ----job losses
February 109,333,000
March 110,157,000
April 111,051,000
May 111,915,000
June 112,709,000
July 112,746,000
August 112,927,000
September 112,581,000 ----job losses
October 112,987,000
November 113,284,000
December 113,321,000
2013
January 110,977,000 ----job losses
February 111,521,000
March 112,205,000


So where are these magical 37-straight months?


BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Just plug this in.... CEU0500000001...then read and weep.


And for the record, in October 2008 there were 113,356,000 private sector jobs. Also, for the record, there were 29,000 more Americans working in May 2012 than there are today (see LNU02000000).



According to Obamabots, fewer people working now than 10 months ago is "Economic Improvement."


You might try using a more reliable source of information. I know Einstein would certainly approve.

Economically...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia Area
1,720 posts, read 1,313,135 times
Reputation: 1353
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
You can only do apples to apples comparison back to 1995 since they changed how they measure unemployment in 1994.
Previous to that you need to re-calculate from 1995 to the present to get the "same numbers".

Shadow stats does that ...23% unemployment is what they get.
You are correct!! Very good points and very true. Repped!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 03:42 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,732 posts, read 6,769,906 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnvrsoul View Post
Like I have said MANY times....I have a family member who works for SS...the family member is in the legal field and was specifically told not to deny as many claims for disability-I was told that the SS administration has denied maybe 2% when it used to be over 60%-

So please stop with the Bull****
He can't help himself. Some people prefer ignorance over knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 05:13 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,236,422 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnvrsoul View Post
Like I have said MANY times....I have a family member who works for SS...the family member is in the legal field and was specifically told not to deny as many claims for disability-I was told that the SS administration has denied maybe 2% when it used to be over 60%-

So please stop with the Bull****
And I have a friend who is a medical doctor with SS.
In the past, they were told to deny people, no matter what the disability.
It was bankrupting people to fight the system that was corrupt then, and is apparently going perhaps in the opposite direction.

Since we've changed anecdotes, do you have anything reality based?
You were told?
Hardly anything to listen to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 05:15 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,421 posts, read 20,258,541 times
Reputation: 8958
Yet the liberals, thinking we're stupid, and won't notice, keep saying, "See, see? The economy is improving! Obama's policies are working!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,823,173 times
Reputation: 4585
The 4000 marches on to glory to the delight of their dupes ...

Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 07:17 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Per capita income and median household income, when adjusted for inflation, declined by more than 7 percent between 2007 and 2011, according to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

The official unemployment rate (7.6 percent in March) remains high, despite the fact that people who have stopped looking for work aren't counted in it. In 2007, 63 percent of American adults had jobs. In 2012, just 58.7 percent did.



Yet the stock market is flirting with all-time highs. Do you find this odd?



Read more: Easy Money Helps Wall Street, Threatens Main Street | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
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. The time now is 08:10 AM.

© 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