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.
Here we go again. EVERY YEAR it's the same old ****. This is from temp. holiday hiring and nothing else. Watch in Feb. when the numbers come out. Back up it goes AGAIN!
They have been improving each month and puts it a 5 year low, already been pointed out regarding seasonal hiring.
The Federal Reserve is also quick to ease back its stimulus efforts, which doesn't seem prudent to me.
'That’s because the Federal Reserve seems poised to begin slowly easing back on its stimulus efforts. While the move had been expected in September, it was put off amid mixed economic data instead of the sustained signs of improvement policy makers want to see. The delay by the central bank caught Wall Street off guard three months ago.
But the spate of recent positive data, economists said, could bolster the case for the Fed to start pulling back in the coming months. The latest figures on hiring follow more robust data for economic growth and jobless claims on Thursday and a report on Monday showing increased activity at factories.
While welcome news for job seekers, a healthier labor market is likely to be viewed more warily by investors and traders, at least in the short term.
Stronger economic growth and employment gains should bolster corporate earnings and therefore stocks over time, but speculators fear a quick Fed tapering could sap the stock market’s recent momentum. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is up more than 25 percent in 2013. Stocks were higher in early trading on Friday, with the S.&P. up about 0.8 percent.
Although the holiday shopping season seems to have gotten off to a mixed start, the retail sector added 22,000 jobs last month. Manufacturers, a sector that is closely watched as a bellwether for the broader economy, hired 27,000 workers. And the overall participation rate rose 0.2 percentage point to 63 percent, reversing a decline in recent months.
Even as the overall unemployment rate fell, the situation does remain desperate in some pockets of the labor market.
For example, the unemployment rate among workers aged 16 to 19 remains above 20 percent. And for workers with less than a high school diploma, the jobless rate stood at 10.8 percent. '
The adjustments to SNAP were insignificant in relative terms but made no sense. I don't see an issue with Fed easing as long as it is slow, we are punishing people who save and rewarding others with cheap money
While i disagree with your argument all together, atleast your not playing it one sided on this one, i can respect that to a point, although i still think you wouldnt be saying that if a Republican was in office.
That's true because we wouldn't be in an anemic recovery if a Republican was in office.
Fudging job numbers always occurs. However, there is a huge difference in the real world impact between manipulating the statistics in a normal economy and manipulating them during a recession.
But there are a million people out there right now not getting a good job because Obama is more interested in his poll numbers than he is in the lives and welfare of those Americans. Once he couldn't blame Bush for the problems anymore, Obama simply switched to whitewashing them.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,531,868 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
That's true because we wouldn't be in an anemic recovery if a Republican was in office.
.......
There are a million people out there right now not getting a good job because Obama is more interested in his poll numbers than he is in the lives and welfare of those Americans.
We started the second largest recession in our history under a republican. Not sure how you can say we wouldnt be in this same type of Recovery if a Republican was in office seeing as both John McCain and Mitt Romney could offer no better plan than President Obama did.
How is President Obama more worried about his poll numbers ? You are making statements with nothing to back them up
Did you get those facts from the DOL website or are we changing the definition of umemployment.
What's the "DOL" Web site?
The U6 unemployment rate at the end of November 2013 was 13.2% I wasn't far off. I was guessing, but I just checked.
The U6 is more accurate, as it counts all unemployed, including those who have "dropped off" the official unemployment rolls. In other words, it includes those who are unemployed and have given up looking (for now).
There used to be a poster on the forum named "delusianne" who spent lots of effort trying to convince us that government data is objective and unbiased....a straight reading of the numbers......and should be relied on. She was called on the farce regularly, but she dearly believed it.
OMG, how well I remember her. Wonder where she went? Probably still here under a new name. She and I had one thing in common: She was an Andrew Loomis (figure drawing artist) fan, as I am.
Amen, Texan. But, the FED won't let the boat float. It would tank the stock market and crater the economy.
Because Wall Street knows better, that's why.
The various programs and indicators are not all moving in the same direction.
Since the recession was declared over in 2009 you'd think after 4 years the lagging indicators would have turned around. Not all indicators are moving in the same direction so I'm still just sitting on the fence with my bucket of popcorn.
The U6 unemployment rate at the end of November 2013 was 13.2% I wasn't far off. I was guessing, but I just checked.
Dept. of Labor or Bureau of Labor Statistics. U6 instead of U3. The U6 was 14% in Jan 2009 and went as high as 17%? All indicators point to a positive trend.
Since the numbers have been improving each month the Fed should have no problem ending their infinite QE.
Let the boat float on its own.
I can only wonder if this QE is going to continue for 3 more years? If it does, my guess would be that just before Obama leaves off QE will stop, the market will get a reality check, along with everyone else that doesn't get it, and somehow the republicans will be blamed for it.
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.
