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 seem to operate on a pass/mentality and continue to back that up with each post, i have no idea if it is an act or if you just dont understand( the bold makes me think you just dont understand.,) but either way, i will hold you to it in future responses.
7% is rock bottom in post Clinton's NAFTA. And if you notice, illegals are never complaining about lack of jobs because at least they'll take them while millions of lazy Americans actually seem to prefer being warehoused and non-productive the rest of their days.
P.S. i have this set to 1948 to 2013, but i think the link resets to a default 10 years (2003 to 2013), but you can change it back.
I set it to 1978 since that's when the law passed to define the number.
You're right..looks like the year 2000 was our best year ever for all 12 months.
I took my achievement comment from wikipedia which you have shown to be incorrect.
And looking at post 2000 the dot com bust didn't hurt us as much as articles state.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,546 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
7% is rock bottom in post Clinton's NAFTA. And if you notice, illegals are never complaining about lack of jobs because at least they'll take them while millions of lazy Americans actually seem to prefer being warehoused and non-productive the rest of their days.
redefining your argument isnt going to work here because even your redefinition is wrong.
The highest unemployment in 1994(when NAFTA was enforced) was 6.6, by the end of that year, it was 5.5
When Clinton left office, it was 3.9. Unemployment did not rise above 6.6 again until November of 2008.
And the anemic recovery from the Bush Great recession continues, slowly but gradually.
One always has to remember that Democrats controlled congess during last half of Bush's second term.We also have to remember that congress passed all those laws that made the credit bubble that is called housing and that in the end it was individuals who took those loans often lying and signing what their income was. Of course they believed what congress did that wealth could be shared more by giving poor mortgages that the worse that could happen is they sold at a profit or refi. We have been on a wealth sharing binge since the mid 60's that we can't pay for really;just as Europe has before that. One only has to look at dropout rate to see more and more are at point where they will consume more than the create in GDP.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,546 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
I set it to 1978 since that's when the law passed to define the number.
You're right..looks like the year 2000 was our best year ever for all 12 months.
I took my achievement comment from wikipedia which you have shown to be incorrect.
And looking at post 2000 the dot com bust didn't hurt us as much as articles state.
Well that puts us 2% above defined full employment.
6 million more jobs and we're fully recovered and living the good life again.
Is my math correct ?
No, 3 million more jobs. Not the full pop, the workforce pop, no kids, no 72 year olds, no fully disabled, etc.
And we should think of full not at 5%, but 6% traditional economic theory full employment. That would mean 1.5 mill jobs.
I'd love to see bills passed to gradually reduce stimulus related social welfare increases that are not enacted subjectively, but objectively, based on future months U3 and U6 rates.
So maybe if we drop to 6.8% next month, 20% of any social welfare individual increases tied to the Great recession go bye-bye. At 6.5%, 50% go bye-bye. At 6%, 100% go bye-bye.
Or if going by both U3 and U6, set targets at full economic theory employment rates, average the improvements towards said gains (so if U3 drops 20% of the gap b/w 7% and full, and U6 drops 10%, than 15% of stimulus "increases" go bye-bye".).
One always has to remember that Democrats controlled congess during last half of Bush's second term.
What one should actually remember is that although Democrats controlled congress for the last two years of Bush's second term, the GOP held congress for the 12 years prior to that.
Quote:
We also have to remember that congress passed all those laws that made the credit bubble that is called housing and that in the end it was individuals who took those loans often lying and signing what their income was. Of course they believed what congress did that wealth could be shared more by giving poor mortgages that the worse that could happen is they sold at a profit or refi. We have been on a wealth sharing binge since the mid 60's that we can't pay for really;just as Europe has before that. One only has to look at dropout rate to see more and more are at point where they will consume more than the create in GDP.
Just think how much better off we'd all be if Clinton would have vetoed the Gramm/Leach/Bliley Act in 2000. A piece of pure GOP deregulation. Took 8 years for it to sink the economy, though.
Just think how much better off we'd all be if Clinton would have vetoed the Gramm/Leach/Bliley Act in 2000. A piece of pure GOP deregulation. Took 8 years for it to sink the economy, though.
Nonsense, it was Clinton's baby, as why in the world do you think Robert Rubin agreed to work for him? Why did BC become the 1st Dem with MAJOR Wall St financial support? Shazam, Sargent, you think that was just a coincidence? Just cause RR made $109 mill after leaving and helping Citigroup (oh, killing them isn't help), again, must be a coincidence.
More silly and ignorant nonsense. It doesn't take anywhere near 200,000 jobs a month to "keep pace".
And yes, the work force IS dropping - it's called "the babyboomers entering their retirement years".
Ken
And how many of these jobs are full time? How many of these employed people have to work more than one part time position just to make ends meet?
Hmmmm?
Just because one is listed as "employed" does not mean it's what a normal person would consider "gainful" employment.
Example: Person counted as "employed" goes to work at his new 20 hour a week job then has to go to his other 20 hour a week job. Both pay a tad over minimum wage but hey, he's employed according to the stats.
Yippeee! Let's celebrate.
I think this is great. When the UE rate hits 6.9%, I think it will be great for economic confidence across the board.
It has been a long, hard road to recovery, but I think history will show that Bernanke et al., W, and Obama made generally the right decisions to staunch the blood losses. The fiscal policies made this massive recession, as terrible as it was, a lot better than in the Great Depression. Government debt spike, but it kept the whole economy from imploding. The Tea Party crazies, who rushed in to sabotage their recovery efforts at every turn, will be viewed for what they are, partisan opportunists and fools.
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.
