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 05-02-2014, 07:36 AM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,593,591 times
Reputation: 2823

Advertisements

The added jobs is certainly good news. The concern is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/bu...ones.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The deep recession wiped out primarily high-wage and middle-wage jobs. Yet the strongest employment growth during the sluggish recovery has been in low-wage work, at places like strip malls and fast-food restaurants.

In essence, the poor economy has replaced good jobs with bad ones. That is the conclusion of a new report from the National Employment Law Project, a research and advocacy group, analyzing employment trends four years into the recovery.

“Fast food is driving the bulk of the job growth at the low end — the job gains there are absolutely phenomenal,” said Michael Evangelist, the report’s author. “If this is the reality — if these jobs are here to stay and are going to be making up a considerable part of the economy — the question is, how do we make them better?”

The report shows that total employment has finally surpassed its pre-recession level. “The good news is we’re back to zero,” Mr. Evangelist said.

But job losses and gains have been skewed. Higher-wage industries — like accounting and legal work — shed 3.6 million positions during the recession and have added only 2.6 million positions during the recovery. But lower-wage industries lost two million jobs, then added 3.8 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2014, 07:42 AM
 
452 posts, read 682,624 times
Reputation: 598
Remember statisticians can give you any number you want. Obama wants a low unemployment rate, that's what they gave him. They did not include the number of people that 'stopped looking' for work. Called 'not working'. Failed to note the 175,000 new youth entering the labor mkt. Failed to mention the 10 to20 million people that are unemployed or under employed. And don't forget, for every job Obama "created", 75 people wound up on food stamps and there more people taking from the system than putting in for the first time in history. Kool-Aid with that McMuffin???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,683,872 times
Reputation: 9174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
The standard spin is that percentage falls partly (or mostly) due to people dropping out of the job pool (due to retirement, or long term unemployment), but it does not erase the positive fact about the 288K added.
Even ABC's morning report insinuated the number is basically worthless because of those who have simply dropped out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 07:56 AM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,343,608 times
Reputation: 3360
The U6 unemployment rate is still 12.3%.

By comparison, the U3 rate is 6.3% this month and it was also 6.3% back in June of 2003. Yet, June of 2003 had a U6 rate of 10.3%.

The economy still has a LOT of healing to do.

But! My job was one of those created last month! I got mine I don't care how the economy is doing anymore! lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 07:57 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,143,565 times
Reputation: 9409
Of course no one should expect the unemployment rate to change drastically in a year when Democrats are headed for a bloodbath in the midterms. Nope. Never. Just like the change in UE right before the 2012 election. Its a mere a coincidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 08:02 AM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,781,142 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.Trips View Post
Remember statisticians can give you any number you want. Obama wants a low unemployment rate, that's what they gave him. They did not include the number of people that 'stopped looking' for work. Called 'not working'. Failed to note the 175,000 new youth entering the labor mkt. Failed to mention the 10 to20 million people that are unemployed or under employed. And don't forget, for every job Obama "created", 75 people wound up on food stamps and there more people taking from the system than putting in for the first time in history. Kool-Aid with that McMuffin???
You failed to mention that 288,000 more people are now working compared to just a month ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,185,349 times
Reputation: 21743


I'd be more impressed if you could actually pay for one of your Social Welfare programs.

Graphing....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,565,921 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Somehow this is bad news. Just wait for a republican to enlighten us on as to why that is.
All positive economic developments over the past 5 years have been a bitter pill for the right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 08:04 AM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,343,608 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.Trips View Post
Remember statisticians can give you any number you want. Obama wants a low unemployment rate, that's what they gave him. They did not include the number of people that 'stopped looking' for work. Called 'not working'. Failed to note the 175,000 new youth entering the labor mkt. Failed to mention the 10 to20 million people that are unemployed or under employed. And don't forget, for every job Obama "created", 75 people wound up on food stamps and there more people taking from the system than putting in for the first time in history. Kool-Aid with that McMuffin???
Everything you mentioned is included in the U6 number that gets released right next to the U3 number.

The U6 number also fell by .4% from a month ago, from 12.7% to 12.3%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,548,114 times
Reputation: 27720
Excellent news. Before you know it we'll be back in the 5% area with "full employment" and then the cries of "create jobs" will finally cease.
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 05:33 PM.

© 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