February Jobs Report- 295K Jobs Created (Iraq, statistics, elections, vote)
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.
But this is not news. Most of us have known the "official" numbers are all lies for several years. It's easy to come up with a "acceptable" unemployment rate, when you ignore half of the unemployed.
"This isn't news to most of us. Gallup CEO Jim Clifton recently penned a startling op-ed on his company website, saying the government was lying and covering up the real unemployment rate."
This isn't news to most of us. Gallup CEO Jim Clifton recently penned a startling op-ed on his company website, saying the government was lying and covering up the real unemployment rate.
Prove that 50% of the labor force in unemployed. If you cannot, then what you have said is a lie. And telling lies is a good way to lose all credibility.
"After holding steady at roughly 66 percent from 2004 through late 2008, the labor force participation has been falling, and falling, and falling some more, with no end in sight."
Last I heard, it was only about 50%. Okay, it's 62.8% according to one chart. That's still pretty dismal.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 03-07-2015 at 10:18 AM..
Yet more evidence that REPUBLICANS don't know what the hell they are talking about. More egg in their faces. Romney ran his entire campaign on just the OPPOSITE happening, while over 50 million fools on the Right supported him. Shows how clueless they are.
Kudos to President Obama!
Yeah, kudos, Obama, on destroying the US economy:
Blog: The real job numbers from February
"After holding steady at roughly 66 percent from 2004 through late 2008, the labor force participation has been falling, and falling, and falling some more, with no end in sight."
See any recovery here, smart guy? This is your President's "accomplishment."
You obviously don't do any research or read anything other than "Daily Kos", "Think Progress" or other Soros funded blogs and media sources that are lap dogs of this administration.
After the 1982-83 recession, Reagan created 20 million private sector jobs in 6 years.
When adjusted for the smaller population that existed in the US at the time, Reagan averaged what would be about 370k jobs per month in today`s job market.
Obama couldn't hold a candle to Reagan. Obama has no accomplishments. He has only destruction as his legacy. But, that's what he promised.
It ended, because recessions end, all by themself, without governmental intervention. The free market has demands they need, and the decrease in economic activity can only take place for so long.
Its not because of any politician, on either side of the aisle, and anyone who claims it is, is being ridiculous. Economies have gone through ups and downs for thousands of years, and will forever. Governments only hinder, or delay, them from taking place..
This particular recession could have continued to spiral down taking the country into a deep and lasting depression, which has occurred in "free" markets in the past. I'm frankly quite amazed that it did not evolve into a depression. Considering the middle class lost trillions of dollars of wealth and the primary asset of many households in some cases lost 50% of its value; its a significant achievement to the extent that the economy has come back.
Again, thats because economies run on a cycle, and if we are to believe the Demcoratic talking point that jobs are a delayed economic indicator, wouldnt policies be the same?
Therefore, Bush policies are causing the current economic "growth", while Clintons caused the "decline" you speak of?
Do people really think economies turn around that fast due to government, which controls about 10% of the national economy, while ignoring the other 90%..
Where did a attribute the results of the economy to the sitting President? I think there are many factors that influence the economy. However, in my post I was attempting to make the point if that if you are going to attempt a comparison; I would think you would have to add into your calculation the starting point of the period you are measuring. The economy was much healthier in Jan 2001 than it was in Jan 2009.
And the foundation was laid well before Bush did anything either.
Bush tried reigning in the banking industry, and was attacked by the left as early as 2003, claiming there was no oncoming economic "crisis", they laughed and ridiculed, even fired people who proclaimed this was going to happen.
Who's the fool now? Those who ignored the warnings, or those who predicted them?
Bush did not try to reign in the banking industry. At most he tried to reign in the Government Sponsored Enterprises.
But this is not news. Most of us have known the "official" numbers are all lies for several years. It's easy to come up with a "acceptable" unemployment rate, when you ignore half of the unemployed.
"This isn't news to most of us. Gallup CEO Jim Clifton recently penned a startling op-ed on his company website, saying the government was lying and covering up the real unemployment rate."
The Federalist analysis ignores the demographic changes that are occurring within the United States. There is noting magical about the LFPR rate of June 2009 that it should be used as measure to judge measure a later period.
The LFPR rate has been flat for roughly the last year and half; despite the demographic trend that is driving it down. During that period with the same LFPR the unemployment has dropped from 7.2% to 5.5%.
Oct 2013
LFPR 62.8%
U3 7.2%
Feb 2015
LFPR 62.8%
U3 5.5%
Jim Clifton should speak to his own analysts who wrote the following, based on Gallup's own survey, at the time Clifton was offering his opinion.
U.S. employment measures show continued positive signs for the economy in January 2015. Employment growth has been stronger in the past 12 months than in any year since Gallup began tracking these metrics in January 2010. P2P was higher in January in 2015 than in any previous year, hopefully setting the stage for continued strength in the months ahead. Unadjusted unemployment rose by more than a point, but the underlying combination of more workforce participation and lower rates of part-time work that appear to drive this increase make this counterintuitively good news.
Heard on the news this morn the average hourly wage is $ 24.78/ hr.for private non farm workers.
I don't credit to or blame job numbers on presidents.
Harry Dent notes that the new jobs are disproportionately low-wage:
The U.S. economy added an impressive 288,000 private-sector jobs in February, but analysis by Dent Research reports that low-paying jobs continue to dominate the balance of new hires.
The Dent Research Employment Index adds a quality factor to the headline numbers reported in the BLS Employment Situation by looking at where along the wage scale the jobs are being added.
February’s jobs numbers show that while the additions were spread evenly above and below the median wage line, new hires skewed heavily to the lowest-paying wage bucket, as seen below.
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.
