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 04-29-2010, 09:07 AM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,736,785 times
Reputation: 2772

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Falling unemployment rates are spreading across the country as the recovery begin to take hold.

Unemployment rates fell or remained level in three-quarters of the 372 largest metropolitan areas, a sign that the economic recovery is widespread. The Labor Department said Wednesday the jobless rate dropped in 69 percent of metro areas last month from February. It rose in 24 percent of large cities and remained the same in the rest. That's an improvement from February, when the unemployment rate decreased in 51 percent of metro areas and increased in one-third.

Unemployment falls in a majority of US cities - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com

Ken
Unemployment FELL??? FELL??!!! Well why the heck isn't that lazy good for nothing president of ours PICKING IT UP!!! < stomps off in a huff>

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2010, 09:08 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,238,557 times
Reputation: 7621
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
You need to talk to Obama's economic advisors because obviously you know something they don't.
After getting such harsh criticism for underestimating the depth of the recession in their January 2009 predictions, they are just being very very cautious in their public statements now.
We'll do far better than they are saying - and they know that.



Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Small Town USA Population about 15,000
442 posts, read 962,167 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Really?
That must be why over 80% of working Americans still have their jobs eh?


Ken
Those are the ones still working, doing the other peoples job that were laid off and since when was it 80% Oh they are working at 80% got it!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 09:16 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,238,557 times
Reputation: 7621
Quote:
Originally Posted by trnsplntfrmNV View Post
Those are the ones still working, doing the other peoples job that were laid off and since when was it 80% Oh they are working at 80% got it!!
U-6 Unemployment Rate (if you don't know what the U-6 Unemployment Rate means, then look it up) is at 16.9%. That means that 83.1% of work force has a job.
Math is your friend. I suggest you bone up on it.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 10:53 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 3,721,894 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
After getting such harsh criticism for underestimating the depth of the recession in their January 2009 predictions, they are just being very very cautious in their public statements now.
We'll do far better than they are saying - and they know that.



Ken
"Underestimating the depth of the recession?" Are you kidding me? Perhaps you don't remember the Democrat and Obama scaremongering that was used to rush through the so-called stimulus bill. We were in the midst of the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression and, because of that, Depression-era spending had to be undertaken to prevent unemployment from rising over 8%. Remember Rahm rhapsodizing about how a good crisis ought not to be wasted?

You're right, though. They did underestimate the depth of the economic crisis. Fixated on history Obama and his goons expected the recession to end around the summer of 2009 because most recessions turn around in 18 months and this recession, we are told, began in December 2007. So 18 months would put the end of the recession summer 2009. Which raises the question: why a trillion dollars worth of spending and why most of that spending in the out years? Simple, but highly cynical. Most people have observed that the spending in the stimulus bill was hardly stimulative. It was not aimed to stimulate because it was expected the economy would likely recover by itself in the ordinary course of time--if history was a guide. So, in fact the trillion-dollar stimulus was actually designed to be a slush fund to reward favored constituencies. And It was to be doled out to those constituencies just before the 2010 and 2012 elections.

But the recession did not follow the historical pattern and has been more profound than anticipated. That's why the Dems keep talking about a new stimulus bill even while the original stimulus remains largely unspent. Rahm and the gang were too smart by half and now their chicanery is coming back to bite them. Christina Romer expects unemployment to remain at or above 10% through 2010 and if that projection is accurate the Dems are in for a bumpy ride in November.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,858 posts, read 11,879,402 times
Reputation: 10027
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
U-6 Unemployment Rate (if you don't know what the U-6 Unemployment Rate means, then look it up) is at 16.9%. That means that 83.1% of work force has a job.
Math is your friend. I suggest you bone up on it.

Ken
Ken, I hope you will pardon me for stating the obvious: you are an unremitted smarmypants... par excellence. Your insult to the other poster is totally uncalled for. Do you really think your exalted U-6 unemployment rate takes the full account of the unemployment index into account?? I, for one, do not fall into it's purview and I imagine millions of other American's do not. There might be as many as 25% of eligible Americans unemployed. We will never actually know. I can't stop your little crusade of disingenuity but I can exorcise (sic) my pique at your temerity.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 11:14 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,049,690 times
Reputation: 8526
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
White Chocolate Chip Macadamia Nut please.
YUM!


Ken

Isn't white chocolate pretty much a waste of time? (No kick)

Anyway, back to the OP, the stimulus did save jobs, and created some infrastructure jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 11:20 AM
 
216 posts, read 666,953 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
So, you have some professional judgement in this area... given that, what percent of workers, roughly, fall into this category?
Prior to mid 2008, I would say that 50% of people fell into this category. The category of not showing up for an interview (and failing to call to cancel or reschedule) or participating in the interview but not being dressed well, answering cellular calls, etc. Many had jobs and I think opted to stick in their jobs and not show up for the interview.

Around the 3rd Quarter of 2008 and beyond, the number dropped to about 30%.

But the fact of the matter is that despite the current employment situation, people still do inappropriate things or dress inappropriately during interviews.

I typically opt to discuss this with them and to provide them with some constructive criticism with the hope that perhaps I'm providing them with some sound advice that they will take as they move forward in their job search. If someone actually shows up for the interview and it's their dress or conduct that is inhibiting me from considering them as a potential employee, I think they should know that.

My feeling on this is that some people just don't know proper interview dress and conduct whereas others are on unemployment and going through the paces to show that they're looking for work, but purposely act or dress in such a way that they know they won't get the job. Some peoples' conduct is so inappropriate that it's hard for me to believe that they don't know any better. I think some people send resumes out, hoping to not get an interview, and when they do, they don't show up or they botch it.

I know that that sounds really jaded but after 10 years of doing this, one become somewhat jaded.

The higher level a job is the greater the percentage of people showing up for their interview and acting appropriately. The majority of positions that I recruit for pay anywhere from $28k to $70k per year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC
638 posts, read 927,005 times
Reputation: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Sure. So says you.
So you have reports that demonstrate otherwise?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC
638 posts, read 927,005 times
Reputation: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90 View Post
This is great news!

A year too late now that no one has a home left because of the failure of Obama to work on jobs instead of scamcare.

You do know that the REAL unemployment rate is higher because it takes into account those who dropped off the roles because they gave up looking for a job and or are no longer counted as unemployed right?

Has the unemployment rate went above 8.0% as Obama promised it would not go above 8%?

I know some people love to find something good to report but not putting the facts out makes ones argument very weak.

The numbers are being fudged and you do not even know it.

I like it when someone who was making 15.00 per hour before Obama and now is working for 7.00 per hour. Now that is great news right? And those people are counted in your numbers.

Jump for joy I am making half the money thanks to Obama!
LOL and when did most of these individuals lose their jobs???????...... Uh I think most of them lost their jobs under Bush as the largest increases in unemployment occurred during his watch. Have you seen a chart demonstrating the number of jobs lost during both administrations? Most jobs were lost under Bush, consequently those making half of what they formerly made are the victims of the Bush administration, not Obama’s. Nice try though.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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