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.
Observer NY - You are confusing stats that measure different things - 1) the number of unemployed people filing claims and 2) new jobs being created. 330,000 people were unemployed, but that doesn't mean the actual jobs disappeared. Someone else may have been hired to perform that job. The 171,000 number is entirely new positions that were created. Not that 171,000 people were hired to fill existing positions.
All politics aside, take care. I'm sure the snow and cold are complicating things considerably, and I'm keeping you all in my thoughts and prayers. We have connections through friends and family to people who are really stranded and in a tough spot out your way--it's not good. Hang in there.
Observer NY - You are confusing stats that measure different things - 1) the number of unemployed people filing claims and 2) new jobs being created. 330,000 people were unemployed, but that doesn't mean the actual jobs disappeared. Someone else may have been hired to perform that job. The 171,000 number is entirely new positions that were created. Not that 171,000 people were hired to fill existing positions.
If someone is fired or let go from their job for "just cause", they are not eligible for unemployment. So your explanation does not hold. Most people who are on unemployment are there because their positions were either eliminated or the business they worked for went under (or seasonal positions). So you are basically claiming over 1.4M NEW positions were filled to off set the 1.32M lost jobs.
I'm a simple woman. I'm not a math whiz. I've managed to put two kids through college and handle the family finances for 37 years. I am also a Realtor. I understand the meaning of net vs. gross. But based on the information that 330,000 jobs are LOST every week (4 week period = 1,320,000 jobs) and 171,000 is the NET gain, then that means that 1,491,000 jobs would have had to have been FILLED in that same period of time. Where is the evidence of that happening?
I've already EXPLAINED how it works. It's NOT that complicated.
YES it means that 1.4 million jobs were filled over the course of the month. I know that sounds like a LOT, but we are country of over 300 MILLION. The numbers are huge because the country is HUGE. Heck there are are 10,000 people reaching retirement age EVERY SINGLE DAY and the size of the US labor force is 155 MILLION people, so a monthly turnover of 1.4 million is just ONE PERCENT of the workforce. It's just typical monthly turnover. At one percent of the workforce changing jobs each month that works out to 12% of the workforce changing jobs in a given year. Is that really so hard grasp? It shouldn't be.
In regards to "evidence" - the evidence is that the 350,000 or so new UE claims this week is NOT a new thing, it's been the case for years and years. I already showed you the news story from the middle of the Bush years showing that that number of new UE claims is pretty normal. I've also shown you the graph showing the NET change in jobs created/lost each month. I don't know what more you want.
We are so screwed. Congratulations Obama and all of you Kool Aid drinkers! Abortions for everyone! UN treaties galore! More "flexibility" with Putin! Bye bye Israel! Sharia Law for all! God is dead, babies suck and borrow and spend, spend, spend!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObserverNY
I took my medication but I can't get gas for my car to drive to group therapy because there's NO ****ING GAS on Long Island. I am making a nice beef stew. It's snowing. I think I am going to retreat from society for the next 3 years and not read a single newspaper or watch anything political. Maybe I'll take up knitting.
It's not really going to be like you think it is. Sounds like you do need to make a nice stew, snuggle up with a cat and read a funny book. I hope you're able to relax and stay warm. Do you have power?
I've already EXPLAINED how it works. It's NOT that complicated.
YES it means that 1.4 million jobs were filled over the course of the month. I know that sounds like a LOT, but we are country of over 300 MILLION. The numbers are huge because the country is HUGE. Heck there are are 10,000 people reaching retirement age EVERY SINGLE DAY and the size of the US labor force is 155 MILLION people, so a monthly turnover of 1.4 million is just ONE PERCENT of the workforce. It's just typical monthly turnover. At one percent of the workforce changing jobs each month that works out to 12% of the workforce changing jobs in a given year. Is that really so hard grasp? It shouldn't be.
In regards to "evidence" - the evidence is that the 350,000 or so new UE claims this week is NOT a new thing, it's been the case for years and years. I already showed you the news story from the middle of the Bush years showing that that number of new UE claims is pretty normal. I've also shown you the graph showing the NET change in jobs created/lost each month. I don't know what more you want.
Ken
Nothing, Ken. I don't want anything other than for my children and future grandchildren to have a free America to grow up in. That hope grows very dim. 53% of recent college grads can't find jobs. My daughter is one of them. My best friend with 2 Masters degrees is working for $11 an hour. That's all.
Nothing, Ken. I don't want anything other than for my children and future grandchildren to have a free America to grow up in. That hope grows very dim. 53% of recent college grads can't find jobs. My daughter is one of them. My best friend with 2 Masters degrees is working for $11 an hour. That's all.
Well it's a tough time no doubt about it. We're in a brand new world now that we didn't have to deal with before - and that's a world where the US is no longer the only place that has competent and competative manufacturing or the only place that has highly skilled tech workers. After WWII the US - in effect - ruled the world. We dominated manufacturing and were the supply of pretty much everything to everybody. Part of that of course was because we were GOOD at it, but an even bigger part was the fact that we really had little competition overseas. Europe and Japan were a wreck after the war and the rest of the world was essentially poor and backwards with underdeveloped infrastructures and poorly educated workforces.
Those days are GONE. Whereas the 19th century was the era of Britain, and the 20th century was the era of the US, the 21st century is shaping up to be the era of the "rise of the third world". After centuries of being dominated by Europe (and later the US) those 3rd world countries - especially in Asia have entered "golden era" of their own - politically stable, with a pretty well educated workforce, a new and modern infrastructure. In short, major competition for the US. Not only that, but changes in technology in the last 20 years - specifically in computing and the internet - mean that factory production doesn't have to be managed locally anymore. Work can be done anywhere on the planet and overseen remotely. This fact - combined with the fact that overseas workforces are now more capable than ever - and generalluy a LOT cheap than workforces here in the US - has resulted in a huge degrees of offshoring overseas. This means that THIS recovery is FAR more difficult than previous ones.
In spite of all that though, we ARE recovering. There IS job growth and that job growth WILL continue.
Not as fast as we'd like of course, but it IS happening.
Obama doesn't have the support he had four years ago. Some of the people who supported him in 2008 are not supporting him now. Some of those people will be voting for Romney. Then you figure that there aren't really going to be many Republicans who decide to vote for Obama so the people who voted for McCain are pretty much for sure gonna vote for Romney. Then you figure Independents usually vote for the challenger. To me, that adds up to:Romney could win big.
All of the pollsters are overweighting democrat voters, some even more than the vote in 2008! It is obvious that Obama doesn't have near the enthusiasm this election. Plus:
"In Oct. 2008, 33.3 percent of voters identified themselves as Republican, compared to 40.3 percent who identified themselves as Democrats. In 2012, according to the new Rasmussen data, 39.1 percent of voters now identify themselves as Republicans and 33.3 percent identify themselves as Democrats.
Independents have increased slightly, claiming 26.4 percent of the electorate in Oct. 2008 compared to 27.5 percent in Oct. 2012."
Romney has the independents by 6 to 12 points. The republicans are energized. What makes anyone think there will be more democrats voting than republicans? Landslide Romney.
So do you still think the polls are wrong? Looks like that "overweighting" you were concerned about didn't pan out too well for RMoney, now did 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.
