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.
OK. This is clearly biased and after 4 pages nobody has stated the obvious.
That number is found by adding every single month of job growth together to find the total. If you apply the exact same measure to Obama, 4.1 million jobs have been lost. When Obama took office there were 110.1 million private sector jobs, today there are only 107.7 million. Government jobs went from 22.5 million to 22.7 million today.
If we cherry pick the data like the article does, there were actually 10 million jobs created under Bush.
This information should end the great debate going on here, but I suspect it will be overlooked and there will be 8-20 more pages of going in a circle.
Ok fine, and what about all of those who have lost their jobs under this administration, are they going to give us those numbers! And i know some of those who have lost their jobs and homes under this administration. And there are people still losing jobs, i don't care about no charts, i take a look around talk to my realtives who live thruout the U.S. and my friends, and know that so many have lost jobs and are going to continue to lose jobs in 2011.I Is their a list of all thes private sector jobs that were created, i would like to see it. Sorry don't buy it.
Are you seriously going to pretend that all of those positive months under Bush were lower than the ones under Obama? See the spikes?
Just a casual look at the very chart that you supplied tells a very different story than the one you are attempting to proffer:
For every gain in employment from 2004 thru 2008 there is a commensurate decline until employment drops off the cliff in 2008. Your chart then shows a rather steady period of job growth until mid 2010.
That was the chart that you supplied to bolster your argument.
High Unemployment is a political asset to the Repubs. They have, and will continue, to do whatever they can to keep that rate as high as possible. Unless the American people make a clear statement to them this Nov, that will continue.
And how do you think they are doing that? You think coorporations are deliberately not hiring just so the Republicans can take over in 3 weeks, is that what you think?
For every gain in employment from 2004 thru 2008 there is a commensurate decline until employment drops off the cliff in 2008. Your chart then shows a rather steady period of job growth until mid 2010.
You misinterpreted the chart. A drop is not a decline in employment, it just means less jobs were added to the total than in the month before. If you add 300,000 jobs in one month then 100,000 in the next, there is not a decline, instead you have added 400,000 to the total. You will notice the ups and downs are all too common for the years since 1948 since the BLS began tracking payroll data.
Coming from someone who posted below, I'll take this as a compliment
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Just a casual look at the very chart that you supplied tells a very different story than the one you are attempting to proffer:
More likely that you need to learn how to read charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
For every gain in employment from 2004 thru 2008 there is a commensurate decline until employment drops off the cliff in 2008. Your chart then shows a rather steady period of job growth until mid 2010.
That was the chart that you supplied to bolster your argument.
Thats a decline in gain, but a decline in gain is still a gain..
Example, month 1 might have a 100,000 new jobs, next month there might be 50,000 new jobs, Its a decline in grwoth but the net affect is still new more jobs.
Believe what, that chart is a joke? Unemployment has flattened out, more people have stopped looking for work, we need 125,000 net new jobs each month just to keep up with population growth, and 0bama expects us to be excited when we see 60,000 new jobs.
Just a casual look at the very chart that you supplied tells a very different story than the one you are attempting to proffer:
For every gain in employment from 2004 thru 2008 there is a commensurate decline until employment drops off the cliff in 2008. Your chart then shows a rather steady period of job growth until mid 2010.
That was the chart that you supplied to bolster your argument.
When we are at a statistical level of full employment, its kinda tough to create 400,000 each month.
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.
Population Estimates
