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.
Easiest way to get unemployed % below 8%, 7% or even 6%. Stop passing benefit extention laws. This way when the benefits stop, the unemployed will no longer be counted as being 'unemployed'. But to make this scam work, they would also have to delete the U6 % since that shows people that are no longer looking for work or are under employed. The U6% is currently at a nasty 17%
Net jobs have been being created for well over a year now.
Ken
Um.. net jobs are reported MONTHLY, not yearly.. so your statement of net jobs being created for well over a year now, would indicate that well OVER a year would mean that monthly for OVER a year were positive.. Clearly they were not only not positive every month, but NUMEROUS months they were not..
Your non stop trying to spin this into you mean a subtotal of a year, and not monthly "for well over a year" is pathetic.. Just let it rest.. You were wrong.. Any fool knows reports are MONTHLY.. so claiming a YEARLY total is rather ridiculous, especially considering the negative trend for months in a row before the GOP took over Congress is very well recorded...
You've been discussing MONTHLY totals through this WHOLE thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Net: 151,000 in December, 63,000 in January and 192,00 in February - that gives a total of net gain of 406,000 - which is a LOT better than any 3 month period in the last 3 years or so.
Now you want me to believe that you magically switched to mean a year when you didnt.. You were again.. Wrong.. you dont get to talk about monthly and pretend you meant yearly... Or did someone not tell you that December, January, and February were MONTHS.. not years
Um.. net jobs are reported MONTHLY, not yearly.. so your statement of net jobs being created for well over a year now, would indicate that well OVER a year would mean that monthly for OVER a year were positive.. Clearly they were not only not positive every month, but NUMEROUS months they were not..
Your non stop trying to spin this into you mean a subtotal of a year, and not monthly "for well over a year" is pathetic.. Just let it rest.. You were wrong.. Any fool knows reports are MONTHLY.. so claiming a YEARLY total is rather ridiculous, especially considering the negative trend for months in a row before the GOP took over Congress is very well recorded...
You've been discussing MONTHLY totals through this WHOLE thread
Now you want me to believe that you magically switched to mean a year when you didnt.. You were again.. Wrong.. you dont get to talk about monthly and pretend you meant yearly... Or did someone not tell you that December, January, and February were MONTHS.. not years
When I MENTION a MONTH and a jobs number I think ANYONE with even HALF a BRAIN can understand I'm talking about a MONTHLY number. When I MENTION the word "YEAR" and don't even mention the word "MONTH" or the NAME of a MONTH, I think MOST PEOPLE are smart enough to understand I'm talking about the YEAR.
If YOU can't understand that then...
well, draw your OWN conclusions.
Actual facts, i know personally 3 people fired from their jobs, supervisor jobs, manangement jobs, and a salesperson job. Two in the E.C. one out here. Sad thing is these are people who have been on their jobs for over 10 years, that is a long time. On person 20 years in management, now gone. I don't see this as fair, just to save a freaking buck, but this is what is happening. They gave these jobs, to those less qualified, for less money.
People are P.O. because they do not like the younger guy, taking on the management job, no one likes him, he is a young punk type guy, with no personality. And lacks the skills, as did the former employee. That is 3 people, but this is going on thruout the Country, and so much of this we are not hearing about, the only things and numbers we are hearing about are those TRUMP UP.
This is so not good, think you have a safe job, well after being on a job for 20 years and fired for no friggin reason, your jobs are not safe as you may think!
Under Reagan the economy added that many jobs.. In a single month!!
During 1983 the economy added 3.5 million jobs.
For 1984, nearly 4 million jobs were added.
(This was nearly 30 years ago when the US population and workforce was much smaller, making the gains that much more impressive.)
And actually your math is wrong, 2010 did not even break the 1 million mark, it was 940k.
Sure, it was great rebound back then - no doubt about it (it's one of the reasons I think so highly of Reagan) - one accomplished with a combination of TAX CUTS AND DEFICIT SPENDING (same tactic Obama used). Of course back then the 3rd world countries were not the massive manufacturing engines they are today so if folks wanted to buy something they mostly bought American. It's just a different world today than it was then. Today America is not the worlds largest exporter anymore but rather #3 - that makes a HUGE difference in any economic recovery.
Ken
PS - For the jobs created number I mentioned I was referring not to 2010 but to the last 12 months (march 2010 - February 2011). Re-read my post and you'll see that.
Last edited by LordBalfor; 03-07-2011 at 10:06 AM..
One possible reason for the discrepancy. If you are underemployed or part time you may consider yourself unemployed, though the government does not.
Both Gallup and BLS seperate these groups.
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.