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.
Especially to those who recognize that 4 years after the crash, we should be adding 3-4 million jobs annually. 2012 is pithy job creation. As was 2009 through 2011.
I say they are intentionally cutting people from the rolls that should still be a part of the labor force.
People...its ALL about getting the UE rate down..so obama AND the media can tout how much it has dropped, but NOT how many people (tens of millions) have been lopped off the rolls.
That being said, there's certainly no guarantee that a President Romney would create tons and tons of jobs. But what we're doing now definitely isn't working.
We know the present guy is not competent at the task.
No, to those who recognize that 4 years after the crash, we should be adding 3-4 million jobs annually. 2012 is pithy job creation. As was 2009 through 2011.
We need to add about 250,000 jobs each month, just to keep up with people switching jobs, people changing cities or states and moving, and for new high school and college grads coming into the work force. So if Obama wants to puff of his chest for creating 100,000 jobs each month for 40 months, and call that 4 million jobs, then he is being dishonest.
Creating 100,000 jobs each month, when we should be creating 250,000, is a net loss in jobs, which explains the lowest participation rate in 30 years.
We need to add about 250,000 jobs each month, just to keep up with people switching jobs, people changing cities or states and moving, and for new high school and college grads coming into the work force. So if Obama wants to puff of his chest for creating 100,000 jobs each month for 40 months, and call that 4 million jobs, then he is being dishonest.
Creating 100,000 jobs each month, when we should be creating 250,000, is a net loss in jobs, which explains the lowest participation rate in 30 years.
Precisely correct. The first 150k simply keeps pace with what should be an ever expanding workforce. This admin has demoralized 4 million seeking work so much, that they quit trying.
The 2012 BO campaign theme if honest would be "No, we can't".
What evidence is there that Romney will create jobs? Massachusetts was 47th in job creation while he was governor. lol...
Massachusetts enjoyed a 4.9% unemployment rate in 2005, that is a statistical rate of full employment. So of course fewer jobs are created if everyone that wants a job, has a job.
We need to add about 250,000 jobs each month, just to keep up with people switching jobs, people changing cities or states and moving, and for new high school and college grads coming into the work force. So if Obama wants to puff of his chest for creating 100,000 jobs each month for 40 months, and call that 4 million jobs, then he is being dishonest.
Creating 100,000 jobs each month, when we should be creating 250,000, is a net loss in jobs, which explains the lowest participation rate in 30 years.
In retrospect, Obama is a better bowler than president.
Very little gets done with gridlock these days. Shows how amazing Clinton really was.
Has squat to do with gridlock. BC was a DLC man-the DLC is the pro business wing of the party, and the oldtimers like Pelosi hate it, as they despise business, and as part of the DNC, regulate it to death as much as possible.
The saddest event of the last 10 years is the DNC successfully squashed the DLC. The DLC could cross the aisle and work deals, ideological purity did not matter to them.
I think they need to stop using the U3 unemployment rate as some kind of indicator of employment activity, and start using the U6 number.
I'm sure you'd want to do that, maybe now thru the election??? How about we continue to use the same number we have been using for years and avoid the confusion a cjange would create.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
We need to add about 250,000 jobs each month, just to keep up with people switching jobs, people changing cities or states and moving, and for new high school and college grads coming into the work force. So if Obama wants to puff of his chest for creating 100,000 jobs each month for 40 months, and call that 4 million jobs, then he is being dishonest.
Creating 100,000 jobs each month, when we should be creating 250,000, is a net loss in jobs, which explains the lowest participation rate in 30 years.
"keep up with people switching jobs"???? WTF you talking about? The principle is we need to add approximately the number of net new workers (new graduates minus new retirees) entering the labor force. People jumping between jobs has little to nothing to do with that principle.
Thirty years ago, even 20 years ago 250,000 might have been the number, but with the greying of America they say 100,000 new jobs a month is the new norm.
Quote:
That means on net that the labor force probably will not grow as quickly as it did in years past, and so fewer payroll jobs are needed to absorb new entrants to the labor force each month. Typically the figure economists cite as the minimum number of additional jobs needed to keep the unemployment rate flat is about 150,000 to 200,000.
But economists at Barclays Capital, who have been analyzing how the graying of America may affect employment trends, estimate that going forward 75,000 to 100,000 jobs added per month may be sufficient.
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.
How about we continue to use the same number we have been using for years and avoid the confusion a cjange would create.
