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)
 
Old 05-07-2012, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,428,898 times
Reputation: 4586

Advertisements

Buzzards, there is an admission in your own link/quote that most economists cite 150,000-200,000 jobs per month. The vast majority cite a number far larger than 75,000-100,000 and, no, they are not oblivious to the "greying" in the country. I have been saying that's it's likely about 150,000 now, specifically because of baby boomers starting to reach retirement age, compared to ~200,000 or so before the past year or so.

Using the CBO's projections for labor force participation, adjusted for baby boomers who would be expected to retire, the UE rate would be 10.7% without all the labor force dropouts.

I posted this link in a response to one of your earlier posts (but never got a response):

http://blog.american.com/2012/05/the...ent-rate-11-1/

Yes, I know it's a conservative blog, but there is a link to a publication by the St. Louis Fed, where the CBO projection for labor force participation can be found.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2012, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,428,898 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
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".
Haven't you heard? Obama is asking people to think not about whether they're better off now than they were 4 years ago, but whether they'll be better off 4 years from now if he is re-elected. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,192,978 times
Reputation: 1378
The quote from the article speaks for itself, what you're doing is called spin. You're wrong, the old rule of thumb was cited and analysts at Barclays have offered an judgment to account for increased retirees. America, us baby boomers are retiring, many are retiring early. I was born in 1953 and I've been retired since 2006. You do the math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Buzzards, there is an admission in your own link/quote that most economists cite 150,000-200,000 jobs per month. The vast majority cite a number far larger than 75,000-100,000 and, no, they are not oblivious to the "greying" in the country. I have been saying that's it's likely about 150,000 now, specifically because of baby boomers starting to reach retirement age, compared to ~200,000 or so before the past year or so.

Using the CBO's projections for labor force participation, adjusted for baby boomers who would be expected to retire, the UE rate would be 10.7% without all the labor force dropouts.

I posted this link in a response to one of your earlier posts (but never got a response):

The awful April jobs report: Is the ‘real’ unemployment rate 11.1%? « The Enterprise Blog

Yes, I know it's a conservative blog, but there is a link to a publication by the St. Louis Fed, where the CBO projection for labor force participation can be found.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,428,898 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
The quote from the article speaks for itself, what you're doing is called spin. You're wrong, you were wrong about why we need new jobs, and youre wrong now. America, us baby boomers are retiring, many are retiring early. I was born in 1953 and I've been retired since 2006. You do the math.
The quote actually said that most economists say 150,000-200,000 and that Barclays Capital says differently. Barclays Capital =/= most economists

I was NOT the one who said that we need jobs because people move around if that's what you're suggesting. That's laughable. I said we need jobs because of population growth. And I am certainly not the one who said we needed 250,000 - I said 150,000.

And - BTW - some baby boomers are retiring early, but just as many are retiring late.

Since you retired in 2006 (at 52 or 53 no less, an age at which the vast majority of people would never be able to retire), I gather you think that only 75,000 new jobs were needed per month then? Right? I bet not...you would probably say 250,000...because that was during the Bush years.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 05-07-2012 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 05:27 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Haven't you heard? Obama is asking people to think not about whether they're better off now than they were 4 years ago, but whether they'll be better off 4 years from now if he is re-elected. LOL
I have heard that, and it is similar to the episode of Mary Tyler Moore where new executive management takes over at WJM, and when Ted wonders what Lou has told them, and Lou said "I told them to watch you", Ted says "Oh, my God". Same way BO feels about his upcoming performance review. Same performance as Baxter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,917,756 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You have a horrible memory. When Bush took over the economy had just lost $6 trillion in wealth.
Those loses where never there. They were artificial and overstated. To explain what I mean, when a stock rises from $10 to $100, only the last trade may have been at $100.

So, if you bought a stock for $10 and it rose to $100 you earned $90 on paper. If you sell it, you will realize that gain. However, if you don't sell it and it falls back to $10, you lost nothing. Those that claim a "$6 trillion in wealth" are calculating it as if most actually paid those inflated prices, which they didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,917,756 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Haven't you heard? Obama is asking people to think not about whether they're better off now than they were 4 years ago, but whether they'll be better off 4 years from now. LOL
1) President Obama is actually asking that question. Obama kicks off campaign, rips into Romney - chicagotribune.com

2) Anyone that doesn't think we are better of than four years ago -- when the economy was heading off the cliff -- with 800,000 job losses a month; with the stock market taking a 50% hit; with a bankrupt auto industry; with banks going belly up; etc.

Could recovery been faster? I think so but it would have required conservative cooperation on expansionary policies, which he never got. So, it's hypocritical for conservative to complain that Obama didn't do enough when it was them holding Obama back.

Last edited by MTAtech; 05-07-2012 at 05:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 05:43 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,401,256 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Those loses where never there. They were artificial and overstated. To explain what I mean, when a stock rises from $10 to $100, only the last trade may have been at $100.

So, if you bought a stock for $10 and it rose to $100 you earned $90 on paper. If you sell it, you will realize that gain. However, if you don't sell it and it falls back to $10, you lost nothing. Those that claim a "$6 trillion in wealth" are calculating it as if most actually paid those inflated prices, which they didn't.
By that logic there were no losses in wealth when the housing bubble crashed.

After all, that "value" in homes was never there. It was just perceived as having been there. Debt is just the same thing as the paper dollar.

So by your logic Obama took over when nothing was lost in the housing market.

Bwahahaha...

The only difference:
Quote:
By Atif Mian and Amir Sufi Feb 29, 2012 7:01 PM ET

The housing collapse has wiped out about $6 trillion in wealth. The dot-com meltdown resulted in a comparable loss of $5.5 trillion in wealth. Yet the bursting of the Internet bubble wasn’t as disruptive for aggregate spending. Why? Because the loss of value in the dot-com bust wasn’t associated with a highly leveraged sector.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-and-sufi.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 05:44 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
By that logic there were no losses in wealth when the housing bubble crashed.

After all, that "value" in homes was never there. It was just perceived as having been there. Debt is just the same thing as the paper dollar.

So by your logic Obama took over when nothing was lost in the housing market.

Bwahahaha...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 05:46 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
1) President Obama is actually asking that question. Obama kicks off campaign, rips into Romney - chicagotribune.com

2) Anyone that doesn't think we are better of than four years ago -- when the economy was heading off the cliff -- with 800,000 job losses a month; with the stock market taking a 50% hit; with a bankrupt auto industry; with banks going belly up; etc.
We did NOT lose 800k jobs in May, 2007. 4 years ago.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:11 AM.

© 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