Another Disappointing Jobs Report: +115,000 (Participation Rate Lowest in 30 years) (deaths, retirements, propaganda)
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.
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):
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.
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
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
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):
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.
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..
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.