Another Disappointing Jobs Report: +115,000 (Participation Rate Lowest in 30 years) (military, elections, retire)
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.
Millions invested in tech stocks but not all at their highs. Your $6T number is assuming they did. Where does your "hundreds of thousands who lost jobs" estimate derive from?
Quote:
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
That would be your liberal buddies from the LA Times and A. Cooper "360." LOL
You know if you had the ability to tell the truth to yourself you'd realize that the emerging housing bubble came from the people fleeing the dot-com bubble. People wanted something more stable than "fairy land" stocks so they went to something "real." *snickers*
That is the difference between you guys and normal people. You're talking "propaganda" and spin, we're talking FACTS, no more, no less. You should try it.
Except that you folks don't work with facts and history which is what makes it propaganda. You try and fail to send out messages in one dimension. But, hey, maybe that's how a *******'s mind works.
Let me say, being a former structural and civil designer that was involved with plenty of ODOT projects, there are always projects in the works (in study and design phases) that are just waiting on priority lists for funding. There were plenty of shovel ready or near shovel ready projects.
In most cases having the shovels (the right contractors and the right equipment) was the issue.
Well after 3 years and a Trillion dollars you are still talking about Recovery Summer and Shovel ready jobs....LMFAO....the only shovel is a pooper scooper for this BS...LMFAO....
What about that Portsmouth bypass designed in the 50's still not done or even started...or highway number 7 to Galliapolis Ohio thats as dusty as P-TOWNS highway plans.
What about Piketon? Here is OBAMA and Brown campaigning again and Piketon is a priority... dangling that preverbial carrot well we here in Southern Ohio ain't eating it...
Well after 3 years and a Trillion dollars you are still talking about Recovery Summer and Shovel ready jobs....LMFAO....the only shovel is a pooper scooper for this BS...LMFAO....
What about that Portsmouth bypass designed in the 50's still not done or even started...or highway number 7 to Galliapolis Ohio thats as dusty as P-TOWNS highway plans.
What about Piketon? Here is OBAMA and Brown campaigning again and Piketon is a priority... dangling that preverbial carrot well we here in Southern Ohio ain't eating it...
I guess if you were talking to an uninformed American your "trillion dollar lie" might have some traction, but you and I both know that the infrastructure projects spent LESS THAN 1/3 of the stimulus money.
If you're upset with local projects not getting funding, blame kasick. It is his ODOT that set priorities in Ohio, not Obama. If you're talking about Strickland's old congressional district you might even be targeted for no funding for political retribution. In Cleveland kasick pulled funding from a main interstate bridge thru downtown, AFTER CONSTRUCTION STARTED. Political retribution meant to turn democratic Cleveland into a economic wasteland with business leaving because of the delayed construction on the main line thru town. Of course, this bridge replacement is years behind already and this delay added 10 years to the project. FYI, this bridge is the twin to the bridge that collapsed in the twin cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Except that you folks don't work with facts and history which is what makes it propaganda. You try and fail to send out messages in one dimension. But, hey, maybe that's how a *******'s mind works.
We don't have to go far to find your looney right wing propaganda, do we?
Last edited by buzzards27; 05-08-2012 at 07:17 AM..
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.
The election, and politics has nothing to do with it. The U3 unemployment number drops, when there are actually fewer people employed, and it can go up, when the economy is picking up and more people are entering the work force looking for a job. The U3 number is so screwed up that it will actually give us the opposite indication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
"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.
Why so snarky? All I was doing was giving a brief list of why people can be without a job, and yes, a person who decides to leave their job to move to a new city or state, is without a job. Just look to the military, or other contracted employees, as a prime example of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
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.
That's the new norm for the Obama era of apathy and meritocracy? Apparently the NYT, and you, think we should now resign ourselves to a dead economy, from now to all eternity.
Friday’s jobs report for April was even more disappointing than March. Employers added only 115,000 new jobs, down from March’s number (the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised the March number upward to 154,000, but that’s still abysmal relative to what’s needed). We need well over 250,000 new jobs per month in order to begin to whittle down the vast number of jobs lost in the Great Recession. At least 125,000 new jobs are necessary each month just to keep up with an expanding population of working-age people.
With only 115,000 jobs in April, the hole is getting even deeper.
Most observers pay attention to the official rate of unemployment, which edged down to 8.1 percent in April from 8.2 percent in March. That may sound like progress, but it’s not. The unemployment rate dropped because more people dropped out of the labor force, too discouraged to look for work.
...
That's the new norm for the Obama era of apathy and meritocracy? Apparently the NYT, and you, think we should now resign ourselves to a dead economy, from now to all eternity.
Friday’s jobs report for April was even more disappointing than March. Employers added only 115,000 new jobs, down from March’s number (the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised the March number upward to 154,000, but that’s still abysmal relative to what’s needed). We need well over 250,000 new jobs per month in order to begin to whittle down the vast number of jobs lost in the Great Recession. At least 125,000 new jobs are necessary each month just to keep up with an expanding population of working-age people.
With only 115,000 jobs in April, the hole is getting even deeper.
Most observers pay attention to the official rate of unemployment, which edged down to 8.1 percent in April from 8.2 percent in March. That may sound like progress, but it’s not. The unemployment rate dropped because more people dropped out of the labor force, too discouraged to look for work.
It's not just "even" Robert Reich. Most Keynesians, including Krugman and Stiglitz are frustrated with government inaction. While conservatives complain that Obama is too bold, these economists complain that Obama has been not bold enough and that Bernanki has been too concerned with inflation and not enough about unemployment. Obama has an excuse, GOP stumbling blocks, Bernanki doesn't.
That would be your liberal buddies from the LA Times and A. Cooper "360." LOL
You know if you had the ability to tell the truth to yourself you'd realize that the emerging housing bubble came from the people fleeing the dot-com bubble. People wanted something more stable than "fairy land" stocks so they went to something "real." *snickers*
Yeah, so you're suggesting that the economy couldn't recover from it? And this 2001 speak of yours (AKA, blame liberals and Clinton) falls on its face when I ask you to provide the same information for 2008-2009 debacle. Doesn't it?
The election, and politics has nothing to do with it. The U3 unemployment number drops, when there are actually fewer people employed, and it can go up, when the economy is picking up and more people are entering the work force looking for a job. The U3 number is so screwed up that it will actually give us the opposite indication.
It hasn't been a secret exactly that unemployment rate measurement has its issues, and that it didn't start after Obama took office. So, what is wrong with looking at change in private sector payroll instead? It is that this thread is about, no?
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.
