321,000 jobs added last month, best year since 1999. (regular, leader, vs)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by JIMANDTHOM

-----------
735,000 Full-Time Jobs LOST over those 30 days.


Wouldn't these 735000 lost fulltime jobs, as most will probably be eligible for UE, show up in the UE numbers.

Once again, for the 975 Millionth time, there is no relationship between UE Rate and UE Benefits.

Everyone freaking get over it already.

I've posted the survey 441 Million freaking times:

1] Are you available to work?
2] Do you want to work?
3] Have you applied for a job in the last 4 weeks?

If you answer "Yes" to all 3 questions, and you do not have a job, then you are "unemployed."

Notice that "Are you receiving UE Benefits?" is not a question on the survey.

Nobody gives a damn if anyone is receiving UE Benefits or not.

If you looked for work 5 weeks ago, but not in the last 4 weeks, and you don't have a job, then you are persona non-gratis.....you get lumped with marginals in U-6, even if you are collecting UE Benefits.

Why?

Because UE Benefits have nothing to do with UE Rate.

Originally Posted by ELR123

Just wondering, what are his god awful policies that have hurt the economy?

Are you serious?

For starters, the only thing Obama has ever done successfully is generate extreme uncertainty.

From Day #1, Obama refused to take a position on the Bush Tax Cuts.

Objectively speaking, it matters not whether Obama wanted to extend the Tax Cuts or end them. What matters is that he blatantly refused to take a definitive potion. Obama dodged the issue for 2 years for political reasons, namely, the 2010 Mid-Term Elections.

Nobody knew what the hell was going on.

Then Obamacare created massive uncertainty, and with each passing day as proposed regulation after proposed regulation was published in the Federal Register, it became clear that businesses could do nothing.

As I said so often, challenging Obamaturds:

How much will one employee cost on January 1, 2014?

Not one single Obamaturd rose to the challenge.

And here we all are, it's almost 2015, and still, nobody knows how much one freaking employee is going to cost under Obamacare.

Then the would-be dictator starts cranking out Executive Orders delaying major provisions of Obamacare in a total panic trying to stave off a recession.

That just made things worse.

In case you didn't know, businesses don't fly by the seat of their pants, like Obama does.

Businesses plan things, and to plan requires information, especially accurate financial information and you can't have that if you have no idea how much you're going to be spending on healthcare benefits for employees.

Originally Posted by ELR123

Because while the recovery has been slow, it's typical of a banking crisis this size. In fact, it's better than most severe banking crises. According to work done by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, the average severe banking crisis brings a country's unemployment up 7% and lasts for 4.8 years (as in unemployment doesn't decrease for 4.8 years). This recession has been on the better end of both those numbers.

You can read the paper from the two authors I mentioned here. Pretty interesting data, and it's not overly long.

Blah blah blah blah.....those guys are stupid.


Which part of Glass-Steagall forced the Chinese against their will to advance into the 2nd Level Economy?

Can you explain how that works exactly?

Which part of Glass-Steagall forced 1 Billion Indians to import goods from China, rather than from the US?

Because, I'm not seeing in the statute where it even mentions India.

Which part of Glass-Steagall forced 5 Billion people in 150 other foreign States to import goods from China, rather than from the US?

Can you at least point out that part of the Act that causes that?

Will you show us that section or sections of Glass-Steagall that made US companies off-shore jobs to China and elsewhere in order to remain globally competitive?


It was the loss of jobs and stagnate/declining wages that forced a reduction in household income, which in turn resulted in Americans defaulting on their mortgages, leading to the so-called "financial crisis."

If China never expands into their 2nd Level Economy, then jobs in the US are not off-shored, and household income does not decline, and homeowners do not default on their mortgages, and there is no "crisis."

Do you now see how stupid some idiots really are?

The recession caused the financial crisis, not the other way around.


Economically...

Mircea

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Mircea

I don't have to poll those people, since your government does that for me.

There are many ways to derive this information.


Mircea

The government did not ask why they left the labor force, only if they left it or not. So you are again lying by claiming the government did so when they obviously didnt.


When I was in college, i volunteer left the labor force because my course load was more difficult than I expected and i found that i did not have time to work and study; And then i re entered the workforce the very next semester.

And you are again wrong about your Labor force argument.

the BLS website defines exactly what it means by those numbers. the 156 million number you talk is EVERYONE between 16 and 55, regardless of if they are employed, unemployed or jobless and not looking.

there for that number does not go up and down depending on if you lose your job or voluntarily leave the work force, it moves because the net number of people between 16 and 65 changes.

that means those people either died ,more people turned 66 than turned 16, or a combination of both(the most likely).

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The government did not ask why they left the labor force, only if they left it or not. So you are again lying by claiming the government did so when they obviously didnt. .

So they DID leave the work force?

How does 750K people LEAVE the work force and then the results = 321K jobs added? And if you are going to claim "seasonal adjusted" the results should be MORE entering the work force..

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pghquest

So they DID leave the work force?

How does 750K people LEAVE the work force and then the results = 321K jobs added? And if you are going to claim "seasonal adjusted" the results should be MORE entering the work force..

simple. Leaving your jobs =/= the job itself being gone.

there are millions of open positions in this country.

People seem to not understand that the numbers you are discussing are not of the number of jobs but of the number of people who have/do not have jobs.

the only metric of the number of jobs is the actual jobs number 321,000.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

simple. Leaving your jobs =/= the job itself being gone.

there are millions of open positions in this country.

People seem to not understand that the numbers you are discussing are not of the number of jobs but of the number of people who have/do not have jobs.

the only metric of the number of jobs is the actual jobs number 321,000.

Thats my point.. the job itself being left by person A does NOT cause the job to be gone..

This is holiday season, the NET result should be MORE jobs..

There are indeed millions of open positions, there ALWAYS exist millions of people in the country, if those jobs arent being filled then you cant ADD 321K jobs if 750K people STOPPED working..

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Thats my point.. the job itself being left by person A does NOT cause the job to be gone..

we agree here

This is holiday season, the NET result should be MORE jobs..

the net result was more jobs, 321,000 of them.

There are indeed millions of open positions, there ALWAYS exist millions of people in the country, if those jobs arent being filled then you cant ADD 321K jobs if 750K people STOPPED working..

This is where im not understanding your point.

You can indeed add more jobs even if people leave the work force, not all people leave the work force because their position as eliminated or because they cant find another job.

people leaving the work force doesnt mean the job they had is no longer needed or that companies didnt need more people besides them.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The government did not ask why they left the labor force, only if they left it or not. So you are again lying by claiming the government did so when they obviously didnt.


When I was in college, i volunteer left the labor force because my course load was more difficult than I expected and i found that i did not have time to work and study; And then i re entered the workforce the very next semester.

And you are again wrong about your Labor force argument.

the BLS website defines exactly what it means by those numbers. the 156 million number you talk is EVERYONE between 16 and 55, regardless of if they are employed, unemployed or jobless and not looking.

there for that number does not go up and down depending on if you lose your job or voluntarily leave the work force, it moves because the net number of people between 16 and 65 changes.

that means those people either died ,more people turned 66 than turned 16, or a combination of both(the most likely).

Sure they do...

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.pdf

As you can see 6,227,000 want a job right now. That's up from 5,437,000 a year ago.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

the net result was more jobs, 321,000 of them.

Not according to the figures being posted.

The net results SEASONALLY adjusted was 321K more jobs, but seasonally adjusted would mean that we would have more people working.

The figures posted is about 1M jobs lost, 321K jobs replaced, for a net loss of about 750K..

Originally Posted by dsjj251

This is where im not understanding your point.

You can indeed add more jobs even if people leave the work force, not all people leave the work force because they cant find another job.

people leaving the work force doesnt mean the job they had is no longer needed or that companies didnt need more people besides them.

thats right, people leaving the work force would mean that job is open for someone else to fill it. With millions of openings, (and there always exists millions of openings), then blaming people leaving the work force for these openings is nonsense. That job still needs to be filled by someone, and not only that job needs to be filled, but that job, AND more jobs to adjust for the holiday season.

Since the net change is a NEGATIVE 750,000 people with jobs, in order to get a total of 321K "jobs added", they would have to seasonally adjust the expected employment down which I've never heard of taking place during a Christmas season..

Why would they expect LESS people working, so they can get a result of 321K increase in jobs, even though there are less people working?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Sure they do...

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.pdf

As you can see 6,227,000 want a job right now. That's up from 5,437,000 a year ago.

they didnt in the link he posted, 6,227,000 didnt leave the labor force last month.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Not according to the figures being posted.

The net results SEASONALLY adjusted was 321K more jobs, but seasonally adjusted would mean that we would have more people working.

The figures posted is about 1M jobs lost, 321K jobs replaced, for a net loss of about 750K..

ok, i see the problem here, the bold.

321,000 is the number of jobs CREATED, not the number of positions filled.

so no, it would not mean more people were working.

321,000 jobs beign created does not mean 321,000 people got a new job last month.

That is exactly whey the unemployment rate can be unchanged even when we create jobs or even go up.