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.
Oh look, here's Antonio Fatas (Senior Policy Scholar at the Center for Business and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business) emphasizing the same thing I was talking about:
Oh no! Good news for the USA is bad news for the GOP
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlbenator
But that won't stop the libs from running WITH it!
Disappointing economic progress for the GOP and its Limbaugh followers.
It was only the second time in the last 11 years that January's numbers beat Wall Street expectations and came amid a powerful run for nonfarm payrolls. Over the past three months, job creation has averaged 336,000, with upward revisions for both November and December, good for a total of just over one million during the span. "It's a great report. The labor force finally goes up, we got a little wage growth, a lot of upward revisions," said Ed Keon, managing director and portfolio manager for Prudential Financial. "We're finally getting enough internal momentum that we can stay at that roughly 3 percent (gross domestic product) growth rate, maybe even a little higher as we go through the year."
Disappointing economic progress for the GOP and its Limbaugh followers.
It was only the second time in the last 11 years that January's numbers beat Wall Street expectations and came amid a powerful run for nonfarm payrolls. Over the past three months, job creation has averaged 336,000, with upward revisions for both November and December, good for a total of just over one million during the span. "It's a great report. The labor force finally goes up, we got a little wage growth, a lot of upward revisions," said Ed Keon, managing director and portfolio manager for Prudential Financial. "We're finally getting enough internal momentum that we can stay at that roughly 3 percent (gross domestic product) growth rate, maybe even a little higher as we go through the year."
Disappointing economic progress for the GOP and its Limbaugh followers.
It was only the second time in the last 11 years that January's numbers beat Wall Street expectations and came amid a powerful run for nonfarm payrolls. Over the past three months, job creation has averaged 336,000, with upward revisions for both November and December, good for a total of just over one million during the span. "It's a great report. The labor force finally goes up, we got a little wage growth, a lot of upward revisions," said Ed Keon, managing director and portfolio manager for Prudential Financial. "We're finally getting enough internal momentum that we can stay at that roughly 3 percent (gross domestic product) growth rate, maybe even a little higher as we go through the year."
Mitt Romney says his administration would lower the unemployment rate to 6 percent by the end of his first term. “I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the policies that we’d put in place, we’d get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, and perhaps a little lower,” Romney says in a Time magazine interview.
So, this either implicitly suggests that Romney's intended plan would have been worse than the one we now are on under President Obama's administration, or that the supposed economic guru really didn't understand the economic trajectory of this country at all. Or, most likely, both.
There's a certain irony to the endless Republican efforts to hamstring this recovery because - for purely political reasons - they didn't want to see economic growth under a Democratic President. The economic cycle of growth and then an ebbing of the economy is natural. Had they only done the right thing, we might be approaching that inevitable next ebb in the next year - just in time for the 2016 Presidential election, and advantageous to the GOP.
Instead, in true Keystone Kops fashion, they've only haplessly managed to delay earnest growth until precisely the worst possible time for themselves, politically.
So which unemployment measure would you except as valid?
Availability of the workforce compared to actual working full time hours with pro-rated statistics for non-full time employment for a total employment participation rate.
So we would have 100 people eligible to work:
50 work full time.
25 work 30 hours.
10 work 20 hours.
5 work 10 hours.
5 have no job for 4 weeks.
5 have no job for over 11 months.
Under the current scheme we have 5% unemployment, 13.5% underemployment (remember, the bottom 5 don't count).
Under normal schemes with have 10% unemployment, 40% underemployment.
Under my method we have:
50 x 100% (50%)
25 x 75% (18.75%)
10 x 50% (5%)
5 x 25% (1.25%)
5 x 0% (0%)
5 x 0% (0%)
Our total employment participation rate is a paltry 75%.
Availability of the workforce compared to actual working full time hours with pro-rated statistics for non-full time employment for a total employment participation rate.
So we would have 100 people eligible to work:
50 work full time.
25 work 30 hours.
10 work 20 hours.
5 work 10 hours.
5 have no job for 4 weeks.
5 have no job for over 11 months.
Under the current scheme we have 5% unemployment, 13.5% underemployment (remember, the bottom 5 don't count).
Under normal schemes with have 10% unemployment, 40% underemployment.
Under my method we have:
50 x 100% (50%)
25 x 75% (18.75%)
10 x 50% (5%)
5 x 25% (1.25%)
5 x 0% (0%)
5 x 0% (0%)
Our total employment participation rate is a paltry 75%.
I'm confused by your response to my question. You seem to have responded with goals, not with how you would measure whether or not you are achieving your goals.
Perhaps your prior issue with the other survey's is not with their process, but with how they report their results.
In the current BLS measurements many, if not most, of those who would fall within your bottom 2 brackets do not want a job or are otherwise prevented from employment (disabled).
There are also many people in the middle 3 brackets who have no desire for full time jobs.
In Gallup's measurement they don't count the self employed, which I think explains one of the reasons their P2P numbers are so low.
I think one of the issues is in determining what is a good number. Take how the BLS LFPR number is calculated. Because of the demographic trends for the next 20 or so years we are unlikely to an LFPR much higher than it is now and it will likely go lower.
You claim 75% is paltry, but what if an increasing number of people start falling into the bottom bracket because they not want or need a job, or only need or desire a part time job. 75% could be the best that could be expected given the demographic mix.
Great news! With more people employed, can we expect less spending on social programs?
Absolutely. The point liberals have been making for years is that government spending spiked in 2009 largely due to increased welfare spending of various kinds after the Great Recession hit. Part of the case for economic stimulus is that it improves economic health, gets people back to work paying taxes instead of consuming handouts, and improves the country's long-term fiscal health.
Absolutely. The point liberals have been making for years is that government spending spiked in 2009 largely due to increased welfare spending of various kinds after the Great Recession hit. Part of the case for economic stimulus is that it improves economic health, gets people back to work paying taxes instead of consuming handouts, and improves the country's long-term fiscal health.
Many right wingers don't seem to get this one, they just think cutting off people from government assistance when they most need it would somehow be good for v them because they are obviously "lazy."
But that won't stop the libs from running WITH it!
Well, that's a big hit to Gallup's reputation. Suddenly claiming that the exact same rate we've been using for decades is a "big lie" is itself a big lie.
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.
Oh no! Good news for the USA is bad news for the GOP
