The Pre-Job Report Complaint Thread! (employment, Congress, how much, insurance)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

True- with 94 million people out of work and 96 million working, the "unemployment number" is meaningless.

The "slight of hand" in reporting percentages is fudging the denominator, which is done with the unemployment number. Of course, this is done in attempt to decieve and convince the public that things are not so bad.

Obama has presided over-

1. highest number of unemployed citizens in US history

2. record numbers of citizens in poverty

3. record numbers of citizens on foodstamps

4. lowest job participation rate since 1972

5. lowest home ownership

6. highest accumulation of federal and personal debt


Obama has been a disaster for the US. Oddly, libs still love him.

there are not 94 million people out of work, that number includes every single person over the age of 16, regardless of if they are 105 in a nursing home, or 16 in high school.

And Obviously your list is wrong by the same measurement.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

‘Ugly’ is the word that sums this jobs report - MarketWatch

I think this sentence about sums it up. Not a complete disaster, but lackluster top to bottom.

Everything in this report is weak -- headline, participation, wages, revisions. Real ugly.

Pitiful sums it up too:

Payrolls Disaster: Only 142K Jobs Added In September With Zero Wage Growth; August Revised Much Lower

Just as bad, the August print was also revised far lower from 173K to 136K. And while it is less followed, the household survey was an unmitigated disaster, with 236,000 jobs lost in September.

[legalsea]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

True- with 94 million people out of work and 96 million working, the "unemployment number" is meaningless.

The "slight of hand" in reporting percentages is fudging the denominator, which is done with the unemployment number. Of course, this is done in attempt to decieve and convince the public that things are not so bad.

Obama has presided over-

1. highest number of unemployed citizens in US history

2. record numbers of citizens in poverty

3. record numbers of citizens on foodstamps

4. lowest job participation rate since 1972

5. lowest home ownership

6. highest accumulation of federal and personal debt


Obama has been a disaster for the US. Oddly, libs still love him.

I wonder why people keep bringing up the labor participation rate?

Said 94 million includes:

My 86 year old mother.
My 42 year old sister, who is a 'stay at home mom' with no desire to work.
My 62 year old sister whom is receiving Federal disability.
My 64 year old sister whom receives widow's benefits and is content to not work.
Me, when I retire at age 66.
Many of the CD posters herein that post tens of thousands of times, on this one forum, complaining about the labor participation rate.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

True- with 94 million people out of work and 96 million working, the "unemployment number" is meaningless.
...

<sigh>
Why do you say 94 million people are out-of-work --- and imply that is the unemployment number?

Most of those people don't want to be working, such as, my 85 year old mother; my 17 year old in HS; my other son in college and my stay at home wife.

In the 1950s, most women stayed home. Should those millions of women be considered unemployed using your standard?

It sure seems as if conservatives want to use whatever number looks the worst, regardless of how misleading they are for the purpose of Obama-bashing.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by legalsea

i wonder why people keep bringing up the labor participation rate?

Said 94 million includes:

My 86 year old mother.
My 42 year old sister, who is a 'stay at home mom' with no desire to work.
My 62 year old sister whom is receiving federal disability.
My 64 year old sister whom receives widow's benefits and is content to not work.
Me, when i retire at age 66.
Many of the cd posters herein that post tens of thousands of times, on this one forum, complaining about the labor participation rate.

gmta

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Pitiful sums it up too:

Payrolls Disaster: Only 142K Jobs Added In September With Zero Wage Growth; August Revised Much Lower

Just as bad, the August print was also revised far lower from 173K to 136K. And while it is less followed, the household survey was an unmitigated disaster, with 236,000 jobs lost in September.

Isn't zerohedge the same people who were complaining that the Fed didn't raise interest rates? It sure seems as if interest rates should remain low.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by UNC4Me

First of all, your claim is unsupportable and based only on your personal bias. Second, the President has little to no impact on the economy regardless of the letter behind his or her name. The blame game played by you and others is a waste of time.

This isn't true. I asked this over and over and it gets ignored. Do you think there would have been absolutely no difference in our economy if rather than re-appointing Bernanke as Fed Chief he would have appointed someone more along the lines of a Bernie Sanders?

Would people have more faith in the markets if the administration prosecuted bankers that broke the law as opposed to making them even stronger?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

This isn't true. I asked this over and over and it gets ignored. Do you think there would have been absolutely no difference in our economy if rather than re-appointing Bernanke as Fed Chief he would have appointed someone more along the lines of a Bernie Sanders?

Would people have more faith in the markets if the administration prosecuted bankers that broke the law as opposed to making them even stronger?

ANd it has been explained to you that Bernanke's term didnt end until a year after Obama took office and the Chairman has to be chosen from the current bank chairs. He cant just pick anyone as you seem to be claiming.

As for your second comment, I dont even think you believe that seeing your own comments on business regulation.

If you believe more regulations causes stagnation in business growth, then the same would happen with banks and the overall economy.

now, you may see that as a good thing, but it wouldnt create the economy you believe it would.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Isn't zerohedge the same people who were complaining that the Fed didn't raise interest rates? It sure seems as if interest rates should remain low.

I've argued this many times also.....raising rates are what we should do. The rates are kept low for one reason......to prop up the stock market. That is all the Fed cares about today.

If rates start going up (this should have been done long ago with plenty of warning) people get off the money they are sitting on and start buying. They buy a car before rates go up......they buy houses......they go ahead and invest in their businesses before rates go up.

Manufacturing, housing, construction all kicks in gear.

[texan2yankee]

142K it was a total disaster, 60K below the consensus and below the lowest estimate. Just as bad, the August jobs growth report was also revised far lower from 173K to 136K.

And while it is less followed, the household survey was an unmitigated disaster, with 236,000 jobs lost in September.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...st-revised-muc