Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:33 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,786
Points:2,900,880
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 11:06:29 AM

How many people are actually unemployed in this country?

Look off to the far right side of the chart to see the hopefully not ever-increasing numbers of unemployed in this country.

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707

Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

If the "State of the Union is stronger (and getting stronger)" it will show up in these numbers. Use this topic to post links and opinions regarding Obama's (and Congress') handling of the economy as it relates to employment in this country.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2015 8:24:18 AM

"12,299,707 (number of unemployed in Feb.2013) minus 8,597,561 (number of unemployed 4/3/15) = 3,702,146"

Interesting that you would now use the "Official" unemployment number that you constantly rail against...

Of course, rather than address the fact that you used children to inflate your unemployment numbers (for which there is no defense, I understand why you would try to deflect from that rather than simply admit you used bad data) you once again shift the conversation to why the numbers don't 'add up'.

Nor have you provided the link related to the facts that support your currently baseless assertion that "taxes have gone up, not down, for virtually everybody who is a taxpayer".

You must be getting dizzy, with all of this spinning!
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2015 8:14:39 AM

Waiting for something from me, cricket stomper?

Try this :

12,299,707 (number of unemployed in Feb.2013) minus 8,597,561 (number of unemployed 4/3/15) = 3,702,146

That's a big number, right? The number of fewer unemployed people in those 25 months?

Take 3,702,146 and divide by 25 (months between Feb. 2013 and April 2015).

That divided number is 148,086

That would be the average number fewer unemployed each month from Feb.2013 to April 2015.

That number, 148,086 is far lower than the monthly figure of
"the 269,000 average over the past year" that was reported last month.

If 269,000 was really the number of new jobs each month, for the past 25 months we would have had unemployment reduced by 6,725,000 instead of just 3,702,146. There are an extra 3,022,854 people still unemployed.

Something is wrong with the counting. Perhaps a math teacher can figure out where three million people went.......
Profile Pic
SAVMOR
Champion Author Idaho

Posts:7,099
Points:1,726,660
Joined:Jun 2005
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2015 6:47:18 PM



Actual unemployment up to March 2015
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2015 10:15:48 AM

Crickets from 75, as expected!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2015 10:04:20 AM

"Link?
Reality."

Your perceived reality, backed-up with what facts/data?

I don't expect a viable response, similar to your ignoring the fact that children were used to bolster negative unemployment claims...

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 4/6/2015 10:05:30 AM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2015 9:36:38 AM

Link?
Reality.

Statistics kept by the Dept. of Labor. Some of the manipulation is in which statistics to measure, other manipulation is in how the statistics are reported and interpreted.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2015 9:17:26 AM

"taxes have gone up, not down, for virtually everybody who is a taxpayer."

Link?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2015 9:16:35 AM

"The statistics will (be manipulated to) produce that number."

Ah yes, like you (or was it reb?) who included children in their unemployment figures?

SMH
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2015 9:48:31 PM

That might work except that taxes have gone up, not down, for virtually everybody who is a taxpayer. People who needed to buy health insurance included.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2015 8:35:14 AM

Time for those "job creators" who argued for tax breaks to step up to the plate then.

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2015 10:12:52 PM

Yeah, I "guess" they like that 5.5% number, so that's what the number will be. The statistics will (be manipulated to) produce that number.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2015 8:10:16 PM

Yeah, guesswork. Your own post laments: "US added 126K jobs in March, vs 245K expected; jobless rate stays at 5.5%". "Expected" sounds so much more scientific than "guess", but that's what it is.

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2015 7:50:21 PM

Guesswork?

Try this opinion:

NY Post's Crudele: Unemployment Data 'Nearly Useless at Best, Fraudulent at Worst'

"New York Post columnist John Crudele says....The unemployment rate figure is "unreliable — unreliable to the point of being nearly useless at best and fraudulent at worst," he writes."

"So what's wrong with the figures? The Labor Department requires that 90 percent of household surveys distributed by the Census Department be successfully completed to determine the unemployment rate, Crudele explains. But, "Census was only able to complete 85.59 percent of March unemployment surveys nationwide, sources tell me," he writes. "And that below-the-threshold number was only reached after Census extended its survey two extra days."

In fact, not one of the six Census regions hit the 90 percent threshold. "The Atlanta region came closest at 89.19 percent, sources said," Crudele notes. "New York, which has always been a laggard, had a miserable 81.27 percent.""

But when that 5.5% number gets headlined all over the major media, it still "looks good" for the economy and the 0 Administration, right?

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2015 9:09:26 PM

All that fuss over employment falling short of predictions. Time to clean the crystal ball, or else realize that predictions are nothing more than guesswork.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2015 4:39:04 PM

"Another month has ended, time to count again."

I agree, let's count again, shall we?

2/28/2013:

"Official Unemployed: 12,299,707, Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803"

4/3/15:

Official Unemployed: 8,597,561, Actual Unemployed: 17,120,336

Seems to be trending positively to me, regardless of which numbers you believe. As to the pace of the continued growth, that can certainly be debated.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2015 3:54:02 PM

Another month has ended, time to count again.

US added 126K jobs in March, vs 245K expected; jobless rate stays at 5.5%

Oops. I guess we can blame the cold weather in January, right?
U rate stays the same? What, did more people leave the workforce again?

Time to count again, and don't forget the REcount! "February's numbers were revised lower to 264,000 from the initially reported 295,000, while January's number fell from 239,000 to 201,000."
Oh well, that's only 31,000 less and 38,000 less, respectively, than the original numbers. So how are we doing for the year?

"The total fell well short of the 269,000 average over the past year and was the first time in 14 months that the number dropped below 200,000."

Oh.

What about those already employed? (babies included if you like)
For many older workers, a new job comes with a pay cut
"...you're older and have been out of work for a while.
In that case, you can expect to spend a lot more time finding a job. And you can expect to earn less when you find one."

"As the economy continues to recover and the unemployment rate falls, there are still far too many people struggling," said Debra Whitman, chief public policy officer for the AARP."

"Some older workers give up. About a quarter of the long-term jobless in the survey said they've stopped looking and dropped out of the workforce altogether."

"Many are taking pay cuts to get back to work."
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 10:31:40 AM

There are profits, and there are PROFITS.

Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,645
Points:870,245
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 10:25:59 AM

Because it's just SO much easier hiring and keeping track of that many more part-time employees.

Yes, it is also to make a profit, because without a profit, there are NO employees. Just ask a union whose demands ran a company out of business.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 10:20:18 AM

"The high cost of ObamaCare has forced many employers to drop employees below the thirty hour threshold."

That's their story, and they're sticking to it.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,645
Points:870,245
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 9:58:05 AM

I think it is more a question of UNDER employment.

The high cost of ObamaCare has forced many employers to drop employees below the thirty hour threshold.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 9:42:09 AM

"And occasionally infants work"

Somebody sure is buying' what he is shovelin'...

Sad to see somebody double down on such a ridiculous notion.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 9:10:04 AM

"93 million or 172 million, they are unemployed. "

>>>The 93 million figure is meaningless bunk, just as my 172 million number is.



"And occasionally infants work."

Get real.




[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 3/16/2015 9:13:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2015 8:43:00 AM

Look up and see it: The title of this thread is "How many people are actually unemployed in this country?"

93 million or 172 million, they are unemployed.

And occasionally infants work. Ever seen commercials for baby products?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,758
Points:487,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 1:22:54 PM

A lot of young adults are working; but can't make ends meet. They rely on possibly living with parents who are better off or government services, or both.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 1:10:47 PM

"I don't think he even realizes the hyperbole he constantly posts - he thinks he has found 'fact'."

Well, the article does say "Opinion" in its title.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2015 12:08:26 PM

"The 93 million figure is meaningless bunk, just as my 172 million number is. Both figures arbitrarily include millions of people who can’t work, don’t want to work and don’t need to work."

LOL! 75 once again fails at fact-checking - or has the DJIA been up 4 straight days again?

I don't think he even realizes the hyperbole he constantly posts - he thinks he has found 'fact'.

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 6:31:26 PM

"If you like to follow the numbers, follow these:"

Before you follow those numbers too closely, take time to read the entire article, which continues on page 2 of the link:


"The fear that America will go broke if fewer than half of us are working is credible only if we ignore history, which shows that the percentage of Americans with a paid job has never gotten much above 50% (the record was 51% in January 2007).

It turns out that we’ve always had a lot of children, and old folks, and housewives to support. Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, the portion of Americans who had a paid job was always less than 40%. In 1962, it was just 36%.

I suppose you’re angry with me. Why should we count infants as unemployed? You’re right: We shouldn’t count infants as unemployed any more than we should count 85-year-olds. But that is what people do when they carp on about the 93 million adults who’ve “given up” on work.

The 93 million figure is meaningless bunk, just as my 172 million number is. Both figures arbitrarily include millions of people who can’t work, don’t want to work and don’t need to work."



Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 3:54:47 PM

"Wanna pull an AlGore, and demand a partial recount???"

Ah, so now that the right-favored 'Actual Unemployed' figure doesn't fit your narrative anymore, you are going to move the goal posts yet again to another empty statistic???

How predictable.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2015 2:15:10 PM

If you like to follow the numbers, follow these:

America is full of slackers and deadbeats who won’t work

"Only 46% of Americans Work"

"The unemployment rate isn’t 5.5%, as the government claims. The real unemployment rate is over 35%, they say, because about 102 million people aren’t working, including about 9 million who are officially counted as unemployed and the 93 million who’ve given up."

"It’s not 102 million who aren’t working; it’s 172 million!

"The government is hiding in plain sight the brutal fact that only 46% of Americans are working (148 million of a total population of 320 million)! If you consider everybody and not only the 250 million who are over 16 that the BLS counts, only 49% of us are in the labor force."

Wanna pull an AlGore, and demand a partial recount???
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2015 7:55:23 PM

"Weasle,

If dropping unemployment numbers meant more people were finding jobs instead of their government benefits running out, that would be a good thing."

Meaning you are still ignoring the other metrics I also posted in the other thread - AND the fact that your 'Actual Unemployed' number is also drastically decreased...



[Edited by: Weaslespit at 3/12/2015 7:56:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,786
Points:2,900,880
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2015 6:42:21 PM

Weasle,

If dropping unemployment numbers meant more people were finding jobs instead of their government benefits running out, that would be a good thing.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 9:32:21 PM

">>Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.<<

Hmmm...I see that unemployment dropped between 2003 and 2007, including a couple of pretty good years economically for the country, yet SNAP numbers continued to rise almost that entire time. Apparently, that isn't a "telling statistic" in your world."

Ouch - that one hurt...
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,716
Points:3,481,910
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 1:57:47 PM

>>Even if you lay the 33.490 number on GWBush...<<

Which I didn't, as I simply used the number from January, 2009, his last month in office. However, if you want to base it on the fiscal year, which is what the annual numbers you quoted are, then you'd have to go by the number from the final month in FY 2009, which was September, 2009, and that number was 37.2 million.

 
>>Seen graphically, you can easily see the steep rise in 2009-2013.<<

Actually, the "steep rise" goes from early-mid 2008 through the end of 2011.

 
>>Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.<<

Hmmm...I see that unemployment dropped between 2003 and 2007, including a couple of pretty good years economically for the country, yet SNAP numbers continued to rise almost that entire time. Apparently, that isn't a "telling statistic" in your world.

 
>>And that's how 0bama got tagged "The Food Stamp President"<<

No, Obama got that tag from Newt Gingrich, who used it as a talking point in 2011 when he began campaigning for President. It sounded good to you righties, so you just keep repeating it.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 12:57:35 PM

Thanks for honing in on the year-by-year numbers.
Let's look a little closer at those, okay?
2008 - 28.223 Million on SNAP
2009 - 33.490   "   "   "
2010 - 40.302   "   "   "
2011 - 44.709  "   "   "
2012 - 46.609   "   "  "
2013 - 47.636  "   "   "
2014 - 46.536  "   "   "

Source: USDA website

Even if you lay the 33.490 number on GWBush, you get a huge increase, over 14 Million more people, added in the early years of the 0bama Administration.
Seen graphically, you can easily see the steep rise in 2009-2013.
You can also see SNAP participation (through 2012) charted with unemployment and people in poverty.
Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.

And that's how 0bama got tagged "The Food Stamp President"


[Edited by: I75at7AM at 2/19/2015 1:06:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,716
Points:3,481,910
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 10:32:30 PM

>>Here is the more telling statistic:

People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million<<

Gosh, I75, that sure might be a "telling statistic" if it were true.

However, in January, 2009, when Obama (yeah, that's his name - not "0") took office, there were 32.2 million people on Food Stamps, not the "26 million" you claim. And as of November, 2014, that number is 46.3 million, the same as it was 3 years ago and now on a downward trend. So, that's a 43.7% increase in just under 6 years.

Now, just for comparison's sake, let's take a look at George W. Bush. We already know that there were 32.2 million on Food Stamps in January, 2009. So, what was that number when Bush took office, in January, 2001? Well, that'd be 17.2 million, an increase of 86.9%. A number that had gone down since 1994 went up all but one year under Bush, with costs going up EVERY YEAR.

So, who should be considered the Food Stamp President - the guy with the 6.2% (and going down) annual increase, or the guy with the 8.1% annual increase? That would be George W. Bush - the Food Stamp President!!!

 

>>I see government dependents going up, in number.<<

As you can see from the links I provided above, those numbers haven't gone up in 3 years. No need to pretend those numbers are still going up.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 4:24:04 PM

"People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million

You show unemployment going down. I see government dependents going up, in number"

There it is! 'The Defelction'...

ROTFLOL!!! Thanks for not disappointing, 75. ;)

"Immigrants tend to be at the lower end of the wage scale, at least starting out, and most of those wage earners are eligible for government benefits (food stamps) even while employed."

And then to imply that all ~5 million of those who got jobs are low wage immigrants - wow. Partisan to a fault.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:24,202
Points:350,645
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:33:19 PM

"Here is the more telling statistic:"

Your statistic doesn't tell anything. A great many people on SNAP assistance already work (at jobs that won't pay enough to allow workers to feed themselves or their families); a great many are also children, and disabled, and elderly.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:45:13 PM

The weezil seems to be confused and has equated "more people with jobs" with "more taxpayers". The two groups are in no way mutual. Immigrants tend to be at the lower end of the wage scale, at least starting out, and most of those wage earners are eligible for government benefits (food stamps) even while employed.

>>>Anybody care to twist this statistic now as well since it clearly shows job growth?<<<

Here is the more telling statistic:

People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million

You show unemployment going down. I see government dependents going up, in number.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:11:42 PM

Thought not... ;)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 2:52:51 PM

"I would like to see a correlation between the unemployed numbers and the government dependent numbers."

I would like to see a comparison of 'Actual Unemployed' numbers from 2 years ago compared to 'Actual Unemployed' numbers today (since the right suddenly doesn't like to use the Official unemployment number anymore, although it was a perfectly accurate indicator for decades prior to Obama);

Feb 2013: 22,344,803
Feb 2015: 17,525,367

Anybody care to twist this statistic now as well since it clearly shows job growth?

;)
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,786
Points:2,900,880
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 1:54:43 PM

I would like to see a correlation between the unemployed numbers and the government dependent numbers.

Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:26,717
Points:4,044,340
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 5:16:16 PM

"How many people are actually unemployed"

Billions and billions.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,786
Points:2,900,880
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 5:07:35 PM

Very sad state of affairs these days, I75.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 10:02:05 AM

"So put that little statistic up your tailpipe and light it."

More taxpayers?

Smoke that ;)
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 10:19:33 PM

0bama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009

"President Barack 0bama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009."

So put that little statistic up your tailpipe and light it.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 3:42:40 PM

"But of course you will try to explain away that little conundrum with another smirky snarky post.

Saw you coming......"

Aw, you make it sound like you don't like me. :(

"so employers will not hire any more full time workers in order to stay under the threshold."

That has always been the case.

"I forgot to post the part about how many of the "new" jobs are part time. And of course many of those part time jobs might have been full time"

Sure some of those jobs are indeed part-time. Again, that nature of the beast. Part-time positions always come first.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 3:18:22 PM

I forgot to post the part about how many of the "new" jobs are part time. And of course many of those part time jobs might have been full time except for the onerous burden of 0bamaCare, so employers will not hire any more full time workers in order to stay under the threshold.

But of course you will try to explain away that little conundrum with another smirky snarky post.

Saw you coming......
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 2:39:15 PM

"I do. For every story announcing a new business opening up, there is a story about one cutting back or going out of business."

That is the nature of Capitalism... The strong survive, the weak do not and new replaces old.

But none of that has anything to do with the continued drop in the 'Actual Unemployed' number touted by you and your fellow Tea Partiers (the number you are now abandoning as it, too, reflects a recovering economy).

"As sad as all these statistics are (sad but true), is it amusing to see 0bama's minions spin themselves into pretzels and knots trying to explain away all the continuing bad news."

Keep parroting those talking points from your Faux Friends ;)
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 2:08:07 PM

I do. For every story announcing a new business opening up, there is a story about one cutting back or going out of business.
From January: Americans quit seeking jobs, unemployment rate drops
From Sept. 2012: How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? "The actual monthly amount can be calculated and the Atlanta Fed even did us a huge favor by publishing an interactive monthly jobs calculator so you can go check for yourself. This month shows we need 104,116 payroll jobs to maintain the same unemployment rate of 8.1% with all of the other same terrible conditions the state of employment is in."
From Nov. 2012: Who Got Jobs During the Obama Presidency? "A new analysis of government data shows that two-thirds of the net increase in employment since President Obama took office has gone to immigrant workers, primarily legal immigrants."Since President Obama took office, 67 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal)."

"There were 1.94 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) working in the third quarter of 2012 than at the start of 2009, when the president took office. This compares to a 938,000 increase for natives over the same time period."

We have seen that new employment does not cover the number needed to keep up with the nation's growth in population. We have seen that new jobs go to immigrants in much larger numbers than to native Americans. And we have seen that many people, instead of finding a job, get on SSI Disability instead. The Number Of US Citizens On Disability Is Now Larger Than The Population Of Greece! Record Number: 10.9 Million Americans Collecting Disability (that was May 2013)

But keep on deluding yourself the the economy is getting better and that unemployment is being reduced and that your lord 0bama is responsible for it all.

As sad as all these statistics are (sad but true), is it amusing to see 0bama's minions spin themselves into pretzels and knots trying to explain away all the continuing bad news.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,888
Points:650,070
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 1:18:55 PM

"Very hard indeed. I watch the economic news daily, and I haven't seen any."

Let me help you - open your eyes!
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:76,061
Points:3,309,135
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 12:27:43 PM

>>> VERY hard to see good news regarding the economy while he is still in the Oval Office, isn't it?<<<

Very hard indeed. I watch the economic news daily, and I haven't seen any.
Post a reply Back to Topics