PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Most of these jobs, including that suspicious 600K jobs added in September, are part-time or seasonal jobs. You can't make a living off of a part-time job, or a seasonal job once the season has ended. But it's funny to hear the defense of the uptick in unemployment as being because more people entered the work force. Are people here on drugs? This report sucks! At the rate we're going we're never going to see healthy employment. When I consistently see 200,000 new jobs per month I'll think things are getting better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 What kind of numbers would you like to see right now? Better GDP growth. That needs to come first before we see great employment numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Spreading the wealth is a good thing though. We can argue on ways to achieve that, but high inequality of wealth is terrible for the economy. Only if you think that wealth is finite. which it isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Only a Democrat would find todays report to be positive. It's horrible! And the underlying economy is just as bad. Wall Street is doing GREAT, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Only a Democrat would find todays report to be positive. It's horrible! And the underlying economy is just as bad. Wall Street is doing GREAT, though! Are people here on drugs? This report sucks! At the rate we're going we're never going to see healthy employment. When I consistently see 200,000 new jobs per month I'll think things are getting better. In the last 118 months which consists of Bush's and Obama's term, the economy has only added 200k+ jobs a month 20 times. TEN of those 20 were under President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 In the last 118 months which consists of Bush's and Obama's term, the economy has only added 200k+ jobs a month 20 times. TEN of those 20 were under President Obama. Your unusual statistic is meaningless. Bottom Line: At the rate we're going we'll see 5.5% unemployment in....10 years? 6.0% unemployment in...7 years? Something pathetic like that? There is NO positive spin in today's report. We are going nowhere FAST! More welfare! More food stamps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Your unusual statistic is meaningless. Bottom Line: At the rate we're going we'll see 5.5% unemployment in....10 years? 6.0% unemployment in...7 years? Something pathetic like that? There is NO positive spin in today's report. We are going nowhere FAST! More welfare! More food stamps! Oh you're one of these guys. Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 In the last 118 months which consists of Bush's and Obama's term, the economy has only added 200k+ jobs a month 20 times. TEN of those 20 were under President Obama. And if he hadn't done this http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/10/09/obama_asks_big_business_to_break_the_law_99925.html what would it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 By now we should be seeing at least 200,000 new jobs each and every month. Full-time jobs, too! Not seasonal part-time jobs! Obama is such a lightweight and I'm tired of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And if he hadn't done this http://www.realclear..._law_99925.html what would it be? Read the actual memo linked in that "article". It makes complete sense but just take the author's word. They are saving the state's money because the sequestration is uncertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Read the actual memo linked in that "article". It makes complete sense but just take the author's word. They are saving the state's money because the sequestration is uncertain. And the fact that we vote next week doesn't have anything to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Oh you're one of these guys. Nevermind. What kind of guy is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 10.6%: Unemployment rate if labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office. Thats all you need to know........... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Better GDP growth. That needs to come first before we see great employment numbers. that won't happen until Americans spend. Americans will not spend while many of their homes still remain underwater, service school loans, pay off debt from the last boom cycle. There is simple no asset bubble on the horizon that will make this recovery speedy, imho... no amount of tax cut or stimulus spending is going cure the ills of the tired and beaten up consumer.... As I have stood by for many years, we are seeing the piper being paid by many a personal balance sheet... until people pay down their debt and feel whole again, the economy will putter along. Edited November 2, 2012 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Ronald Reagan's first term recovery: http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/04/news/economy/obama-reagan-recovery/index.htm "Things were different in 1984. In April 1984, the economy added 363,000 jobs. In the first four months of 1984, employment growth hit 1,564,000. This year, the first four months have brought about half that amount. And the Reagan recovery sustained its momentum through the election, averaging 300,000 new jobs a month from May to October." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Ronald Reagan's first term recovery: http://money.cnn.com...overy/index.htm "Things were different in 1984. In April 1984, the economy added 363,000 jobs. In the first four months of 1984, employment growth hit 1,564,000. This year, the first four months have brought about half that amount. And the Reagan recovery sustained its momentum through the election, averaging 300,000 new jobs a month from May to October." 171,000 is the new 363,000................................ 10.6% . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 "And the Reagan recovery sustained its momentum through the election..." Who's got the "momentum" now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Ronald Reagan's first term recovery: http://money.cnn.com...overy/index.htm "Things were different in 1984. In April 1984, the economy added 363,000 jobs. In the first four months of 1984, employment growth hit 1,564,000. This year, the first four months have brought about half that amount. And the Reagan recovery sustained its momentum through the election, averaging 300,000 new jobs a month from May to October." From the same article: Reagan had an advantage over Obama: The recession of the early 1980s was caused by runaway inflation, which the Federal Reserve countered by hiking interest rates. When inflation dropped, the Fed lowered rates and a massive economic boom resulted. The major causes of the recent recession were a banking crisis and housing bubble that exploded during President George W. Bush's final months in office. Another difference: With comparatively small debt loads, Reagan was able to push through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. Obama, meanwhile, entered the presidency with substantial budget deficits and an economy contracting at a rate of 6.7%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 10.6%: Unemployment rate if labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office. Thats all you need to know............ I brought that up on the first page but the resident libs will ignore that number to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) From the same article: Reagan had an advantage over Obama: The recession of the early 1980s was caused by runaway inflation, which the Federal Reserve countered by hiking interest rates. When inflation dropped, the Fed lowered rates and a massive economic boom resulted. The major causes of the recent recession were a banking crisis and housing bubble that exploded during President George W. Bush's final months in office. Another difference: With comparatively small debt loads, Reagan was able to push through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. Obama, meanwhile, entered the presidency with substantial budget deficits and an economy contracting at a rate of 6.7%. It's Simple: Had Obama focused on jobs instead of healthcare insurance in his first two years in office we wouldn't be in this mess. "Truth is, there are no shovel-ready jobs." Obama Edited November 2, 2012 by PearlHowardman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts