Unemployment falls below 8

[greenspandan]

wow, i never realized what a job-killing socialist GWB was.

[AsburySkinsFan]

wow, i never realized what a job-killing socialist GWB was.

Meh, the Right has already abandoned Bush, they supported him for 8 straight years but once they realized that he was going to be an anchor Around their necks they quickly shunned him. I'm almost certain that his invitation to the GOP convention had the wrong date or address on it, either that or they set him up at a hotel and then never sent a limo.

[Larry]

which trends?

We are on pace for less private sector jobs than last year, lower GDP, the long tern unemployment continues to rise,earning are down,as are hours.

4 more yrs ?....8?....when is enough

Your first claim is flat-out untrue.

• BLS Data
  
• Seasonally Adjusted.
  
• Total Private
  
• All Employees, Thousands
  
• Total Private
  
• Retrieve Data

Private sector employment has gone up every single month for the last 33. In the last year, private sector employment has gone up by 2 (actually, 1.963) Million jobs.

Got anything to support your other claims? Like, "lower GDP", in particular?

(I'll make it easy on you. For your claim of "earnings are down", I'm willing to pretend that you actually said "average earnings are down", because I've read that claim from enough sources that I'm willing to assume it's true. And I'm willing to pretend the same thing, for your "hours are down" claim.)

(And I'm willing to pretend like it was an accident that you left the words "average" off of those two claims, when you made them.)

---------- Post added November-2nd-2012 at 05:31 PM ----------

Meh, the Right has already abandoned Bush, they supported him for 8 straight years but once they realized that he was going to be an anchor Around their necks they quickly shunned him. I'm almost certain that his invitation to the GOP convention had the wrong date or address on it, either that or they set him up at a hotel and then never sent a limo.

Actually, I think it was more a case of "we still enthusiastically support (in fact, "worship" is probably a better term) every thing he did. In fact, we demand that all of our candidates promise to double down on every thing he did. But we have magically placed all of the results of those policies on him. And, by departing, he therefore carries away all responsibility for the consequences of the policies which we fully intend to double down on. We, therefore, promise, if elected, to do exactly the same thing we've been doing for 30 years, while expecting different results. Just like Alfred Einstein said."

(And yes, that was intentional, in there.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Now see Larry, I was trying to be nice, and you went and got all rude.

[twa]

Where are your numbers coming from? Just looking at GDP growth rate, it's still positive from what I can see.

private sector here

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/11/employment-encouraging-report-also-more.html

The economy has only added 1.55 million private sector payroll jobs over the first nine months of the year. At this pace, the economy would only add 1.9 million private sector jobs in 2012; less than the 2.1 million added in 2011

GDP being positive has no relation to less than last year,we have gone from 3.0 in 2010 to 1.7 in 11 and 12 is running right at 1.7

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

thats per capita btw,in case you did not notice the population increasing

of course I was using average Larry,we are speaking in general rather than a specific profession:pfft:

[jnhay]

private sector here

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/11/employment-encouraging-report-also-more.html

The economy has only added 1.55 million private sector payroll jobs over the first nine months of the year. At this pace, the economy would only add 1.9 million private sector jobs in 2012; less than the 2.1 million added in 2011

GDP being positive has no relation to less than last year,we have gone from 3.0 in 2010 to 1.7 in 11 and 12 is running right at 1.7

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

thats per capita btw,in case you did not notice the population increasing

of course I was using average Larry,we are speaking in general rather than a specific profession:pfft:

Your wording was a little misleading, don't you think? To say that GDP is lower than last year is very different than the GDP growth rate being the same as last year (it's actually misleading any way I look at it). Same thing with the private sector jobs. They increased at a slower rate, they aren't "less than last year." Come on! You sound like you might have some kind of agenda!

[twa]

it is not static, the US pop grew .9%,if you use last yrs pop you then ignore the expanded needs

I like the treadmill analogy,in that if you are not moving fast enough you will fall off.

my agenda is to survive

[Skinlanta]

Larry.......

"Don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining"

[Jumbo]

Just like Alfred Einstein said.

(And yes, that was intentional, in there.)

Noted

[Predicto]

Larry.......

"Don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining"

Perhaps this will make it more clear for you.

[twa]

Nice chart, 2011 looks better than 12 there

[Larry]

private sector here

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/11/employment-encouraging-report-also-more.html

The economy has only added 1.55 million private sector payroll jobs over the first nine months of the year. At this pace, the economy would only add 1.9 million private sector jobs in 2012; less than the 2.1 million added in 2011

Excellent.

Now show us where you got the claim of "less private sector jobs than last year".

You know, the claim you made.

The claim that your source specifically refutes: "At this pace, the economy would only add 1.9 million private sector jobs in 2012".

GDP being positive has no relation to less than last year

Uh, wrong again. If GDP grows, that means it's more than last year, not less.

,we have gone from 3.0 in 2010 to 1.7 in 11 and 12 is running right at 1.7

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

thats per capita btw,in case you did not notice the population increasing

Uh, no, that's not per capita. (Or at least, it doesn't say that it is.)

It does say that it's inflation adjusted.

It's also the growth rate.

You know, the rate at which it is getting bigger? (This is the opposite of smaller, in case you weren't aware.)

Congratulations. You've now posted two links demonstrating that your first two claims are untrue.

of course I was using average Larry,we are speaking in general rather than a specific profession:pfft:

Uh, the only person mentioning specific professions is you.

I was talking about wages and hours.

You know, your third and fourth claims.

[Larry]

it is not static, the US pop grew .9%,

And you are claiming that GDP grew by 1.7%.

Meaning that GDP per capita went up, too.

So much for your third attempt at "well, what I said wasn't untrue, if you just change what I said a bit".

my agenda is to survive

The GOP threatening to kill you if you stop posting untrue things?

[Predicto]

Nice chart, 2011 looks better than 12 there

It also directly refutes your prior claim, but that's neither here nor there.

[Skinlanta]

Predicto!! knew u would show up!

Your graph is really pretty and im glad you posted it! It shows what would be expected after a recession and further proves my point regarding the Messiah. It represents the single worst recovery from a recession in recorded history!!!!!!!!

Heres some numbers that matter: 23 million, 75, and 41....

U like numbers......im sure u will determine what they represent

"Dont piss on my shoes and tell me its raining"

Thanks again!

[Predicto]

Predicto!! knew u would show up!

Your graph is really pretty and im glad you posted it! It shows what would be expected after a recession and further proves my point regarding the Messiah. It represents the single worst recovery from a recession in recorded history!!!!!!!!

Heres some numbers that matter: 23 million, 75, and 41....

U like numbers......im sure u will determine what they represent

"Dont piss on my shoes and tell me its raining"

Thanks again!

Please don't call Obama a Messiah. It's disrespectful to those of Christian belief.

And you are otherwise correct. It has been a slow recovery. The fact the the entire world is mired in a deep financial hole makes it very difficult to have an easy recovery.

But the trends are certainly positive.

[Jumbo]

Without addressing any other issues in this thread....yet....u need to quit using u here if u wish to keep posting. I'm completely serious.

Spell the ****ing word out.

[twa]

Excellent.

Now show us where you got the claim of "less private sector jobs than last year".

You know, the claim you made.

.

You are correct I should have put added (though I thought pace was enough, obviously not)

I also assumed you would understand I was referring to rates and averages .

.btw what is the growth rate that economists expect in a healthy recovery?

http://www.wilmingtonbiz.com/industry_news_details.php?id=4518

how did wages and hrs fare?

I am more concerned over our economy than ever(regardless of who wins the election)

[Larry]

You are correct I should have put added (though I thought pace was enough, obviously not)

I also assumed you would understand I was referring to rates and averages .

No you didn't.

You assumed that if you had said "The economy isn't getting better as fast as it got better last year" that wouldn't sound as scary as "less private sector jobs than last year, lower GDP, the long tern unemployment continues to rise,earning are down,as are hours".

What a coincidence.

Four claims.

All four of them untrue.

All four of them, you want us to believe that well, you accidentally left out a few words from each of them. And in four out of four cases, the words you accidentally left out just happened to make the claim much more scary looking.

.btw what is the growth rate that economists expect in a healthy recovery?

http://www.wilmingtonbiz.com/industry_news_details.php?id=4518

No clue.

I would assume that no two economists agree. (And that's if you could get any of them to actually answer the question at all, as opposed to "different recoveries are different".)

how did wages and hrs fare?

Well, I hear that average wages and hours are down. (And I haven't seen those claims disputed, so I assume they're true".

"Wages and hours"? It would seem to me like they'd both have to be up, since employment is up. Hard to have more employment and not have more wages and hours.

After all, every job added also represents wages and hours added. Since the job added was receiving zero wages and hours, before.

Only way wages and hours could go down, while employment goes up, is a scenario like:

Company hires a new person, working 10 hours, and cuts the schedule of an existing worker by 12 hours

Actually, I think I can calculate earnings and hours, by getting numbers from the BLS web site.

This link only gives me data that goes back a year. And only for "total private" workers

What it tells me was that:

In Oct 11, the average worker worked 34.4 hours, and was paid $798.77.

In Oct 12, the average worker worked 34.4 hours, and was paid $811.15.

(Funny. I thought that average hours and wages were down. But let's skip that.)

Whereas, going to:

• BLS Data
  
• Seasonally Adjusted.
  
• Total Private
  
• All Employees, Thousands
  
• Total Private
  
• Retrieve Data

Tells me that:

In Oct of 11, there were 109,781,000 workers

In Oct of 12, there were 111,744,000 workers.

Multiplying "October '11 hours per average employee" by "October 11 number of employees" (and similar multiplications for the other averages) tells me that:

In Oct '11, hours were 3.77B, and wages were $87.7B.

In Oct '12, hours were 3.84B, and wages were $90.6B.

Hours went up by 70 million hours, or 1.9%.

Wages went up by $2.9B, or 3.3%.

But, that's private sector hours and wages. As I understand it, government employment has been moving in the other direction.

[aREDSKIN]

Spell the ****ing word out.

LOL

[twa]

No you didn't.

You assumed that if you had said "The economy isn't getting better as fast as it got better last year" that wouldn't sound as scary as "less private sector jobs than last year, lower GDP, the long tern unemployment continues to rise,earning are down,as are hours".

Nice cutting of

which trends?

We are on pace for

we have different metrics of up, kinda like that deficit spending issue....but I certainly exist within my own perceptions

If ya'll are happy with the results we are getting,then keep on supporting the present crew

add

how will the numbers change when the BLS does it's end of year adjustment for pop increase of .9%?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

[Larry]

Nice cutting of

which trends?

We are on pace for

Yes, you used the word "pace".

When you said that we were going to have lower GDP next year.

When you said that we were going to have fewer jobs next year.

When you said earnings were down.

we have different metrics of up

We have different metrics of honesty.

We have different metrics of reality.

how will the numbers change when the BLS does it's end of year adjustment for pop increase of .9%?

Well, somebody posted a quote on here, saying that when the BLS makes their annual adjustment, that the employment numbers will get better.

I don't remember, but I think it was you.

But please. Feel free to keep spasming around, searching for some "different metric of up", in which "1.96 million more people employed, (in the private sector), than a year ago" is "less private sector jobs than last year".

[Redskins Diehard]

Without addressing any other issues in this thread....yet....u need to quit using u here if u wish to keep posting. I'm completely serious.

Spell the ****ing word out.

Can you apply those rules to the world at large?

[TheGoodBits]

Can you apply those rules to the world at large?

Jumbo's powers are limited to ES. For now...

[twa]

wouldn't that be this year?

That is the one that usually follows last year