Unemployment falls below 8

[Larry]

Ah, got it.

So now, the complaint is that the private sector isn't getting better as quickly as it was, when it was getting better at it's highest rate.

"Look! If I look enough, I can find one of Obama's months, where things got better even faster than they're getting better, this month!"

----------

But I seem to remember some analysis I did about the private sector job numbers, a while back, that I seem to remember you running away from. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit:

Ah, here it is.

The important part. (The actual post explains where the data came from).

In Feb, 2001 (The month W took office), private sector employment was 111,623,000

In Feb, 2009 (The month W left office), private sector employment was 110,260,000

(Net change: A loss of 1,363,000 jobs)

In Feb, 2009 (The month O took office), private sector employment was 110,260,000

In May, 2012 (The most recent month for which we have actual data, rather than projections), private sector employment was 111,072,000

(Net change: A gain of 812,000 jobs.)

I will observe that, if you assume that the "Presidential grace period", the time between when a President takes office, and when the economy officially becomes "his", as opposed to his predecessor, is six months, then the "score" becomes:

W: loss of 3,131,000 jobs

O: gain of 3,654,000 jobs

In short, the

only

way to even imply that Obama hasn't been

massively

better (on the scale of "total number of private-sector jobs) than W, is to pretend that, when Obama took office, he

retroactively

become responsible for all of the jobs lost during his predecessor's watch.

So, please. Tell me that the proper way to judge a President's managing of the economy, is the number of private sector jobs created.

[zoony]

twa my offer still stands.

[twa]

Ah, got it.

So now, the complaint is that the private sector isn't getting better as quickly as it was, when it was getting better at it's highest rate.

.

it isn't getting better from the last two months...or from a high point

but run fetch your analysis , seeing people play with numbers is almost as fun as you ignoring the trend of the last 3 months:)

[Larry]

but run fetch your analysis , seeing people play with numbers is almost as fun as you ignoring the trend of the last 3 months:)

"The trend of the last 3 months" is "it's getting better".

"The trend of the last year" is "it's getting better".

(The trend of twa's posts is "Look! I found something to complain about! It's not getting better as quickly as it got better, this one time, here! See, that means it's down!")

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Watch the video. It explains why the numbers can't be manipulated by the WH.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49309075#49309075

[Larry]

it isn't getting better from the last two months

Yes it is.

You still trying to point at private sector employment? Or have you run to some other yardstick?

Are there more private sector jobs, than there were two months ago? (Hint: The answer is "yes".)

Then it got better than two months ago. (Hint: More jobs is better.)

What you're trying to label as "down" is "the rate at which it's getting better isn't as fast as the rate at which it got better, this other time".

[twa]

"The trend of the last 3 months" is "it's getting better".

you get that from the full time hire numbers? (you know,what you wanted clarified;))

interesting math that counts 114 better than 181 and 142

[Larry]

you get that from the full time hire numbers? (you know,what you wanted clarified;))

interesting math that counts 114 better than 181 and 142

Interesting math that claims that "employment went up by 114" is "it got worse"

[twa]

What you're trying to label as "down" is "the rate at which it's getting better isn't as fast as the rate at which it got better, this other time".

I thought that obvious, but your rate ignores the need to create is not in a vacuum

job creation below 150K is negative due to the pop increase

the rate we are falling behind is worse over the last two months....gaining less is still falling behind because the goalposts move in this game.

it ain't checkers

[Burgold]

you get that from the full time hire numbers? (you know,what you wanted clarified;))

interesting math that counts 114 better than 181 and 142

Maybe I'm lost, (that's always possible) but wouldn't adding jobs always be improving? If added 181,000, 142,000, and now 114,000 doesn't each month represent an improvement. Now, I know there's net jobs relative to those coming into the work force and I acknowledge that quality of job matters... if you're trading a corner office for flipping burgers at McDonalds that's not exactly a 1:1 swap, but gaining is gaining right? Esp. if we use the same tool and calculus to measure it.

I'd hate to see what you'd say if the job numbers were actually negative. Remember back then, four years ago where it was routine to get a jobs report with a "-" sign in front of it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Watch the video. It explains why the numbers can't be manipulated by the WH.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49309075#49309075

Queue the logical fallacy of source......If this video came from any other source other than MSNBC it would be taken seriously, but the Right hacks will dismiss it off hand.

[twa]

Maybe I'm lost, (that's always possible) but wouldn't adding jobs always be improving?

it is not static, you can certainly call losing ground gaining though

but it is like trying to walk on a tread mill going 15 mph....you will end up on the floor despite the fact you moved forward

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Que the logical fallacy of source......

I'm expecting it.....

[No Excuses]

The amount of desperation in this thread is pathetic and simultaneously hilarious.

If anyone was unclear if Republicans were actively rooting against Americans, forward them this thread.

[Larry]

Maybe I'm lost, (that's always possible) but wouldn't adding jobs always be improving? If added 181,000, 142,000, and now 114,000 doesn't each month represent an improvement. Now, I know there's net jobs relative to those coming into the work force and I acknowledge that quality of job matters... if you're trading a corner office for flipping burgers at McDonalds that's not exactly a 1:1 swap, but gaining is gaining right? Esp. if we use the same tool and calculus to measure it.

I'd hate to see what you'd say if the job numbers were actually negative. Remember back then, four years ago where it was routine to get a jobs report with a "-" sign in front of it.

Nope, you've got it.

twa is trying to make adding 141,000 more jobs sound bad, by pointing out that the rate at which we're adding jobs isn't as good as this other month, where we added jobs even faster.

He's trying to say that "Alfred Morris just scored a touchdown. But in week 1, he scored two touchdowns. Therefore Morris' touchdown means the Redskins are losing"

[Burgold]

it is not static, you can certainly call losing ground gaining though

but it is like trying to walk on a tread mill going 15 mph....you will end up on the floor despite the fact you moved forward

I do think there's fairness in that object and I dimly remember hearing something about the market needing to generate 200,000 jobs for a net positive. That's one of the reasons I'm suspiscious of these numbers myself. Still, the gross number that they've given us seems like something to feel hopeful about unless there's fraud going on... and though I've heard accusations of that, I've seen not only no proof, but no one willing to claim that they have facts that would lead to proof.

[Larry]

it is not static, you can certainly call losing ground gaining though

Course, nobody's doing that. But yep, it is possible.

It's also possible to call adding 114,000 full-time jobs "worse", "down", or "losing ground"

It's not true. It's not honest. But it's certainly possible.

[Larry]

are we going from the last two months or from 0?

Are there more full-time jobs than there were two months ago?

[twa]

Course, nobody's doing that. But yep, it is possible.

It's also possible to call adding 114,000 full-time jobs "worse", "down", or "losing ground"

It's not true. It's not honest. But it's certainly possible.

are we going from the last two months or from 0?....or from the point we need to reach to break even with pop factor?

it is certainly better than ZERO , but starting there ignores both what I said and the reality of pop increases.

[Larry]

are we going from the last two months or from 0?

Are there more full-time jobs than there were two months ago?

[twa]

Are there more full-time jobs than there were two months ago?

.have we accumulated more total over that span?...Yes

There were less added than in each of the two previous months though....and the unemployment rate dropped....amazing

[AsburySkinsFan]

For crying out loud twa are you still prattling on? The numbers aren't cooked, and if you bothered to inform yourself as to how hard it would be to bring about and conceal such a conspiracy you'd have gone silent long ago.

[Burgold]

.have we accumulated more total over that span?...Yes

There were less added than in each of the two previous months though....and the unemployment rate dropped....amazing

Well, that last doesn't have to be surprising.

The more you add the fewer people unemployed. So, if the economy added a net increase of 114,000 on top of last months gain and the gain the month before that... logic would dictate the number of people unemployed should be dropping.

[HeluCopter29]

I have no problem with you raising their taxes.....just don't whine when it doesn't work like you plan

Typical entitled mentality

maybe they over sampled the DC area?:evilg:

Take me down to the parasite city

http://washingtonexaminer.com/take-me-down-to-the-parasite-city/article/2504159?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UG-3R1Ykmh9

Back up. Let's examine what you responded with vs. what I had said.

An excellent case for higher taxes on the top and a larger public sector. Thanks twa.

Yeah, they can afford investing money and making more jobs but they don't need either of those things so they're not going to do it.

So let's just give them more money to do nothing with.

You started off real strong with this:

"I have no problem with you raising their taxes.....just don't whine when it doesn't work like you plan :ols:"

Although you didn't really offer any substance as to why I'm wrong. You just kinda said "you're wrong."

Then you said this:

Typical entitled mentality

I come from a pretty wealthy family. Not 1% rich. Not even 5% rich. But pretty wealthy. I find myself given tons of things that I'm in no way more entitled to then anyone else. I.E. fully paid for college, very good public worker, and opportunities to better my resume via internships and other work experience. I don't think I'm more deserving then anyone else. I don't think I'm entitled to anything, because I already have it. And anyone who's richer then my family who says that to pay more taxes they'll have to lay off more workers or that they won't be able to invest and create if the top tax rate is to high is bull****ting you. Especially considering the dropoff in wealth that comes right before me.

Then you said this:

maybe they over sampled the DC area?:evilg:

Take me down to the parasite city

http://washingtonexaminer.com/take-m...r#.UG-3R1Ykmh9

And it was completely off topic and had nothing to do with anything.

Analysis? You've got no argument and are desperate to make yourself sound right.

[KCClybun]

For crying out loud twa are you still prattling on? The numbers aren't cooked, and if you bothered to inform yourself as to how hard it would be to bring about and conceal such a conspiracy you'd have gone silent long ago.

Because people keep indulging him.

Sometimes the best way to silence those who insist on ignoring reality is by letting them live in their crazy reality, and instead focus on improving actual reality.