Jobless claims drop to lowest level in eight years

[theDoctorisIn]

And now, coming from the 'No News IS Good News' Dept.: Effective June 30, 2013, under Obama, the Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped tracking and reporting layoffs.

You can now please resume your normal activities working your three part-time jobs......

Link?

Cause as far as I can see, they haven't "stopped" anything.

Mass Layoff Statistics Home Page

https://mninews.marketnews.com/inde...ls-mass-layoffs-report-casualty-sequestration

Mea culpa. You're right. Found this on the BLS website: BLS 2013 Sequestration Information

 

[Siete]

why the list of companies?

I know companies ship jobs overseas. But it is not from a "greed" standpoint. It is because they are in it to make money and the best way to make money is to grab a piece of the market share and the best way to grab a piece of the market share is to have competitive prices and the best way to have competitive prices is by keeping your operating costs as low as possible and the best way to keep operating costs as low as possible is to operate where the cost to operate is the lowest.

Is that greed or is that smart business?

why the list of companies ... try and keep up

keeping jobs in America and having americans spend their $ in America is smart business ... in fact, it worked like a charm throughout history didn't it?
...

I asked why the list of companies because I am well aware that many corporations ship jobs overseas. I did not need you to prove it to me with a list of companies.

Sure, it worked like a charm until the government starting to levy regulations, higher taxes....not to mention opening the door for cheaper goods and services being imported to compete with US made.

You seem to think it is all the fault of the companies.

Run with that and see how far it gets you.

I posted the outsourcing link after I said outsourced jobs would never be replaced, and they won't ( unemployment, thread topic) ... the taxes you mention on corporations (35%) is BS and it's been pointed out what the effective rate really is, or pretty close to it.

spin it anyway you want

 

[LoneLaugher]

Thanks to the GOP for stopping Obama from transforming America. They get all the credit for this good news! Long live Ted Cruz!

 

[AceRothstein]

The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years.

I must say that I'm shocked that the worst recession of the last 70 years had the slowest recovery.

 

[Jarhead]

why the list of companies ... try and keep up

keeping jobs in America and having americans spend their $ in America is smart business ... in fact, it worked like a charm throughout history didn't it?
...

I asked why the list of companies because I am well aware that many corporations ship jobs overseas. I did not need you to prove it to me with a list of companies.

Sure, it worked like a charm until the government starting to levy regulations, higher taxes....not to mention opening the door for cheaper goods and services being imported to compete with US made.

You seem to think it is all the fault of the companies.

Run with that and see how far it gets you.

I posted the outsourcing link after I said outsourced jobs would never be replaced, and they won't ( unemployment, thread topic) ... the taxes you mention on corporations (35%) is BS and it's been pointed out what the effective rate really is, or pretty close to it.

spin it anyway you want

The NR is as much as 35% and the ER is closer to 12%. But then there is state and local taxes including taxes on the real estate if you own the plant/warehouse, etc.

Then you add in EPA regulations (for good or bad), OSHA regulations (for good or bad), HRIS regulations (for good or bad)....and the cost to manufacture in the US is unmatched anywhere else.

Believe me...if a manufacturer could afford to keep jobs home and eliminate overseas shipping concerns, international commerce concerns, etc....they would.

 

[edthecynic]

What is the labor participation rate?

How many people have been downsized to part time since Obamacare came to be?

There were 9,216,000 working part-time for economic reasons when the ACA was signed, there are 7,544,000 working part-time for economic reasons now. So there are LESS people downsized to part-time work since Obamacare came to be. The fact that you thought otherwise just shows how dishonest your sources of disinformation are, but you will not abandon them.

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the current administration re-define what "part time" is?

You are wrong, the BLS has defined part-time the same as they always have, less than 35 hours a week, so it would include everyone who might have had their hours cut to under 30 as a result of Obamacare.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.

 

[Kosh]

There were 9,216,000 working part-time for economic reasons when the ACA was signed, there are 7,544,000 working part-time for economic reasons now. So there are LESS people downsized to part-time work since Obamacare came to be. The fact that you thought otherwise just shows how dishonest your sources of disinformation are, but you will not abandon them.

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the current administration re-define what "part time" is?

You are wrong, the BLS has defined part-time the same as they always have, less than 35 hours a week, so it would include everyone who might have had their hours cut to under 30 as a result of Obamacare.

And the far left lies and propaganda continues.

A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week. Which is why so many companies cut their part-time employees down to 25 to 28 hours a week, to comply with the laws that Obamacare changed.

So either you are lying to protect your dear leader or really do not underrated anything beyond your far left programming.

Don't like it then don't vote far left..

 

[AceRothstein]

Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.

This talking point again. How many of the 100 million are looking for work? How many are disabled? How many are retired? How many are in school? How many are a stay at home parent?

 

[AceRothstein]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the current administration re-define what "part time" is?

You are wrong, the BLS has defined part-time the same as they always have, less than 35 hours a week, so it would include everyone who might have had their hours cut to under 30 as a result of Obamacare.

And the far left lies and propaganda continues.

A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week. Which is why so many companies cut their part-time employees down to 25 to 28 hours a week, to comply with the laws that Obamacare changed.

So either you are lying to protect your dear leader or really do not underrated anything beyond your far left programming.

Don't like it then don't vote far left..

Which has nothing to do with BLS statistics...

 

[edthecynic]

The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 8 percent unemployment, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, almost 6 million Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Six percent of U.S. adults are now on disability insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs.
Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recession

Oh come on, Heritage!!!! They pay scholars to dig up the most MISLEADING stats and present them in the most MISLEADING way.

Why should people who do not want jobs, like retired people, stay at home spouses, students over 16 who stay in school, etc., and therefor don't look for work be counted in the unemployment stats?

While the population grows and ages more people become disabled, it's been going on since St Ronnie, the trend of record numbers of new disability awards each year under Bush has been reversed under Obama, so while the number of disabled for ALL years combined is increasing, the number of new awards each year has been decreasing under Obama for the last 3 years.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.

This talking point again. How many of the 100 million are looking for work? How many are disabled? How many are retired? How many are in school? How many are a stay at home parent?

Your point is irrelevant. If there are 100 million unemployed and they aren't being counted because they have dropped off UI, the numbers are going to look great.

 

[boedicca]

"They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please
They're feeding our people that Government Cheese"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLzFhOslZPM].[/ame]

 

[AceRothstein]

Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.

This talking point again. How many of the 100 million are looking for work? How many are disabled? How many are retired? How many are in school? How many are a stay at home parent?

Your point is irrelevant. If there are 100 million unemployed and they aren't being counted because they have dropped off UI, the numbers are going to look great.

You don't know what you are talking about. There aren't 100 million unemployed because a large number of that 100 million aren't looking for a job. You don't count someone as unemployed if they don't want to be employed.

 

[boedicca]

This talking point again. How many of the 100 million are looking for work? How many are disabled? How many are retired? How many are in school? How many are a stay at home parent?

Your point is irrelevant. If there are 100 million unemployed and they aren't being counted because they have dropped off UI, the numbers are going to look great.

You don't know what you are talking about. There aren't 100 million unemployed because a large number of that 100 million aren't looking for a job. You don't count someone as unemployed if they don't want to be employed.

Well, that depends upon what the meaning of "want" is. There are plenty of people who "want" a job, but have give up actively looking.

Such people used to be counted in the U6 definition of unemployment as long term discouraged workers. The government conveniently changed the definition in 1994.

Shadowstats calculates U6 according to the old definition, and it's an ugly picture: 23% under and unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

 

[edthecynic]

What is the labor participation rate?

How many people have been downsized to part time since Obamacare came to be?

There were 9,216,000 working part-time for economic reasons when the ACA was signed, there are 7,544,000 working part-time for economic reasons now. So there are LESS people downsized to part-time work since Obamacare came to be. The fact that you thought otherwise just shows how dishonest your sources of disinformation are, but you will not abandon them.

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

If you look at the number of people who have taken part time jobs because they say that's all they could find...you'll see that your own web site shows 1676 (in thousands) in Jan. of '09 and 2648 in June of '14. That's a brutal statistic, Winger and explains why overall household incomes are down under Barack Obama. People are making less money because there aren't enough jobs out there. People are forced to take part time jobs because that's all there is and their unemployment benefits have run out after YEARS of collecting!

Notice how the Right always moves the goal posts when one of their pet lies gets shot down with facts. The poster I replied to said that PT work for economic reasons increased once Obamacare was passed, which was March 23, 2010.

 

[rightwinger]

Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.

Yup, there are preschoolers and 80 year olds out of work. Doesn't stop you from padding the statistics

 

[edthecynic]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the current administration re-define what "part time" is?

You are wrong, the BLS has defined part-time the same as they always have, less than 35 hours a week, so it would include everyone who might have had their hours cut to under 30 as a result of Obamacare.

And the far left lies and propaganda continues.

A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week. Which is why so many companies cut their part-time employees down to 25 to 28 hours a week, to comply with the laws that Obamacare changed.

So either you are lying to protect your dear leader or really do not underrated anything beyond your far left programming.

Don't like it then don't vote far left..

Damn the Right are thick!!! Once the Right sinks their teeth into a GOP scripted lie they never let go!

I already posted the ACTUAL numbers for people working PT for economic reasons, like Obamacare, and the number went DOWN since the ACA was signed into law. I also pointed out that the BLS counts anything under 35 hours as PT so it would include anyone who had their hours cut to 25 or 28 hours a week, to use your numbers, to comply with Obamacare. 25 to 28 hours is less than 35 hours so any increase in the number of PT workers due to Obamacare would show up in the BLS numbers, but the BLS numbers show the exact opposite.

Come on, just admit it your CON$ervative sources flat out lied to you and you swallowed the lies because you wanted to believe them!!!

 

[AceRothstein]

Your point is irrelevant. If there are 100 million unemployed and they aren't being counted because they have dropped off UI, the numbers are going to look great.

You don't know what you are talking about. There aren't 100 million unemployed because a large number of that 100 million aren't looking for a job. You don't count someone as unemployed if they don't want to be employed.

Well, that depends upon what the meaning of "want" is. There are plenty of people who "want" a job, but have give up actively looking.

Such people used to be counted in the U6 definition of unemployment as long term discouraged workers. The government conveniently changed the definition in 1994.

Shadowstats calculates U6 according to the old definition, and it's an ugly picture: 23% under and unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

I understand that the BLS definitions changed in 1994. The U6 still counts those who would like and are able to work but have not looked recently. You must be thinking that they were previously included in the U3 stats.

Sorry if I'm not buying what shadowstats is saying about the unemployment rate. They have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

 

[jc456]

nope!!!!!