Jobless claims drop to lowest level in eight years

[edthecynic]

the bls hasn't changed anything in regards to what is considered full-time employment.

bull shit.

The employer decides what is considered to be full-time, so if they feel that 30 hrs is full-time then the bls counts it the same as a 40 hr/wk worker.

BULLSHIT!

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Full- or part-time status
Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.

Bull shit.

The employer decides what is considered to be full-time, so if they feel that 30 hrs is full-time then the BLS counts it the same as a 40 hr/wk worker.

This is quite possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on an internet forum.

Problem is, it's 100% correct.

The BLS doesn't even decide what full-time means.

Look it up dipshit.

Already did, pinhead!

 

[AceRothstein]

Bull shit.

The employer decides what is considered to be full-time, so if they feel that 30 hrs is full-time then the BLS counts it the same as a 40 hr/wk worker.

This is quite possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on an internet forum.

Problem is, it's 100% correct.

The BLS doesn't even decide what full-time means.

Look it up dipshit.

For their stats, yes they do decide what full-time means. It has already been posted in this thread.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is quite possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on an internet forum.

Problem is, it's 100% correct.

The BLS doesn't even decide what full-time means.

Look it up dipshit.

For their stats, yes they do decide what full-time means. It has already been posted in this thread.

According to the law the stats are subjective.

 

[mudwhistle]

bull shit.

The employer decides what is considered to be full-time, so if they feel that 30 hrs is full-time then the bls counts it the same as a 40 hr/wk worker.

BULLSHIT!

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Full- or part-time status
Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.

This is quite possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on an internet forum.

Problem is, it's 100% correct.

The BLS doesn't even decide what full-time means.

Look it up dipshit.

Already did, pinhead!

Facts are a terrible thing to a liar.

The argument over what is full-time is meaningless because as we have discovered the Obama Administration looks for holes in the law so they can make things up as they go.

This is one of them.

 

[AceRothstein]

Problem is, it's 100% correct.

The BLS doesn't even decide what full-time means.

Look it up dipshit.

For their stats, yes they do decide what full-time means. It has already been posted in this thread.

According to the law the stats are subjective.

No, they aren't. You keep confusing different government departments which have different definitions. For the sake of these stats, the BLS has their own definitions which they adhere to.

 

[mudwhistle]

For their stats, yes they do decide what full-time means. It has already been posted in this thread.

According to the law the stats are subjective.

No, they aren't. You keep confusing different government departments which have different definitions. For the sake of these stats, the BLS has their own definitions which they adhere to.

I seriously doubt anything this administration does is adhering to the law.

It states clearly that the BLS doesn't define what is a full-time job, the employer does. And so, Obama could just make up what their response was. If an employer cuts back worker's hours to 31/wk to avoid mandates under the ACA then that is what is considered full-time.

 

[AceRothstein]

According to the law the stats are subjective.

No, they aren't. You keep confusing different government departments which have different definitions. For the sake of these stats, the BLS has their own definitions which they adhere to.

I seriously doubt anything this administration does is adhering to the law.

It states clearly that the BLS doesn't define what is a full-time job, the employer does. And so, Obama could just make up what their response was. If an employer cuts back worker's hours to 31/wk to avoid mandates under the ACA then that is what is considered full-time.

WRONG! The BLS clearly states 1 to 34 hours is part-time and 35+ hours is full-time.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

 

[edthecynic]

BULLSHIT!

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Full- or part-time status
Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.

Problem is, it's 100% correct.

The BLS doesn't even decide what full-time means.

Look it up dipshit.

Already did, pinhead!

Facts are a terrible thing to a liar.

The argument over what is full-time is meaningless because as we have discovered the Obama Administration looks for holes in the law so they can make things up as they go.

This is one of them.

A major projection on your part!
Thank you.

 

[Politico]

These numbers are people filing for unemployment. They have nothing to do with people giving up since they are initial claims (aka people who were just laid off/fired).

Umm you're arguing my point with a contradiction. Understand how the system works. The people whose benefits ran out would have to be laid off from another job before filing a new claim. The problem is they aren't finding any. Thus the claims go down.

Which isn't true as the U6 rate has been in decline and we've had a net gain of jobs every month for a few years now.

Net gain of jobs doesn't mean crap. There are fewer working now than there were.

 

[edthecynic]

Umm you're arguing my point with a contradiction. Understand how the system works. The people whose benefits ran out would have to be laid off from another job before filing a new claim. The problem is they aren't finding any. Thus the claims go down.

Which isn't true as the U6 rate has been in decline and we've had a net gain of jobs every month for a few years now.

Net gain of jobs doesn't mean crap. There are fewer working now than there were.

You just make shit up!

142,152,000 employed when Obama took office, 146,221,000 employed now.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It really is interesting. Sad....but interesting. The desire to see this president fail is not only strong enough for some to promote policies that make recovery more difficult. It is actually strong enough to compel some to ignore hard data.

Nutters, you don't have to concede that the recovery is due to the leadership of this president. Nor must you admit that the policies put forth by liberal economists and elected officials are the only path to success. But you must agree that we are recovering. You cannot sit there and claim that we are worse off now than we were in January, 2009.

I know you want to believe that we are going in reverse. I know that you have invested a shitload of time and energy into your constant doom and gloom outlook. But it is time to break through to reality. Don't you think?

 

[edthecynic]

It really is interesting. Sad....but interesting. The desire to see this president fail is not only strong enough for some to promote policies that make recovery more difficult. It is actually strong enough to compel some to ignore hard data.

Nutters, you don't have to concede that the recovery is due to the leadership of this president. Nor must you admit that the policies put forth by liberal economists and elected officials are the only path to success. But you must agree that we are recovering. You cannot sit there and claim that we are worse off now than we were in January, 2009.

I know you want to believe that we are going in reverse. I know that you have invested a shitload of time and energy into your constant doom and gloom outlook. But it is time to break through to reality. Don't you think?

 

[RandallFlagg]

It really is interesting. Sad....but interesting. The desire to see this president fail is not only strong enough for some to promote policies that make recovery more difficult. It is actually strong enough to compel some to ignore hard data.

Nutters, you don't have to concede that the recovery is due to the leadership of this president. Nor must you admit that the policies put forth by liberal economists and elected officials are the only path to success. But you must agree that we are recovering. You cannot sit there and claim that we are worse off now than we were in January, 2009.

I know you want to believe that we are going in reverse. I know that you have invested a shitload of time and energy into your constant doom and gloom outlook. But it is time to break through to reality. Don't you think?

Wow......yet we are STILL 17+ TRILLION dollars in debt. What a deal. My Grandchildren will be sure to thank you for your insight.....

 

[LoneLaugher]

It really is interesting. Sad....but interesting. The desire to see this president fail is not only strong enough for some to promote policies that make recovery more difficult. It is actually strong enough to compel some to ignore hard data.

Nutters, you don't have to concede that the recovery is due to the leadership of this president. Nor must you admit that the policies put forth by liberal economists and elected officials are the only path to success. But you must agree that we are recovering. You cannot sit there and claim that we are worse off now than we were in January, 2009.

I know you want to believe that we are going in reverse. I know that you have invested a shitload of time and energy into your constant doom and gloom outlook. But it is time to break through to reality. Don't you think?

Wow......yet we are STILL 17+ TRILLION dollars in debt. What a deal. My Grandchildren will be sure to thank you for your insight.....

All that debt.....and still recovering. How is that possible?

Go ahead....tell me how the Fed is in Obama's back pocket. It is really all you have.

The United States of America is STILL a magnet for investors......even with all that debt. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Could it be that the world knows that we are not bankrupt? Hmmmmm?

 

[fbj]

Is that because the millions of people who UC ran out are now being referred to my the media as.........."stopped looking for work"


How can you stop looking for work if you plan on eating again?

 

[pinqy]

Is that because the millions of people who UC ran out are now being referred to my the media as.........."stopped looking for work"

Probably not. I don't see why anyone who ran out of benefits would stop looking for work...I would imagine they would look even harder.

Hows can you stop looking for work if you plan on eating again?

You live off your parents while you concentrate on school. You stay home to look after the kids. You live off your retirement. etc.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Wow......yet we are STILL 17+ TRILLION dollars in debt. What a deal. My Grandchildren will be sure to thank you for your insight.....

All that debt.....and still recovering. How is that possible?

Go ahead....tell me how the Fed is in Obama's back pocket. It is really all you have.

The United States of America is STILL a magnet for investors......even with all that debt. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Could it be that the world knows that we are not bankrupt? Hmmmmm?

You have to love Nazi logic. 17 Trillion diollars in debt and this dumbass says "Everything is fine".


You are a goddamned idiot. Pure and simple. When that national debt clock starts moving in the OTHER direction, you fool, THEN you can tell me how we are "recovering".

You're like the fucking alcoholic that tells everyone he is "recovering" while holding a beer in one hand and a shot glass in the other.

Go away dumbass - you bother me.

 

[fbj]

Is that because the millions of people who UC ran out are now being referred to my the media as.........."stopped looking for work"

Probably not. I don't see why anyone who ran out of benefits would stop looking for work...I would imagine they would look even harder.

Hows can you stop looking for work if you plan on eating again?

You live off your parents while you concentrate on school. You stay home to look after the kids. You live off your retirement. etc.

I know that no one stops looking for work I am just repeating the nonsense that the media feeds us

 

[pinqy]

Is that because the millions of people who UC ran out are now being referred to my the media as.........."stopped looking for work"

Probably not. I don't see why anyone who ran out of benefits would stop looking for work...I would imagine they would look even harder.

Hows can you stop looking for work if you plan on eating again?

You live off your parents while you concentrate on school. You stay home to look after the kids. You live off your retirement. etc.

I know that no one stops looking for work I am just repeating the nonsense that the media feeds us

What are you talking about? People stop looking for work all the time. It has nothing to do with UI benefits, though. Not sure why you think "the media" referring to people who stopped looking for work has anything to do with people losing UI benefits.
.
And as I said...not everyone who is trying to work will starve without one...You can receive help from friends and/or family.

 

[fbj]

Probably not. I don't see why anyone who ran out of benefits would stop looking for work...I would imagine they would look even harder.


You live off your parents while you concentrate on school. You stay home to look after the kids. You live off your retirement. etc.

I know that no one stops looking for work I am just repeating the nonsense that the media feeds us

What are you talking about? People stop looking for work all the time. It has nothing to do with UI benefits, though. Not sure why you think "the media" referring to people who stopped looking for work has anything to do with people losing UI benefits.
.
And as I said...not everyone who is trying to work will starve without one...You can receive help from friends and/or family.

well those are the lucky ones because I can't stop looking for sh*t since I have bills and rent to pay