Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy

[Faun]

"What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month—nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July."

"A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics."

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression?

Ummm... farm workers are included in the unemployment rate.

 

[Synthaholic]

US 2016 Store Closings - All Retail Chain Store Locations To Be Closed in 2016 and Beyond:

500 McDonald's
400 Office Depot / Office Max (by 2016)
223 Barnes & Noble (through 2023)
200 Children’s Place (through 2017)
200 Walgreens (by 2017)
175 Aeropostale (“over the next several years”)
154 Walmart (US 102 Walmart Express, 12 Walmart Supercenter, 6 Walmart, 23 Walmart Neighborhood Market, 4 Sam's Clubs)
150 American Eagle Outfitters (through 2017)
150 Finish Line
140 Sports Authority
120 Chico’s (through 2017)
100 Pier One (through 2017)

Show where any of those are due to Obamacare.

 

[Synthaholic]

How many of those almost 94 million people want to work?

How many of those 94 million are children or retirees or disabled or wealthy enough to not need to work?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month—nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July."

"A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics."

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression?

Ummm... farm workers are included in the unemployment rate.

The author was making mention to the fact that agriculture made up a greater segment of our nation's economy than we find it today. Having greatly depleted much of our nation's agriculture to developers as well as the insistence of democrats for the need of an inheritance or "death tax". A tax which has made it more difficult for older generations to pass down much of their hard earned acquired farm land to the next generation, in order to meet the government's insatiable need to extract even further additional revenue. Gotta love those democrats for that one.

 

[edthecynic]

We have college graduates that are having a more difficult time finding a job associated with their degree than in 2007

You do know that Obama didn't become president until the end of Jan 2009, and from 2007 to 2009 the Bush Bubble BURST.

This is the thing about the GOP Boom & Bust economy, the Right only cite the bubble at its boom stage and ignore the inevitable and corresponding bust!

 

[Faun]

"What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month—nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July."

"A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics."

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression?

Ummm... farm workers are included in the unemployment rate.

The author was making mention to the fact that agriculture made up a greater segment of our nation's economy than we find it today. Having greatly depleted much of our nation's agriculture to developers as well as the insistence of democrats for the need of an inheritance or "death tax". A tax which has made it more difficult for older generations to pass down much of their hard earned acquired farm land to the next generation, in order to meet the government's insatiable need to extract even further additional revenue. Gotta love those democrats for that one.

The article makes no mention of that. Your lie aside, the article does mention that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate. That's complete nonsense and serves only to reveal how ignorant the author of that claim is.

 

[Faun]

We have college graduates that are having a more difficult time finding a job associated with their degree than in 2007

You do know that Obama didn't become president until the end of Jan 2009, and from 2007 to 2009 the Bush Bubble BURST.

This is the thing about the GOP Boom & Bust economy, the Right only cite the bubble at its boom stage and ignore the inevitable and corresponding bust!

The right also credits Bush with the boom but then blames Democrats for the bust.

 

[koshergrl]

"According to brand new numbers that were just released by the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all workers in the United States make less than $30,000 a year. Let that number sink in for a moment. You can’t support a middle class family in America today on just $2,500 a month – especially after taxes are taken out. And yet more than half of all workers in this country make less than that each month. In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today."

Wage Statistics for 2014

Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year Washington's Blog

Again we see the same deceptive Right-wing dishonesty on display.

They give a stat for INDIVIDUAL income and then make a FALSE claim about FAMILY income. Every INDIVIDUAL does not support a FAMILY! Median FAMILY income is $65,910.

US Household Income | Department of Numbers

US Family Income
The ACS 1-year survey reports that the median family income in the United States was $65,910 in 2014, the latest year available. Median family income data for 2015 will be release in September of 2016.

Dumbass, what they say is that the majority of workers, whether single or married, don't make enough to support a family. Like a typical left wing retard, you can't understand what is written. ALL WORKERS.

 

[Faun]

"According to brand new numbers that were just released by the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all workers in the United States make less than $30,000 a year. Let that number sink in for a moment. You can’t support a middle class family in America today on just $2,500 a month – especially after taxes are taken out. And yet more than half of all workers in this country make less than that each month. In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today."

Wage Statistics for 2014

Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year Washington's Blog

Again we see the same deceptive Right-wing dishonesty on display.

They give a stat for INDIVIDUAL income and then make a FALSE claim about FAMILY income. Every INDIVIDUAL does not support a FAMILY! Median FAMILY income is $65,910.

US Household Income | Department of Numbers

US Family Income
The ACS 1-year survey reports that the median family income in the United States was $65,910 in 2014, the latest year available. Median family income data for 2015 will be release in September of 2016.

Dumbass, what they say is that the majority of workers, whether single or married, don't make enough to support a family. Like a typical left wing retard, you can't understand what is written. ALL WORKERS.

And that 51% is down from 55% under Obama.

Where's your applause?

 

[edthecynic]

"According to brand new numbers that were just released by the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all workers in the United States make less than $30,000 a year. Let that number sink in for a moment. You can’t support a middle class family in America today on just $2,500 a month – especially after taxes are taken out. And yet more than half of all workers in this country make less than that each month. In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today."

Wage Statistics for 2014

Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year Washington's Blog

Again we see the same deceptive Right-wing dishonesty on display.

They give a stat for INDIVIDUAL income and then make a FALSE claim about FAMILY income. Every INDIVIDUAL does not support a FAMILY! Median FAMILY income is $65,910.

US Household Income | Department of Numbers

US Family Income
The ACS 1-year survey reports that the median family income in the United States was $65,910 in 2014, the latest year available. Median family income data for 2015 will be release in September of 2016.

Dumbass, what they say is that the majority of workers, whether single or married, don't make enough to support a family. Like a typical left wing retard, you can't understand what is written. ALL WORKERS.

You see, even when the Right are shown the actual family income, they continue to use the numbers that includes some PT college students income as having to support a family, proving once again that the Right are the Pit Bulls of liars, once they sink their teeth into a lie they never let it go.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We have college graduates that are having a more difficult time finding a job associated with their degree than in 2007

You do know that Obama didn't become president until the end of Jan 2009, and from 2007 to 2009 the Bush Bubble BURST.

This is the thing about the GOP Boom & Bust economy, the Right only cite the bubble at its boom stage and ignore the inevitable and corresponding bust!

You were just stating that the economy was SO much better than at any time under President Bush, then I showed statistical data comparing college and high school graduates looking for work between 2007 and went as far as near the end of Obama's term. I even posted two graphs that showed the employment situation of younger people trying to find work, showing the decline and difficulties they are finding, and this is the excuse you want to use? You see if the economy was just soooo damn rosy as you portrayed it, it wouldn't be such a strong issue ... people wouldn't care so much, during this presidential cycle.

Younger people need jobs that make use of their college degree they spent so much effort and money trying to obtain. They are having to find work outside of their major in order to just be able to pay off their loans. It's why Bernie Sanders is resonating so well among young people. The economy is still mediocre as consumer spending is on the decline with the choice to hold onto their own money. Corporate profits are down, and with the added expense of Obamacare, many businesses and chains are making the choice to cut back on expenses and close a number of their stores, NOT expand. That is the economy we currently are seeing at the moment. We need to find a way out of this sluggish rut we are finding ourselves in, and come up with ways that businesses can start expanding again to create more jobs.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month—nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July."

"A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics."

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression?

Ummm... farm workers are included in the unemployment rate.

The author was making mention to the fact that agriculture made up a greater segment of our nation's economy than we find it today. Having greatly depleted much of our nation's agriculture to developers as well as the insistence of democrats for the need of an inheritance or "death tax". A tax which has made it more difficult for older generations to pass down much of their hard earned acquired farm land to the next generation, in order to meet the government's insatiable need to extract even further additional revenue. Gotta love those democrats for that one.

The article makes no mention of that. Your lie aside, the article does mention that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate. That's complete nonsense and serves only to reveal how ignorant the author of that claim is.

"Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933)".

If you knew your American history you would recall that a larger segment of our nation utilized agriculture in the 1930s, a lot more than we do today.

 

[edthecynic]

You were just stating that the economy was SO much better than at any time under President Bush

That is just a typical dishonest Right-wing gross exaggeration into a Straw Man!
YOU brought up the lie about Gallup's "Good Job Rate" and for that Good Job rate ONLY I pointed out that Obama's current yearly Good Job rate was higher than Bush's best year. You now exaggerate into a comment on every aspect of the economy just so you don't have to admit your misrepresentation of Obama's Good Job rate.

 

[Faun]

"What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month—nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July."

"A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics."

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression?

Ummm... farm workers are included in the unemployment rate.

The author was making mention to the fact that agriculture made up a greater segment of our nation's economy than we find it today. Having greatly depleted much of our nation's agriculture to developers as well as the insistence of democrats for the need of an inheritance or "death tax". A tax which has made it more difficult for older generations to pass down much of their hard earned acquired farm land to the next generation, in order to meet the government's insatiable need to extract even further additional revenue. Gotta love those democrats for that one.

The article makes no mention of that. Your lie aside, the article does mention that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate. That's complete nonsense and serves only to reveal how ignorant the author of that claim is.

"Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933)".

If you knew your American history you would recall that a larger segment of our nation utilized agriculture in the 1930s, a lot more than we do today.

You're an idiot. I said nothing to the contrary.

What I did say, and I'll repeat since you don't seem to understand.... is that the author of that article said nothing about the death tax, as you falsely claimed; and the economist he quoted who said farmers are not included in the unemployment rate lost all credibility since it's not true. Farmers are not counted in CES data (employment), which is non-farm payroll data. But the unemployment rate is calculated from CPS data (population) which includes everyone age 16 and over.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month—nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July."

"A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics."

Is Unemployment the Worst Since the Great Depression?

Ummm... farm workers are included in the unemployment rate.

The author was making mention to the fact that agriculture made up a greater segment of our nation's economy than we find it today. Having greatly depleted much of our nation's agriculture to developers as well as the insistence of democrats for the need of an inheritance or "death tax". A tax which has made it more difficult for older generations to pass down much of their hard earned acquired farm land to the next generation, in order to meet the government's insatiable need to extract even further additional revenue. Gotta love those democrats for that one.

The article makes no mention of that. Your lie aside, the article does mention that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate. That's complete nonsense and serves only to reveal how ignorant the author of that claim is.

"Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933)".

If you knew your American history you would recall that a larger segment of our nation utilized agriculture in the 1930s, a lot more than we do today.

You're an idiot. I said nothing to the contrary.

What I did say, and I'll repeat since you don't seem to understand.... is that the author of that article said nothing about the death tax, as you falsely claimed; and the economist he quoted who said farmers are not included in the unemployment rate lost all credibility since it's not true. Farmers are not counted in CES data (employment), which is non-farm payroll data. But the unemployment rate is calculated from CPS data (population) which includes everyone age 16 and over.

Faun, please pay attention. I quoted the author as saying a large segment of our economy was agricultural back in the 1930s, compared to today. He was commenting on where our nation stood economically between the 1930s and now, he even said there was more agricultural farms back in the time of the 1930s. Our nation has lost a lot of that farm land over the years since the time in our nation's history - FACT.

Why is that the case? Why is it the United States doesn't have the vast amount of farmland they once had in the 1930s exactly Faun? If you have ever lived long enough in a rural area made up of its share of farms, you already know the answer. Over the years the land has been sold and used by developers for communities as well as establishing businesses. Yes absolutely, the inheritance tax played a part in farm owners having to sell acreage in order to accommodate a government inheritance tax when they tried to pass that land they owned down to the next generation in line. Do a little research and educate yourself as to what an "inheritance tax" is and how it can have an effect on land ownership.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There were less than 60% working during the boom years of the 1950s and 1960s, the LPR is a completely worthless economic indicator because it is skewed by demographics, but you have nothing else.

Long term unemployed at the peak of the Great Bush Recession was 6.8 million and there are 2.2 million now. Quite an improvement.

You were just stating that the economy was SO much better than at any time under President Bush

That is just a typical dishonest Right-wing gross exaggeration into a Straw Man!
YOU brought up the lie about Gallup's "Good Job Rate" and for that Good Job rate ONLY I pointed out that Obama's current yearly Good Job rate was higher than Bush's best year. You now exaggerate into a comment on every aspect of the economy just so you don't have to admit your misrepresentation of Obama's Good Job rate.

No exaggeration Ed.

I quoted to you the CNN poll on the labor participation rate of only 62.7%.of Americans working. You said that statistical poll was "bullshit", so I added the gallop numbers which reflected the same labor oarticipation rate as CNN only slightly better by about 3%.

However, I didn't stop there Ed, I also added other statistical figures in the same post where I first mentioned the gallop poll. Look it up there bud. Which is why, if you knew anything about how to correctly "gauge" the overall strength of the economy, you would have already realized that other factors come into play.

1) How did college gradutes fair with the economy under Obama, in finding a job associated with their degree.
2) How about those who only received a diploma, did they have an easier time finding employment?
3) Did businesses expand, or did they cut back and begin closing their doors?
4) Did the public sector begin to cut part time hours due to Obamacare, making it more difficult on those individuals who would face a cut in their paycheck.

If you want to say that these other areas that collectively determines how the overall economy is doing amounts to "gross exaggeration", then you may need to get a better understanding of how factors like these above can have an effect on the overall economy. If you honestly believe you can base your knowledge of the economy on the results of just one single statistical figure from one website, as you consistently seem to want to do, then you have a lot to learn about how to gauge the economy.

 

[edthecynic]

I quoted to you the CNN poll on the labor participation rate of only 62.7%.of Americans working. You said that statistical poll was "bullshit", so I added the gallop numbers which reflected the same labor oarticipation rate as CNN only slightly better by about 3%.

Again you are dishonest. I didn't just say BULLSHIT, I explained WHY it was BULLSHIT, and since neither source adjusted for DEMOGRAPHICS they were both BULLSHIT for the SAME reason.

 

[edthecynic]

Did the public sector begin to cut part time hours due to Obamacare, making it more difficult on those individuals who would face a cut in their paycheck.

Yet another proven GOP scripted Right-wing lie!

When Obamacare passed there were 9,126,000 working PT for economic reasons, and there are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million!!!!!!!

Face it, everything you know is WRONG!

 

[Faun]

Ummm... farm workers are included in the unemployment rate.

The author was making mention to the fact that agriculture made up a greater segment of our nation's economy than we find it today. Having greatly depleted much of our nation's agriculture to developers as well as the insistence of democrats for the need of an inheritance or "death tax". A tax which has made it more difficult for older generations to pass down much of their hard earned acquired farm land to the next generation, in order to meet the government's insatiable need to extract even further additional revenue. Gotta love those democrats for that one.

The article makes no mention of that. Your lie aside, the article does mention that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate. That's complete nonsense and serves only to reveal how ignorant the author of that claim is.

"Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933)".

If you knew your American history you would recall that a larger segment of our nation utilized agriculture in the 1930s, a lot more than we do today.

You're an idiot. I said nothing to the contrary.

What I did say, and I'll repeat since you don't seem to understand.... is that the author of that article said nothing about the death tax, as you falsely claimed; and the economist he quoted who said farmers are not included in the unemployment rate lost all credibility since it's not true. Farmers are not counted in CES data (employment), which is non-farm payroll data. But the unemployment rate is calculated from CPS data (population) which includes everyone age 16 and over.

Faun, please pay attention. I quoted the author as saying a large segment of our economy was agricultural back in the 1930s, compared to today. He was commenting on where our nation stood economically between the 1930s and now, he even said there was more agricultural farms back in the time of the 1930s. Our nation has lost a lot of that farm land over the years since the time in our nation's history - FACT.

Why is that the case? Why is it the United States doesn't have the vast amount of farmland they once had in the 1930s exactly Faun? If you have ever lived long enough in a rural area made up of its share of farms, you already know the answer. Over the years the land has been sold and used by developers for communities as well as establishing businesses. Yes absolutely, the inheritance tax played a part in farm owners having to sell acreage in order to accommodate a government inheritance tax when they tried to pass that land they owned down to the next generation in line. Do a little research and educate yourself as to what an "inheritance tax" is and how it can have an effect on land ownership.

You remain deranged. I never denied some farmers lost their farms due to the inheritance tax. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts a few more times?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Surprise
U.S. Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Drop to Lowest Level Since 1973....Saul Alinski


Jobless claims unexpectedly decreased to the lowest level since 1973, indicating the U.S. labor market remains a pillar of support in the world’s largest economy.

New applications for unemployment benefits fell by 6,000 to 247,000 in the week ended April 16, data from the Labor Department showed Thursday. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 265,000 claims. The number of Americans already on benefit rolls declined to a more than 15-year low.