Unemploy Rate A Reflection of P A R T Time Jobs & Discouraged Leaving The Work Force

[Dad2three]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like


The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Three thoughts for the road:

1) Most people working part-time want to work part-time because they're in school, or they're raising kids, or they consider themselves mostly retired. Don't pay attention to anybody who's using the number of stay-at-home dads and moms to argue that Obamacare is destroying full-time work.

2) Last fall, the Fed produced a useful document explaining that "current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less."

3) If you insist on being a pessimist, here's a very smart way to express fear about the future of part-time work, also from the Fed. There are some industries, such as hotels, food service, and retail, that have historically had shorter workweeks and more part-time workers. If those sectors continue to grow faster than the overall economy (because other sectors, like government and manufacturing, are shrinking), then we should expect part-time work to remain elevated. Indeed, the relative strength of those industries today is one reason why part-time work hasn't declined even faster than it has.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

Yawn. Yeah, says the same idiots that think crushing debt is no problem....and an artificially inflated stock market is no bubble.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'd keep believing their stats. LMAO

Crushing debt? Sorry, you have the 2011 talking points. Try to keep updated

Yep, those 'job creators' LOVE to ponzi scheme things, the stock market is one of those things the GOPers want US to put OUR social security money into, lol

 

[EconChick]

Oh yeah, $17 trillion and many more trillions in unfunded liabilities are not crushing debt.

Gawd you big spending Keynesians are the most dangerously gullible people on this planet.

 

[EconChick]

And whose fault is that?

It's been explained to you about 100 times in 20+ threads.....why are you too dumb to grasp it?

In other words you can't make a case that it's Obama's fault; you just want to baselessly imply that it is.

Of course it's his fault.

Do you really think I pay attention to all your stupid posts?




And VOILA, Keynesian bullshit is now in full bloom! Volatility all week in market is def sign, darlin

 

[kaz]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

THERE ARE 350,000,000 AMERICANS AND YOU'RE EXCITED ABOUT 200,000 JOBS??

AFTER ALL THOSE TRILLIONS?

Sure he is, he never had one before

 

[NYcarbineer]

And whose fault is that?

It's been explained to you about 100 times in 20+ threads.....why are you too dumb to grasp it?

In other words you can't make a case that it's Obama's fault; you just want to baselessly imply that it is.

Of course it's his fault.

Do you really think I pay attention to all your stupid posts?




And VOILA, Keynesian bullshit is now in full bloom! Volatility all week in market is def sign, darlin

Why was U-6 down?

U-6 should have been up if your 'theory' is correct.

 

[kaz]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

 

[AceRothstein]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

In what universe was adding 400k jobs a month only ok?

 

[kaz]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

In what universe was adding 400k jobs a month only ok?

Adding 400K a month was the rate that was considered even for absorbing new workers, that is why is was OK. With Obama, liberals like to focus on the unemployment rate. However, the labor participation rate has plummeted. That is the difference between the pre-Obama world where 400K was just OK and the new one where any job is great news, even if the number of jobs aren't keeping up with population growth and wages are not keeping up with inflation.

 

[Faun]

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

It's your claim. Either you can prove it or you prove you made that up.

Are you better educated than Paul Krugman?

Anyone is better educated than any far left hack/drone.

Next this far left drone will be telling us that Krugman is unbiased and spot on..

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Your posts reveal it. Like this thread for example ... you claim an expertise in economy ... but then you idiotically post something as stupid as claiming part-time jobs have increased while the unemployment rate dropped.

Your own posts reveal you're an idiot. You're delusional too ... as evidenced by your moronic claim of victory in a thread of your own creation where you fled after getting bitch-slapped by the back side of my pimp hand.

LOL.....you really are that poor at algorithms????? LMAO.

You don't know how part time jobs can be increasing while full time decrease and the overall number still be down??????????????


Boy, I need to go track down whoever gave you that GED and tell them to take it back. You're way too stupid to be a high school grad.

Your pathetically stupid strawman is noted and discarded. Of course, I never said "couldn't" happen. I said that didn't happen. Such a situation would cause the unemployment rate to increase, when in fact, it decreased. And of course, full time jobs did not decrease over that period, they increased by 8.3 million jobs.

So now you prove that not only are you a blazing imbecile, you're insanely desperate too.

What an awful existence, EconoWhore.

 

[AceRothstein]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

In what universe was adding 400k jobs a month only ok?

Adding 400K a month was the rate that was considered even for absorbing new workers, that is why is was OK. With Obama, liberals like to focus on the unemployment rate. However, the labor participation rate has plummeted. That is the difference between the pre-Obama world where 400K was just OK and the new one where any job is great news, even if the number of jobs aren't keeping up with population growth and wages are not keeping up with inflation.

You should check your numbers. We've added 400k jobs once since Clinton left office and it was under Obama. We've added more than 400k jobs just 15 times since 1980.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you made all of that up.

 

[Faun]

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

No, he's sort of right. There were some on the left claiming the U-6 as the "real unemployment" under Bush. And claiming the books were cooked, etc. Of course, once Obama became President it all switched.

The

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

It's your claim. Either you can prove it or you prove you made that up.

Good idea for you to try to veer away from your idiotic opening post. Still, it haunts you since it was based on figures you claimed increased, when in fact, they decreased.

Fail.

But thanks for letting me know I struck a nerve by calling you EconoWhore.

You can all me anything you want, shit for brains. Doesn't phase me in the least. I just like throwing it in libs' faces who constantly whine about my potty mouth.

You DO know you libs are not only the dumbest fuckers on earth, but even bigger hypocrites..............like Lakky and her uber racist thread I was just reading for shits and grins, LMAO.......it's fun to just sit back and marvel at. And then when they're as small dicked as you are fawn, add cowardice to the long list of characteristics that define you pieces of shit.

As for the topic......I know I'm right. You know I'm right. And all I care about is the thread title being put on page 1 to be in people's faces as much as possible.

Thanks for playing along as my little bitch.

That's an interesting post coming on the heels of the one you made where you said that using vulgarity proved someone had lost the argument.

I didn't say "vulgarity" you moron. I said "whore" and "bitch."

I know the difference. You know the difference.

But by all means post about anything you want on this thread. Go as far off topic as you want.......keep bumping.....I love it! I just want the truth of this thread title in people's faces.....Bwahahahahahahaha

So calling someone a bitch is vulgar but calling someone a small dicked piece of shit isn't.

You are going downhill fast.

LOL, awwwww, is saying HELL vulgar, moron?


How about shit?

Everyone knows that whore crosses the line dumbass. But hey....please....keep trolling while I stay on topic, which is:


YOU LIBERAL FUCKERS VOTED IN THE MOST DISASTROUS PRESIDENT IN OUR LIFETIMES.

That includes the economy, princess.

Ooops.

Really? "Whore" crosses the line? That's good to know. Thanks for the info, EconoWhore. I suspected I struck a nerve, but you confirmed it.

The remainder of your rightarded rant is disregarded as the unhinged loghorrea it was meant to be.

 

[Faun]

I didn't say "vulgarity" you moron. I said "whore" and "bitch."

I know the difference. You know the difference.

But by all means post about anything you want on this thread. Go as far off topic as you want.......keep bumping.....I love it! I just want the truth of this thread title in people's faces.....Bwahahahahahahaha

ummm, the truth of this thread is that you have presented nothing that supports your claim and you have ignored contrary evidence.

Dude, you libs have been corrected in thread after thread after thread.

Actually, my high point on this message board was when on the same day I was declared a far left liberal in one thread and a far right conservative in another.

But, no...we're not talking about "thread after thread," we're talking about THIS thread, where you made a specific claim and have not been able to support it.

That's part of her shtick. She always says she supported her claims in previous posts that don't exist. I don't think she understands how message boards work. It won't stop her from proclaiming victory though.

If she was here two years ago, she would have been part of the "teh poles r skewed" crowd.

She's a standard issue rightwing cult member.

Dumb as a stump and proud of it?

 

[Dad2three]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

So how did Dubya end up losing 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

 

[kaz]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

So how did Dubya end up losing 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

W sucked. He and Obama are two peas in a pod. They both love government and spend like there is no tomorrow. Neither is a friend of liberty or capitalism.

That's the point. You look at Tweedledee and Tweedledum and think they are the opposite when they are the same.

 

[Dad2three]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

So how did Dubya end up losing 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

W sucked. He and Obama are two peas in a pod. They both love government and spend like there is no tomorrow. Neither is a friend of liberty or capitalism.

That's the point. You look at Tweedledee and Tweedledum and think they are the opposite when they are the same.

Weird how it's when we have GOPers in office, they wreck banking sectors? Harding/Coolidge, then Ronnie's S&L crisis where he ignored the regulator warnings that started in 1984 and would've stopped 90%+ of it, then Dubya's HUGE subprime ponzi scheme


Yeah, the 'same'
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Politics Most Blatant

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

 

[EconChick]

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

It's your claim. Either you can prove it or you prove you made that up.

Anyone is better educated than any far left hack/drone.

Next this far left drone will be telling us that Krugman is unbiased and spot on..

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Your posts reveal it. Like this thread for example ... you claim an expertise in economy ... but then you idiotically post something as stupid as claiming part-time jobs have increased while the unemployment rate dropped.

Your own posts reveal you're an idiot. You're delusional too ... as evidenced by your moronic claim of victory in a thread of your own creation where you fled after getting bitch-slapped by the back side of my pimp hand.

LOL.....you really are that poor at algorithms????? LMAO.

You don't know how part time jobs can be increasing while full time decrease and the overall number still be down??????????????


Boy, I need to go track down whoever gave you that GED and tell them to take it back. You're way too stupid to be a high school grad.

Your pathetically stupid strawman is noted and discarded. Of course, I never said "couldn't" happen. I said that didn't happen. Such a situation would cause the unemployment rate to increase, when in fact, it decreased. And of course, full time jobs did not decrease over that period, they increased by 8.3 million jobs.

So now you prove that not only are you a blazing imbecile, you're insanely desperate too.

What an awful existence, EconoWhore.

LOL, then why is it you stupid fucking liberals and your leftist analysis are the ones being flushed down the toilet by Americans in ALLL the polls.

Talk to the hand, limpdick, in three weeks I'll be pissing all over you while you cry incessantly.

But keep bumping this thread. Do it. I've forced you to keep doing it this long. I demand you keep doing it.

 

[EconChick]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

So how did Dubya end up losing 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

W sucked. He and Obama are two peas in a pod. They both love government and spend like there is no tomorrow. Neither is a friend of liberty or capitalism.

That's the point. You look at Tweedledee and Tweedledum and think they are the opposite when they are the same.

Weird how it's when we have GOPers in office, they wreck banking sectors? Harding/Coolidge, then Ronnie's S&L crisis where he ignored the regulator warnings that started in 1984 and would've stopped 90%+ of it, then Dubya's HUGE subprime ponzi scheme


Yeah, the 'same'
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Politics Most Blatant

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

Good luck with that one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh yeah, $17 trillion and many more trillions in unfunded liabilities are not crushing debt.

Gawd you big spending Keynesians are the most dangerously gullible people on this planet.

Most of the debt was accumulated under Republican presidents.

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

So how did Dubya end up losing 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

W sucked. He and Obama are two peas in a pod. They both love government and spend like there is no tomorrow. Neither is a friend of liberty or capitalism.

That's the point. You look at Tweedledee and Tweedledum and think they are the opposite when they are the same.

Weird how it's when we have GOPers in office, they wreck banking sectors? Harding/Coolidge, then Ronnie's S&L crisis where he ignored the regulator warnings that started in 1984 and would've stopped 90%+ of it, then Dubya's HUGE subprime ponzi scheme


Yeah, the 'same'
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Politics Most Blatant

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

Good luck with that one.

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

It's your claim. Either you can prove it or you prove you made that up.

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Your posts reveal it. Like this thread for example ... you claim an expertise in economy ... but then you idiotically post something as stupid as claiming part-time jobs have increased while the unemployment rate dropped.

Your own posts reveal you're an idiot. You're delusional too ... as evidenced by your moronic claim of victory in a thread of your own creation where you fled after getting bitch-slapped by the back side of my pimp hand.

LOL.....you really are that poor at algorithms????? LMAO.

You don't know how part time jobs can be increasing while full time decrease and the overall number still be down??????????????


Boy, I need to go track down whoever gave you that GED and tell them to take it back. You're way too stupid to be a high school grad.

Your pathetically stupid strawman is noted and discarded. Of course, I never said "couldn't" happen. I said that didn't happen. Such a situation would cause the unemployment rate to increase, when in fact, it decreased. And of course, full time jobs did not decrease over that period, they increased by 8.3 million jobs.

So now you prove that not only are you a blazing imbecile, you're insanely desperate too.

What an awful existence, EconoWhore.

LOL, then why is it you stupid fucking liberals and your leftist analysis are the ones being flushed down the toilet by Americans in ALLL the polls.

Talk to the hand, limpdick, in three weeks I'll be pissing all over you while you cry incessantly.

But keep bumping this thread. Do it. I've forced you to keep doing it this long. I demand you keep doing it.

It's hilarious that someone who claims to have as much education in economics as Paul Krugman can actually obsess on how many times her thread is bumped.

 

[kaz]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

So how did Dubya end up losing 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

W sucked. He and Obama are two peas in a pod. They both love government and spend like there is no tomorrow. Neither is a friend of liberty or capitalism.

That's the point. You look at Tweedledee and Tweedledum and think they are the opposite when they are the same.

Weird how it's when we have GOPers in office, they wreck banking sectors? Harding/Coolidge, then Ronnie's S&L crisis where he ignored the regulator warnings that started in 1984 and would've stopped 90%+ of it, then Dubya's HUGE subprime ponzi scheme


Yeah, the 'same'
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Politics Most Blatant

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

Good luck with that one.

I lost interest in his first sentence about "GOPers." Since i"m not one. I stopped reading.

 

[Dad2three]

Before Obama, 400,000 was considered OK, not good, not bad. Now if anything is added it's a celebration.

Liberals aren't raising the bar, you just cheer more when we clear a lower one.

So how did Dubya end up losing 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

W sucked. He and Obama are two peas in a pod. They both love government and spend like there is no tomorrow. Neither is a friend of liberty or capitalism.

That's the point. You look at Tweedledee and Tweedledum and think they are the opposite when they are the same.

Weird how it's when we have GOPers in office, they wreck banking sectors? Harding/Coolidge, then Ronnie's S&L crisis where he ignored the regulator warnings that started in 1984 and would've stopped 90%+ of it, then Dubya's HUGE subprime ponzi scheme


Yeah, the 'same'
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Politics Most Blatant

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

Good luck with that one.

I lost interest in his first sentence about "GOPers." Since i"m not one. I stopped reading.

Got it, you aren't 'one', you just support them and most of their policies