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

[Faun]

And whose fault is that?

The way we calculate unemployment was switched during the Clinton years!

Yes, it made the U3 rate higher.

 

[Faun]

And the limpdick faun responds to my demands not once but twice in 5 minutes. LOL

Keep tellin' ya, hon. If you were smart, you'd stop bumping my thread. I only started it to keep it on the first page where it's in people's faces, dumbass. I want all those undecided to keep remembering what my OP says.

Thanks for continuing to succumb to my powers.

Dayam, EconoWhore, I demanded you to succumb to my wishes and post again and you couldn't resist me.

Good job. You put this thread back on page 1 last night. Then I guess you figured out you'd been had. LMFAO. You libs are so slow.


Now....back to the intelligent discussion you can't keep up with.

It doesn't matter how many government statisticians come here and lie about the real state of the economy, but it is a mess.

Everyone knows it's a mess. Your hero did NOT create good jobs. Your hero did NOT create a roaring economy.

And even the artificial stock market that's been helping only the top 5% is about to hit a wall.

Good luck continuing to lie to people with common sense out there who are sick of you people's BS.

We'll be kicking your liberal asses so badly in three weeks that I'm ordering even more champagne for my party as we speak.

How's it feel to be on the losing side? Oh, you'll try to swim up that waterfall, lying to the American people all the way to Nov 4.....but they've all got your number, honey.

Good idea to deviate away from the thread topic since it's been proven to be nothing but more EconoWhore bullshit. And your idiocy about intentionally lying in the thread title isn't going to fool anybody in this forum who hasn't already decided how they're going to vote. Forums like this one tend to attract partisans. Besides, your avatar appears with the thread title which immediately raises a red flag that the thread is based on lies by a brain-dead rightard given that is the reputation you've established here.

And as far as the election goes, what exactly do you think is going to change politically should Republicans win the Senate? You think Republicans will get anything they want passed into law? You think they'll be able repeal ObamaCare after failing more than 40 times in the past? You think they'll be any more or less receptive to Obama's policies? Personally, I don't see much changing, no matter who wins the Senate.

All that to start explaining early why you'll be crying so much when you libs lose the Senate???? LMAO.


We're kicking your asses in these econ threads.

Suck it up, princess.

You do appear rather unhinged and delusional, so I can totally believe you actually think bullshitting your way through your own thread is "kicking my ass."

 

[Antares]

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

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.

Too funny. Last time you begged me to bump a thread of yours, you ran away from me when I did. You abandoned your own thread.

LOL, Yeahhhh. I was kicking your ass at a really quick pace. You tried to keep up at a fast pace and kinda did....then at about 2AM your wimp ass disappeared. It's right there in the thread where I'm left saying, "where'd ya go................where'd ya go....................half hour later still asking where'd ya go."

Yep, you blinked, princess. Right there in the time stamp.

2 a.m.?

My ass is fast asleep LONG before then.

 

[EconChick]

And the limpdick faun responds to my demands not once but twice in 5 minutes. LOL

Keep tellin' ya, hon. If you were smart, you'd stop bumping my thread. I only started it to keep it on the first page where it's in people's faces, dumbass. I want all those undecided to keep remembering what my OP says.

Thanks for continuing to succumb to my powers.

Dayam, EconoWhore, I demanded you to succumb to my wishes and post again and you couldn't resist me.

Good job. You put this thread back on page 1 last night. Then I guess you figured out you'd been had. LMFAO. You libs are so slow.


Now....back to the intelligent discussion you can't keep up with.

It doesn't matter how many government statisticians come here and lie about the real state of the economy, but it is a mess.

Everyone knows it's a mess. Your hero did NOT create good jobs. Your hero did NOT create a roaring economy.

And even the artificial stock market that's been helping only the top 5% is about to hit a wall.

Good luck continuing to lie to people with common sense out there who are sick of you people's BS.

We'll be kicking your liberal asses so badly in three weeks that I'm ordering even more champagne for my party as we speak.

How's it feel to be on the losing side? Oh, you'll try to swim up that waterfall, lying to the American people all the way to Nov 4.....but they've all got your number, honey.

Good idea to deviate away from the thread topic since it's been proven to be nothing but more EconoWhore bullshit. And your idiocy about intentionally lying in the thread title isn't going to fool anybody in this forum who hasn't already decided how they're going to vote. Forums like this one tend to attract partisans. Besides, your avatar appears with the thread title which immediately raises a red flag that the thread is based on lies by a brain-dead rightard given that is the reputation you've established here.

And as far as the election goes, what exactly do you think is going to change politically should Republicans win the Senate? You think Republicans will get anything they want passed into law? You think they'll be able repeal ObamaCare after failing more than 40 times in the past? You think they'll be any more or less receptive to Obama's policies? Personally, I don't see much changing, no matter who wins the Senate.

All that to start explaining early why you'll be crying so much when you libs lose the Senate???? LMAO.


We're kicking your asses in these econ threads.

Suck it up, princess.

You do appear rather unhinged and delusional, so I can totally believe you actually think bullshitting your way through your own thread is "kicking my ass."

Unhinged. Meltdown.

We all know these are liberal code words for kicking your lib asses from here to kingdom come.

LOL.

As for the topic, middle America knows I'm spot on.

 

[EconChick]

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.

Too funny. Last time you begged me to bump a thread of yours, you ran away from me when I did. You abandoned your own thread.

LOL, Yeahhhh. I was kicking your ass at a really quick pace. You tried to keep up at a fast pace and kinda did....then at about 2AM your wimp ass disappeared. It's right there in the thread where I'm left saying, "where'd ya go................where'd ya go....................half hour later still asking where'd ya go."

Yep, you blinked, princess. Right there in the time stamp.

2 a.m.?

My ass is fast asleep LONG before then.

That's because I was Air Force, you were Army.

 

[EconChick]

Bottom line? Quality of what jobs HAVE been created mainly suck.

 

[AceRothstein]

Bottom line? Quality of what jobs HAVE been created mainly suck.

Now you sound just like Democrats during the Bush years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Too funny. Last time you begged me to bump a thread of yours, you ran away from me when I did. You abandoned your own thread.

LOL, Yeahhhh. I was kicking your ass at a really quick pace. You tried to keep up at a fast pace and kinda did....then at about 2AM your wimp ass disappeared. It's right there in the thread where I'm left saying, "where'd ya go................where'd ya go....................half hour later still asking where'd ya go."

Yep, you blinked, princess. Right there in the time stamp.

2 a.m.?

My ass is fast asleep LONG before then.

That's because I was Air Force, you were Army.

You spelled 'head' wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Seems to be a lot more part time work than full time work

 

[AceRothstein]

Seems to be a lot more part time work than full time work

Seems like you don't know how to read a graph.

 

[EconChick]

Ummmm, part time work is exactly why this hasn't been a good recovery.

 

[AceRothstein]

Ummmm, part time work is exactly why this hasn't been a good recovery.

Fortunately part-time work is on the downturn and full-time work is on an upswing. Also doesn't change the fact that bigreb can't read his own graph, there isn't more part-time work than full-time.

 

[EconChick]

Ummmm, part time work is exactly why this hasn't been a good recovery.

Fortunately part-time work is on the downturn and full-time work is on an upswing. Also doesn't change the fact that bigreb can't read his own graph, there isn't more part-time work than full-time.

Let's put it in simple terms. The drop the unemployment rate has a lot to do with the creation of POOR QUALITY jobs, including a lot of part time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Seems to be a lot more part time work than full time work

Seems like you don't know how to read a graph.

Looks like I can read it better than you.
19 is great MORE THAN 18 unless you are using liberal fuzzy math.
Part time work has been higher since 2009

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seems to be a lot more part time work than full time work

The significance of your chart, if it has any significance, is that it appears that the major shift was put in place in the latter part of the disastrous Bush presidency,

but early on in the Obama years we see a slow but steady recovery.

 

[AceRothstein]

Seems to be a lot more part time work than full time work

Seems like you don't know how to read a graph.

Looks like I can read it better than you.
19 is great MORE THAN 18 unless you are using liberal fuzzy math.
Part time work has been higher since 2009

There are two y-axes. Full-time employment is just over 81% and part-time employment is just below 19%.

 

[EconChick]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

 

[boedicca]

Bottom line? Quality of what jobs HAVE been created mainly suck.

Indeed. Obama has made Inequality Worse with his horrible policies and incompetence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.

Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons.

As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

 

[EconChick]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.

Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons.

As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what I've been telling Pinqy is the problem with all the BIG SPENDING, almost Socialist leaning Keynesian assumptions.

All you dummies keep asking how Keynesian policies seep into stats, and here's a perfect example.


We hard working Americans know it's 40.

Socialist Europe thinks it's 35, or lower.

I'm not talking about how nice it would be for all us hard working people to only have to work 10 hours a week......I'm talking about reality.