US adds massive 287,000 jobs in June.....Quite A Change From Bush's Fiasco

[IcebergSlim]

Context is everything....

Unemployment rate rises to 4.9% in June...

+287,000 JOBS...

94,517,000 Americans Not in Labor Force...

Anyone who cites CNS on the subject is a moron, Gassy...

 

[IcebergSlim]

LOL...nearly full employment? Well, yeah, aided and abetted by 95 Million who don't feel liķe working but can manage to feed, clothe, and house themselves thanks to government handouts. Good job, Barry.

You may actually be less informed than GassyIrishLass.....

Kudos...

 

[IcebergSlim]

Context is everything....

Unemployment rate rises to 4.9% in June...

+287,000 JOBS...

94,517,000 Americans Not in Labor Force...

How does the "context" change the meaning of job numbers?

More jobs, bigger labor force, near full employment - whats not to like?

You have 94 million out of the workforce and are saying it's near full employment? Really?

Good G*d, Gass!

Do you understand what the term "full employment" means?

 

[BluesLegend]

I see some math challenged idiot is bragging about 287k jobs, itself pathetic but more so considering only 38k jobs the previous month. Thankfully the retard in the White House will get his pink slip in a few months.

Did you cast one or more votes for the guy who preceded Obama?

Could you post the payroll gains under his stewardship?


Just the numbers.....we'll take it from there...

Ahahaha BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!

 

[IcebergSlim]

The U.S. added 287,000 new jobs in June, according to the Labor Department report ...

Experts look at averages over time...not monthly aberrations.

Sure...so give us Scrub's 8 year average, and we will compare it to that under the last guy for whom you cast two votes...

Just put up the numbers, we'll figure out which is larger.

Average unemployment under Bush: 5%
Average unemployment under Obama: 7.5% (so far)

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

What was Scrub bequeathed?

 

[JBond]

The unemployment rate is up.

The labor force participation rate is near an all time low.

Not a single year of 3% growth.

Lets throw a party and pretend everything is great. No one will notice the 94 million without a job.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I see some math challenged idiot is bragging about 287k jobs, itself pathetic but more so considering only 38k jobs the previous month. Thankfully the retard in the White House will get his pink slip in a few months.

Did you cast one or more votes for the guy who preceded Obama?

Could you post the payroll gains under his stewardship?


Just the numbers.....we'll take it from there...

Ahahaha BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!

I don't see any numbers.....do you need help finding them?

 

[BluesLegend]

I see some math challenged idiot is bragging about 287k jobs, itself pathetic but more so considering only 38k jobs the previous month. Thankfully the retard in the White House will get his pink slip in a few months.

Did you cast one or more votes for the guy who preceded Obama?

Could you post the payroll gains under his stewardship?


Just the numbers.....we'll take it from there...

Ahahaha BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!

I don't see any numbers.....do you need help finding them?

Only 38k jobs created in May by Obama suck on it.

 

[AntonToo]

OK, so facts = bullshit according to you. Noted...

Somehow you've forgotten the .com bubble of the late 90's...

Come on, you know you are pinning unemployment from Great Recession on Obama, while giving Bush the pass. Yes, that's BS.

.com bubble? Are you seriously comparing that to the giant finance and real estate near collapse?

 

[AntonToo]

Last I heard it was 150k month needed. What's changed?

Seems high, whats the source?

Also 2011-2016 has an average of about 200k jobs, so even at 150k, job growth has outpaced it.

 

[boedicca]

About those jobs: Most were taken by people who should be entering retirement. Young workers lost jobs.

90% Of June Job Gains Went To Workers 55 And Older | Zero Hedge

 

[Theowl32]

Full time jobs?
Private sector jobs?

Many places due to Obamacare cannot afford to have any of their employees work over 30 hours.

Is Hillary paying her female employees as much the men?

Stats are like bikinis. What it reveals is suggestive. What it conceals is vital.

Another government agency in the Obama administration is giving us information? Can anyone give us one reason I or any other American with a functional brain should trust anything from this administration?

Can the people still keep their doctor? Their plan? Was it due to a video?

The left wingers are nothing more than propaganda pushing losers for their democommiecrat puppet masters.

Especially the OP.

 

[Fiero425]

The unemployment rate is up.

The labor force participation rate is near an all time low.

Not a single year of 3% growth.

Lets throw a party and pretend everything is great. No one will notice the 94 million without a job.

Some people are just never satisfied! Whatever genius!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Last I heard it was 150k month needed. What's changed?

Seems high, whats the source?

Also 2011-2016 has an average of about 200k jobs, so even at 150k, job growth has outpaced it.

I don't remember the source. It was a figure from several years ago

 

[IcebergSlim]

The unemployment rate is up.

The labor force participation rate is near an all time low.

Not a single year of 3% growth.

Lets throw a party and pretend everything is great. No one will notice the 94 million without a job.

Between 2001 and 2008, government consumption expenditures and gross investment, on average, added 0.43% to real GDP every year.....between 2009 and 2015, the average has been -0.13%....

Add 0.56% per year to the GDP numbers since 2008...

What do you get?

 

[IcebergSlim]

You have 94 million out of the workforce and are saying it's near full employment? Really?

yes really, though perhaps you don't understand what those words mean.

Let me explain what it means:

market supply of jobs is beginning to outpace demand for jobs.

This generally indicates being able to find a job quickly, less layoffs and more income growth as workers have more leverage.

It DOES NOT mean that old people came back out of retirement and schools and colleges need to be closed because no students are left.

I don't need your elementary knowledge

Gassy,

You need all the help you can get...

 

[boedicca]

Two observations on the ratios of jobs by age cohort:

1. Older people are taking crappy low wage jobs because they cannot afford to retire due to ZIRP.

2. Employers prefer older workers because Millennials are completely unqualified due to ignorance, attitudes, and lack of work ethic.

 

[IcebergSlim]

So we kept up with population growth. That's good at least but no real job creation when most of the jobs are part time shitty pay seasonal jobs eh?

What is your source for the Bold Assertion about part time, seasonal jobs, Gramps?

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

What was Scrub bequeathed?

The unemployment rate at the beginning of 2001 was about 4.2% when President Bush took office.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt

 

[Campbell]

There are 5 job openings in Dallas thanks to democrat job making policies......

There were tens of thousands of job openings left by Bush just to replace the dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Less than 10,000 soldiers died in those wars, and more died in Afghanistan under Obama. Lie much?

Bush started the goddam mess.....Iraq totally unnecessary. The only thing Saddam Hussein ever did to the United States was tried to kill George Herbert Walker Bush in Qatar circa 1993. The whole goddam Republican party wanted to invade Iraq so bad they could taste it and this letter to Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end
of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear
and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready
to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam
Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we
can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to
punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections
were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if
not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during
which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely
that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we
will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle
East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American
troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant
portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President,
the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle
this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action
as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under
existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick