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

[Tom Horn]

You don't have any idea, do you.....

I got your number, Slim....never believe a democRAT...they're inbred liars.

 

[Faun]

You don't have any idea, do you.....

I got your number, Slim....never believe a democRAT...they're inbred liars.

Hisses the flaming imbecile claiming the unemployment rate is 20%.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You don't have any idea, do you.....

I got your number, Slim....never believe a democRAT...they're inbred liars.

A) I'm a Republican

B) the data comes from bls.....

C) in a crowded field you are a standout cretin

 

[Tom Horn]

You don't have any idea, do you.....

I got your number, Slim....never believe a democRAT...they're inbred liars.

A) I'm a Republican

B) the data comes from bls.....

C) in a crowded field you are a standout cretin

And you are my errand boy....see how this works, yoyo?

 

[Tom Horn]

Hisses the flaming imbecile claiming the unemployment rate is 20%.

I see our little weenie has taken a creative writing class...."hisses"...hilarious!

 

[Faun]

Hisses the flaming imbecile claiming the unemployment rate is 20%.

I see our little butt-burglar has taken a creative writing class...."hisses"...hilarious!

Nah, just highlighting your egregious irony of calling Democrats liars when you post such absurdities as the unemployment rate is 20%.

 

[Tom Horn]

Nah, just highlighting your egregious irony of calling Democrats liars when you post such absurdities as the unemployment rate is 20%.

"egregious absurdities"? Somebody got a thesaurus for their birfday.

 

[Faun]

Hisses the flaming imbecile claiming the unemployment rate is 20%.

I see our little butt-burglar has taken a creative writing class...."hisses"...hilarious!

Nah, just highlighting your egregious irony of calling Democrats liars when you post such absurdities as the unemployment rate is 20%.

"egregious absurdities"? Somebody got a thesaurus for their birfday.

Do you ever stop whining because I have a better grasp of the English language than you?

Or is whining the limit of your capabilities since proving your ridiculous claims is beyond the realm of possibilities?

 

[kaz]

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.

No. How can they both have given up and still be looking????

Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.

Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.
Now, this week happens to be the survey reference week, and the interviewers will be out on Monday asking about this week.
A marginally attached worker for July will be someone who:

1. Did not work at all this week.
2. Wants a job.
3. Has not looked for work or gone to interviews or submitted an application or answered an ad or placed an ad or sent a resume etc after 18 June.
4. Could have started a job this week.

A discouraged worker meets all the above requirements plus:

Stopped looking due to the belief that there were no available jobs, or that s/he would face discrimination.

You can word parse all you want, but someone who gave up and went away because they gave up on finding a job isn't counted, and there are millions of those. Keep spinning

Isn't counted as what? And I'm not word parsing, I'm giving the definitions. If you're using "marginally attached" or "discouraged" as meaning anything else, then you are wrong.

You're arguing semantics instead of the point.

I said workers who have given up and gone away aren't being counted. You said, oh yeah, well if they looked for a job between the last 4 and 52 weeks they are, bam!

No shit, you agreed with me that only some are counted but made it sound like a disagreement. You're just contradicting, not debating. If I said water was wet, you'd say no it isn't, that's just a sensation on your skin

 

[kaz]

You're making it up. People who are for example professionals who take lower paying jobs not in their field because they can't find a job in their field are ALWAYS counted as underemployed.

Show me one statistical agency that does that. Anywhere in the world.

Informally, yes you are correct. But measuring it? It can't be done.

Example: A stock broker with an MBA and a decade of experience is convicted of securities fraud and does 6 months in prison.
Because he is a felon, and because of his particular crime, he can no longer work on the stock market and the best he can find is a minimum wage job.

Is he underemployed as a stock broker? Or normally employed as an ex-con?

OK, you want to make up your own definitions for words. I'm out

I'm not making up any definitions. By YOUR definition of underemployed, is my example underemployed or not? There is no, and cannot be, any objective, useful, definition of underemployed. We can all agree that a person with an MBA working the line at McDonalds is under employed. But what about someone with an MFA? Food service is pretty normal for them.

Every economics discussion I've ever had counts people who took major step downs, like from a $100K professional to working in a restaurant counts that as "underemployed." I'm not debating you if you're going to debate basic definitions. I don't give a shit about the semantics, the point is that's clearly underemployed. If you want to play with yourself, go do it by yourself

 

[Faun]

If they say they want and are available for work and looked in the last year but not the last month, they are.

So workers who gave up and went away but are still looking for a job are marginally attached.

No. How can they both have given up and still be looking????

Wow, that does destroy my argument when I said not all discouraged workers are being counted.

Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.
Now, this week happens to be the survey reference week, and the interviewers will be out on Monday asking about this week.
A marginally attached worker for July will be someone who:

1. Did not work at all this week.
2. Wants a job.
3. Has not looked for work or gone to interviews or submitted an application or answered an ad or placed an ad or sent a resume etc after 18 June.
4. Could have started a job this week.

A discouraged worker meets all the above requirements plus:

Stopped looking due to the belief that there were no available jobs, or that s/he would face discrimination.

You can word parse all you want, but someone who gave up and went away because they gave up on finding a job isn't counted, and there are millions of those. Keep spinning

Isn't counted as what? And I'm not word parsing, I'm giving the definitions. If you're using "marginally attached" or "discouraged" as meaning anything else, then you are wrong.

You're arguing semantics instead of the point.

I said workers who have given up and gone away aren't being counted. You said, oh yeah, well if they looked for a job between the last 4 and 52 weeks they are, bam!

No shit, you agreed with me that only some are counted but made it sound like a disagreement. You're just contradicting, not debating. If I said water was wet, you'd say no it isn't, that's just a sensation on your skin

Poor, kazzing Kaz. No, he's defending the actual definition of the terms because you're trying hard to stretch them into meaning something other than the BLS intended.

 

[edthecynic]

Already did and showed the lie in the statistic. It doesn't count people who gave up and went away, the main group of "discouraged" workers. LOL, you people are priceless.

LIAR!

Read your own stat, it said it only counted people who were marginally attached. That means people who worked not too long ago and sorta are working but not in the last 4 weeks.

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

Gee what a surprise, NOT!
When caught lying about "discouraged" workers you move the goalposts to "marginally attached" workers which includes people who didn't look for work because they were sick, or their car was broken down or they had to care for a family member, etc., and a lot of other reasons other than giving up due to discouragement.

 

[edthecynic]

But you claim that "MOST" who have dropped out did so out of discouragement, which IS a lie, and you know it.
Discouraged workers have declined from 1,318,000 at the peak of the Great Bush Recession to 502,000 now.

Well, whether it's "most" or not is debatable based on how you're counting them, and I agree I wasn't specific in that. But where do you get that there are 502K discouraged workers? That's hard to swallow.

Edit: I Googled it, you are only counting "marginally attached" workers. That's like when you called the 45 million food stamp receivers 1.9 million. Where are you getting your data? Crooks and Liars or the Democratic Underground?

If you don't know where I get my data, how can you google it and find it is "marginally attached" workers???

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)

I already addressed this. You got it by ignoring most discouraged workers and only counting one segment of them

LIAR!

There is only one group of discouraged workers.

Google "BLS Marginally Attached Workers"

You first!

 

[kaz]

Long, yes, but incredibly weak. Obama is going to be the first President to not have a single year of 3% GDP growth in his entire Presidency. Particularly remarkable considering the hole he started in. Typically GDP growth is high coming out of recessions just getting back where we were. You're proud of that? You think kids should get stars for getting Ds too or just Presidents?

Obama is going to be the first President to not have a single year of 3% GDP growth in his entire Presidency. Particularly remarkable considering the hole he started in. Typically GDP growth is high coming out of recessions just getting back where we were.

Do you know the formula for calculating GDP?

One of the variables is "G"......

This is the first recession since 1960 where the Federal & State Government contribution to GDP has been negative.....

And starting from the bottom of a deep recession? Yeah, that's OK then ...



You sheeple will believe anything Democrats tell you. And I'll buy State and local are negative. But the Feds? I call BS to that, they are growing like crazy

Net REDUCTION in the federal workforce since Feb 2009 - 13,000...

OK, fair enough. Nothing sarcastic in that, I concede that point.

It doesn't change that 10 million over 7.5 years in a country of 350 million starting from the bottom of a recession is piddling, but I did say government workers were part of that growth, and they were not over that period

It's considerably better than the 1.3 million over 8 years (all public sector, by the way) of Obama's predecessor. ....

No shit. I keep saying they are the same. Same policies, same results, they both suck. Maybe you can find a Republican to bicker with

 

[kaz]

The only problem being it was a lie. I said it was mostly shit jobs and part time. Sputnik changed that to "mostly part time." Just a flat out lie, totally different thing.

I love how you lie as you accuse people of lying. Hilarious stuff.

You said most jobs created were part time and just because that is not ALL you said doesn't mean you didn't say it. I've proven that to be fabricated BS and now you post more BS trying to skirt around the facts.

You don't have to accept simple facts, you just have to accept them to not look like a fact denying idiot without any credibility.

Now as to your other claim of "shit jobs", I have no idea what you base it on, but going by your record it is based on NOTHING substantive.

Here's the other problem with the chart. I count part time as anything less than full time. This chart is counting underemployed as full time. Meaning you took a big step down and/or they offer you the 25-30 hour a week range. Explain how a low end worker lives on that.

In fact many companies are specifically limiting employees to under 30 hours because that's when government fucks them with Obamacare. This counts them as full time. They aren't.

Same goes to the rest of your naked assertions - SOURCE IT because there is not a single reason for anyone to trust anything you type.

Lies wrapped in lies wrapped in lies, that's what you people have.

That and after 7 1/2 years, Obama had a good month for one stat! Hail Obama!

More blatant lying.

You seriously see only "one good month"?

If you count underemployed as part time and claim that part time workers are not going up, yeah, that's a lie

You want the category

Employed Part Time for Economic Reasons...

Thank me later.

Thank you for what? Again, you're spinning, spinning, spinning.

I think part time workers are people who work but don't work full time. You think it's a contrived category that doesn't include people who work less than 30 hours a week because their employers don't want to get fucked by government with Obamacare.

You think you're winning that point?

I don't give a shit what you "think", I'm telling you what IS....

BLS distinguishes between those who work part time because they want to, from those who do so because it is all they can find.....please don't oblige me to explain why that matters.

Relax, I don't give a shit why you think that matters

 

[kaz]

You're making it up. People who are for example professionals who take lower paying jobs not in their field because they can't find a job in their field are ALWAYS counted as underemployed.

If you're going to start playing stupid word parsing games I'm out

Unbelievable. You are again doing this crazy shit where you falsely accuse someone of doing something while you yourself are actually doing it.

What you just said is MADE UP. That is not how collection of this data works even if you can somehow imagine it in your know-nothing head. No it's not how it is counted, not always, not EVER.

You're too stupid to breathe. I'm ignoring your posts in this discussion

 

[kaz]

You don't know that people have dropped out of the labor market? Seriously?

But you claim that "MOST" who have dropped out did so out of discouragement, which IS a lie, and you know it.
Discouraged workers have declined from 1,318,000 at the peak of the Great Bush Recession to 502,000 now.

Well, whether it's "most" or not is debatable based on how you're counting them, and I agree I wasn't specific in that. But where do you get that there are 502K discouraged workers? That's hard to swallow

You can go to BLS...

Already did and showed the lie in the statistic. It doesn't count people who gave up and went away, the main group of "discouraged" workers. LOL, you people are priceless.

I said when I was wrong, are you going to do the same?

Seriously....where do they find you people...

BLS provides a glossary, with detailed definitions of all categories......you are struggling to reconcile what you've been told to think with what can be demonstrated.....

You are the one who argued all discouraged workers are counted. They are only counted if they looked more than 4 weeks but less than 52 weeks. So you think being proven wrong proves you right?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The GDP hasn't changed but about 280,000 kids got out of school and took burger flipper jobs for the summer in the last six months of the Hussein administration and the minister of propaganda calls calls it a freaking victory. No surprises here.

10 million jobs have been added under President Obama and they have been in all sectors

10 million jobs have been added in spite of President Obama and they have been in all sectors

You're welcome I fixed it for you

 

[kaz]

Already did and showed the lie in the statistic. It doesn't count people who gave up and went away, the main group of "discouraged" workers. LOL, you people are priceless.

LIAR!

Read your own stat, it said it only counted people who were marginally attached. That means people who worked not too long ago and sorta are working but not in the last 4 weeks.

Workers who gave up and went away are not "marginally attached" workers

Gee what a surprise, NOT!
When caught lying about "discouraged" workers you move the goalposts to "marginally attached" workers which includes people who didn't look for work because they were sick, or their car was broken down or they had to care for a family member, etc., and a lot of other reasons other than giving up due to discouragement.

You're smoking dope, Doobie

 

[Faun]

Obama is going to be the first President to not have a single year of 3% GDP growth in his entire Presidency. Particularly remarkable considering the hole he started in. Typically GDP growth is high coming out of recessions just getting back where we were.

Do you know the formula for calculating GDP?

One of the variables is "G"......

This is the first recession since 1960 where the Federal & State Government contribution to GDP has been negative.....

And starting from the bottom of a deep recession? Yeah, that's OK then ...



You sheeple will believe anything Democrats tell you. And I'll buy State and local are negative. But the Feds? I call BS to that, they are growing like crazy

Net REDUCTION in the federal workforce since Feb 2009 - 13,000...

OK, fair enough. Nothing sarcastic in that, I concede that point.

It doesn't change that 10 million over 7.5 years in a country of 350 million starting from the bottom of a recession is piddling, but I did say government workers were part of that growth, and they were not over that period

It's considerably better than the 1.3 million over 8 years (all public sector, by the way) of Obama's predecessor. ....

No shit. I keep saying they are the same. Same policies, same results, they both suck. Maybe you can find a Republican to bicker with

Stop kazzing.

They are not the same. We've had 14.4 million jobs added during the recovery.

Bush wrecks the economy and produces the worst jobs numbers since Herbert Hoover; and to kazzing nutcases like you, that's the same as Obama, who's turning in one the best.