US Jobs: Coming or Going?

[decoy409]

#60

Not much to say about the cooked books hey? 'Put things to rest?' Well with #60,looks like I just did.

Now you have cooked numbers putting the extra wash on minature legit ones to make the pic rosy. When in actuality we are still at the 'greater vs less' as those uncollected revenues build and the blinders stay on.

meanwhile,

Jan. 10,2012 - Friendly’s closes 37 stores, axing about 740 jobs

articles.boston.com/2012-01-10/news/30608203_1_stores-bankruptcy-protection-axing

and they are still hammering them at home. Good thing for that late night deposit last night,

Jan. 10,2012 - RBS 'Set For 4,000 Job Cuts Amid Boss Bonus'

uk.news.yahoo.com/rbs-executive-set-big-payout-122631567.html

Jan. 9,2012 - Food plant, Patterson's second-largest employer, calling it quits

excerpt - Patterson Vegetable Co. plans to close its 66-year-old plant, putting 489 employees out of work, a letter from the company says.

www.modbee.com/2012/01/09/2018160/food-plant-pattersons-largest.html

Well maybe these people can can land one of those nickel or dime jobs coming back. Of course that would just increase those 'ODDS' even further.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 9, 2012 11:42:28 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

Thanks AHB ... K4U as well.

You know what, have some more. Like how the out that was given, was taken?? ;D I'll just repost #43-#45 to make sure everyone knows what the conversation is really about right now. The 100 applicant per position topic.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 5, 2012 14:56:22 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

Jan 5, 2012 14:05:50 GMT -5 decoy409 said:

steady, the NEWS is THE NEWS. Sorry your offended or trying to simply not accept it. Your just not looking. Enjoy your misrepresentation as well as your life. And best of 'LUCK' to you.

"The skills necessary to get "middle class" wages are no longer from high school."

And apparent that college is not the ticket for the majority as well.

When some figure out that they do not live ontop of the hill the better off things will be. And sooner or later,(I would presume tha later) some will start figuring out that things are much different then they were years ago and spread out is the playing field with 3 games going at once,Chess,Monopoly,Dominoes'.

Not offended at all, decoy. It's not about "me" accepting or not accepting. I SEE the FACTS. I've read the links YOU provided and I've been researching.
I haven't made any claims or misrepresented any data ... I simply asked: where "YOU" came up with your "across the board" in the US in 2011, 100/1 (applicant's versus job openings) ... and you gave me 2010 information, data that doesn't even pertain to the US (and even THAT data you misrepresented), and data that proved your own misinformation as inaccurate.
I haven't misrepresented anything ... but you seem to have no difficulty in doing so.
I'm not the one who's not accepting FACTS.

And while I agree that SOME job openings may have upward of over 100 applicants vying for the position ... that in NO WAY makes it a national AVERAGE of 100/1 as you claim as fact. It just isn't so.

I get that things are different now than they were in the past (who doesn't?) ... there is definitely LOTS of room for improvement ... but that's no reason to misrepresent and misreport the REAL facts ... (which you seem to do ad nauseam).

So, Decoy, I offer you one more chance to PROVE to your readers how you came up with a US National AVERAGE of 100 applicants for every 1 job opening as a statement FACT and not just something that you made up.

"Living on a hill" or "playing 3 games at once" has nothing to do with my question ... and if you think it does, then by all means, feel free to include it your justification of your 100/1 AVERAGE.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 5, 2012 15:01:47 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

Jan 5, 2012 14:27:18 GMT -5 decoy409 said:

Here is your New Year breakdown sport,

Jan. 4,2012 - Unemployment Rates By College Majors

Your chances of getting a job depend greatly on your major. A Georgetown University study released Wednesday shows that unemployment rates among college graduates are highest for those who majored in architecture, arts and the liberal arts.

Some want to address D.C.’s high unemployment by getting more District youth to go to college; unemployment is 26 percent in Ward 8, where half of adults stopped their schooling at high school. That’s the impetus behind a new D.C. proposal requiring all District high school students to take a college admission exam. But these unemployment figures show that simply getting a college degree won’t be enough to prevent you from being unemployed. There’s also a racial disparity: young black college graduates face double the unemployment rate than white college graduates.

Here are the recent college graduates with the highest unemployment rates:

Architecture: 13.9% Arts: 11.1% Humanities and liberal arts: 9.4% Social science: 8.9% Recreation: 8.3% Computers and mathematics: 8.2% Law and public policy: 8.1% Life and physical science: 7.7% Engineering: 7.5% Business: 7.4% Communications and journalism: 7.3% Psychology and social work: 7.3% Agriculture and natural resources: 7% Health: 5.4% Education: 5.4%

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2828638/posts

Those are college "unemployment rates" for SPECIFIC positions and fields. It still doesn't prove a 100/1 US National AVERAGE of applicants to job openings that you claim.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 5, 2012 15:08:21 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

Jan 5, 2012 14:27:18 GMT -5 decoy409 said:

Here are the recent college graduates with the highest unemployment rates:

Architecture: 13.9% Arts: 11.1% Humanities and liberal arts: 9.4% Social science: 8.9% Recreation: 8.3% Computers and mathematics: 8.2% Law and public policy: 8.1% Life and physical science: 7.7% Engineering: 7.5% Business: 7.4% Communications and journalism: 7.3% Psychology and social work: 7.3% Agriculture and natural resources: 7% Health: 5.4% Education: 5.4%

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2828638/posts

If these are the "highest" unemployment rates ... does that mean that ALL the OTHER college graduates in all the other fields have unemployment rates LOWER than 5.4%?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I really like this part. "If these are the "highest" unemployment rates ... does that mean that ALL the OTHER college graduates in all the other fields have unemployment rates LOWER than 5.4%?"

A nice direct question that if answered would put the argument to bed.

[decoy409]

Yep,100/1 cross the board. Enjoy the huff and puff.

[Steady As She Goes]

Jan 10, 2012 16:04:00 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Jan 5, 2012 15:01:47 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

Those are college "unemployment rates" for SPECIFIC positions and fields. It still doesn't prove a 100/1 US National AVERAGE of applicants to job openings that you claim.

Thanks for "trying" to keep the conversation on track, AHB. In my opinion, his non-answer and avoidance tactics answered it in spades.

He simply MADE UP his figure of 100/1 US National AVERAGE of applicants to job openings.

He took a couple of the highest stats he could find and tried to label it as the National AVERAGE. I called him on it and he couldn't provide the proof to back it up. It's all in the previous posts above ... but it's now so convoluted with EDGE statistics that, while those edge stats may be related to the general subject of jobs and unemployment vs. workforce, they DON"T answer the question of where or how he came up with that national average stat of 100/1.

It's clear that it's a false statistic that he just MADE UP. (Or maybe "grossly embellished" is a better term.)

It's not worth my time and energy to pursue this particular line of thought any further. He answered in the perfect decoy fashion. Some people simply march to the beat of a different drum.

I was never trying to paint that the employment situation in the US was all rosy. It most certainly sucks. It just isn't an average of 100 applicants for every 1 job opening. There aren't any FACTS to back that statement up. It's pure exaggeration and simply not TRUE.

If you want to continue pursuing this, AHB, have at it. But ya gotta wonder ... if a simple claimed statistic like this can't be proven or backed up with facts, what other so called "truths" are being embellished, exaggerated and twisted, and presented as ... I'll let you guys figure it out, it's time for me to go home.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

If you want to continue pursuing this, AHB, have at it. But ya gotta wonder ... if a simple claimed statistic like this can't be proven or backed up with facts, what other so called "truths" are being embellished, exaggerated and twisted, and presented as ... I'll let you guys figure it out, it's time for me to go home.

No I'm good, I understand that things aren't rosy either and it's nice that someone took the time to point out exactly how the lies are spread through misinformation. It's sad that someone would spend the time and effort to just make things up about the destruction of America. Although we know that goes on all around the world so it should surprise me.

Kudos for taking the time to clarify that even thought the job market sucks, some people are LYING to make the USA out to be worse off than it is. Agenda IDK?

[decoy409]

Really?

While you are posting all of those nickel and dime jobs,better start figuring out how the nickel and dime jobs are going to keep up when the actual being lost and reported gained stay COOKED at best.

From the POST today,

excerpt - Economist John Williams of Shadowstats.com says the government reported more than 40,000 jobs that didn’t exist. In his latest report, Williams said, “The reported seasonally-adjusted 200,000 jobs surge in December 2011 payrolls included a false, seasonally-adjusted gain of roughly 42,000 in the “Couriers and Messengers” category.” Williams went on to report, “While today’s happy labor data likely will fuel financial-media and political talk of an improving economy, the underlying reality remains bleak, with data later this month and next generally tending to confirm the ongoing bottom-bouncing of the U.S. economy in a severe downturn.” (Click here to go to the Shadowstats.com home page.) If unemployment was calculated the way BLS did it in 1994 and earlier, it would be 22.4% according to Williams.
(end)

Get 'em justifiers.

[Driftr]

Jan 10, 2012 20:55:15 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

Jan 10, 2012 16:04:00 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Thanks for "trying" to keep the conversation on track, AHB. In my opinion, his non-answer and avoidance tactics answered it in spades.

He simply MADE UP his figure of 100/1 US National AVERAGE of applicants to job openings.

He took a couple of the highest stats he could find and tried to label it as the National AVERAGE. I called him on it and he couldn't provide the proof to back it up. It's all in the previous posts above ... but it's now so convoluted with EDGE statistics that, while those edge stats may be related to the general subject of jobs and unemployment vs. workforce, they DON"T answer the question of where or how he came up with that national average stat of 100/1.

It's clear that it's a false statistic that he just MADE UP. (Or maybe "grossly embellished" is a better term.)

It's not worth my time and energy to pursue this particular line of thought any further. He answered in the perfect decoy fashion. Some people simply march to the beat of a different drum.

I was never trying to paint that the employment situation in the US was all rosy. It most certainly sucks. It just isn't an average of 100 applicants for every 1 job opening. There aren't any FACTS to back that statement up. It's pure exaggeration and simply not TRUE.

If you want to continue pursuing this, AHB, have at it. But ya gotta wonder ... if a simple claimed statistic like this can't be proven or backed up with facts, what other so called "truths" are being embellished, exaggerated and twisted, and presented as ... I'll let you guys figure it out, it's time for me to go home.

The sad thing to me back in the MSN days when I was pretty bearish myself (no I did not understand the lengths our Govt would go to in order to extend and pretend) the 'excessive embelishments' just take away from the whole argument that things are bad because when it is so easily proven that someone who is 'the most bearish' just makes things up then that allows those on the opposite side to use them as the poster child for how doom and gloomers don't know what they're talking about. It was a thought I tried to convey to decoy409 that just never got through. I finally gave up because life is too short.

[decoy409]

Boo,Hoo,Hoo I am sobbing over here driftr. Can you rewrite that and make it even more full of holes.

One thing is for sure,you and others certainly do not like THE NEWS!

I found some more holes for you to fill!

Jan. 10,2011 - MetLife Quits Mortgage Business, to Cut Most of 4,300 Workers

MetLife Inc. (MET), the largest U.S. life insurer, said it will shut its home mortgage-origination operation, costing the company at least $90 million and most of the 4,300 employees at the unit their jobs.

“The majority will no longer have a position,” said John Calagna, a spokesman for New York-based MetLife, in an interview yesterday. About 20 percent of the workers are based in Irving, Texas, and the rest are scattered throughout the U.S., he said.

MetLife said in October it was seeking a buyer for the mortgage unit after announcing plans to sell deposit-gathering operations to reduce federal oversight. The firm reached a deal last month to sell about $7.5 billion of bank deposits to General Electric Co. The Federal Reserve, which oversees MetLife because of its size and banking operations, rejected its plan last year to raise the dividend and resume share buybacks.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-10/metlife-most-of-4-300-at-mortgage-unit-to-lose-jobs.html

Get 'em tiger!

Now if you add those to say,

excerpt - Economist John Williams of Shadowstats.com says the government reported more than 40,000 jobs that didn’t exist. In his latest report, Williams said, “The reported seasonally-adjusted 200,000 jobs surge in December 2011 payrolls included a false, seasonally-adjusted gain of roughly 42,000 in the “Couriers and Messengers” category.” Williams went on to report, “While today’s happy labor data likely will fuel financial-media and political talk of an improving economy, the underlying reality remains bleak, with data later this month and next generally tending to confirm the ongoing bottom-bouncing of the U.S. economy in a severe downturn.” (Click here to go to the Shadowstats.com home page.) If unemployment was calculated the way BLS did it in 1994 and earlier, it would be 22.4% according to Williams.
(end)

Why that's another 45 THOUSAND holes to fill just in those two alone. Heck,lets just add the mess up so far and see what the tally is. Want to do that sport? Then we can add up those coming back as reported by old ham and we can do a bit more math.

[Steady As She Goes]

The sad thing to me back in the MSN days when I was pretty bearish myself (no I did not understand the lengths our Govt would go to in order to extend and pretend) the 'excessive embelishments' just take away from the whole argument that things are bad because when it is so easily proven that someone who is 'the most bearish' just makes things up then that allows those on the opposite side to use them as the poster child for how doom and gloomers don't know what they're talking about. It was a thought I tried to convey to decoy409 that just never got through. I finally gave up because life is too short.

I hear ya, Driftr. I remember you saying that back in the day. Like I said though ... some people simply march to the beat of a different drum.

K4U

[decoy409]

Back in the day hey? How about the back in the day and your marching being floundering.

Still avoiding the issue I see driftr,steady and ham. There is a bright side however,all 3 of you are cornered together.

Your numbers make no sense simply becouse what is being lost and continues to be,does not cover those you are cilcking your heels to. Not to mention those that are standing in line for the waiting.
Your numbers are nothing more than shabby doo accounting gimmicks for cooked books.

[Driftr]

Jan 11, 2012 11:34:46 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

The sad thing to me back in the MSN days when I was pretty bearish myself (no I did not understand the lengths our Govt would go to in order to extend and pretend) the 'excessive embelishments' just take away from the whole argument that things are bad because when it is so easily proven that someone who is 'the most bearish' just makes things up then that allows those on the opposite side to use them as the poster child for how doom and gloomers don't know what they're talking about. It was a thought I tried to convey to decoy409 that just never got through. I finally gave up because life is too short.

I hear ya, Driftr. I remember you saying that back in the day. Like I said though ... some people simply march to the beat of a different drum.

K4U

Thanks man. I'd send you some back, but I've been using all mine whenever I'm on to get Neo to K>Posts. Finally accomplished that. Woo Hoo! I'm relatively certain he wouldn't care, but just wanted to try and get there.

[decoy409]

Reposted due to NEGLECT in DEBATE in which a thread is suppose to be about.

[usaone]

There where 212,000 net jobs created.

That number takes into account the job losses.

The government laid off 12,000 people.

So you have 200,000 NET jobs created.

The private sector continues to hire and governments at all levels continue to fire.

Recovery continues.


And Drftr the dividends continue to get better!!

[Steady As She Goes]

How about the back in the day and your marching being floundering.

HUH

Still avoiding the issue I see driftr,steady and ham. Your numbers are nothing more than shabby doo accounting gimmicks for cooked books

Do you REALLY expect ANYONE to discuss anything with you? Especially when you dismiss all other facts as "accounting gimmicks" and refer to their information as "shabby doo' (whatever that is).

Exactly what "issue" are we (Driftr, AHB, and I) avoiding? I can't really speak for the other 2, But it appears to me that the three of us agreed that the unemployment picture has a ton of room for improvement. I just don't think its going to cause the world to completely collapse ... as you appear to proclaim.

When it comes to hiring information, you like to purport "those books are cooked" but when it comes to firing, "those numbers are FACTS" ... even if they haven't actually happened yet ... so I can SEE why the numbers don't make sense to you. Heck, when McDonalds announced it's plan to hire 50,000 (and then actually hired 62,000) you thought THAT was a sham.

Jobs come and jobs go. Companies come and companies go. Happens everyday. I notice that you like to compare "prospective" layoff numbers over a year period to reported hires from a monthly period. That's apples vs. oranges. The numbers DO make sense if you really look at them and compare "like" information.


Added:
Even with all your information in #76 (now #80 ... darn it, now #82 ........ quit deleting your posts decoy ), more jobs are being created than lost ...
Your "words" keep saying we are doomed, but your "numbers" say otherwise. ;D

[Steady As She Goes]

Thanks man. I'd send you some back, but I've been using all mine whenever I'm on to get Neo to K>Posts. Finally accomplished that. Woo Hoo! I'm relatively certain he wouldn't care, but just wanted to try and get there.

karma on back order ...... HAHAHAHAHA

[decoy409]

Deleted by me for repost due to NEGLECT in DEBATE.

[usaone]

Exactly Steady...

You can pick out any month of any year and find layoffs like Decoy keeps posting.

There is nothing abnormal about it.

[decoy409]

So taking into account AMERICAN JOBS lost since the start of this thread (Dec. 14,2011 less than a month ago) the total is roughly 61,000 lost jobs. And we have to keep in mind that this is just a calculated percentage with the information made available from this thread.

And once again we point out the following,

#72 - excerpt - Economist John Williams of Shadowstats.com says the government reported more than 40,000 jobs that didn’t exist. In his latest report, Williams said, “The reported seasonally-adjusted 200,000 jobs surge in December 2011 payrolls included a false, seasonally-adjusted gain of roughly 42,000 in the “Couriers and Messengers” category.” Williams went on to report, “While today’s happy labor data likely will fuel financial-media and political talk of an improving economy, the underlying reality remains bleak, with data later this month and next generally tending to confirm the ongoing bottom-bouncing of the U.S. economy in a severe downturn.” (Click here to go to the Shadowstats.com home page.) If unemployment was calculated the way BLS did it in 1994 and earlier, it would be 22.4% according to Williams.
(end)

as well as,

June 3,2011 - The Real Truth on U.S. Phantom-Jobs

blog.ml-implode.com/2011/06/the-real-truth-on-u-s-phantom-jobs/

So who is doing the duck and cover?

Well if you created,

'#55 - Another 200K jobs added.

Recovery is starting to pick up some momentum.'
(end)

61,000 plus were lost,along with 40,000 that don't exist,your batting average on presentation stinks to say the least. And as far as your taunting goes and when we say we laugh as to the some of the comebacks trying to justify other,well the tale of the tape speaks for itself.

[Driftr]

Jan 11, 2012 13:45:12 GMT -5 Steady As She Goes said:

Thanks man. I'd send you some back, but I've been using all mine whenever I'm on to get Neo to K>Posts. Finally accomplished that. Woo Hoo! I'm relatively certain he wouldn't care, but just wanted to try and get there.

karma on back order ...... HAHAHAHAHA

Delivered.

[Steady As She Goes]

Jan 11, 2012 13:47:41 GMT -5 decoy409 said:

So taking into account AMERICAN JOBS lost since the start of this thread (Dec. 14,2011 less than a month ago) the total is roughly 61,000 lost jobs. And we have to keep in mind that this is just a calculated percentage with the information made available from this thread.

And MOST of those 61,000 jobs are still in the works or "planned" to be cut over the SPAN of this year (2012) AND next year (2013) ... only a small percentage of those 61,000 have ACTUALLY been REPORTED as lost in the past month. Compared to to the 200,000 NET hirings for the last month. (Net meaning that the losses are already calculated into the 200,000 figure).

You're comparing MULTI-YEAR PROJECTED losses to ONE MONTH of AFTER THE FACT job additions.

A feeble comparison at best. Your argument is full of holes. You're not using FACTS ... you're mis-representing the data

[decoy409]

Yes I would agree,you are full of holes steady!

Now run along and spread some more garbage. That certainly has become your No. 1 trait.

[decoy409]

Oh,and what is your guesstamate as to the job ratio as 100/1 is not feasable with you.

[decoy409]

Better yet,why ask! As your slander is most entertaining so simply push a bit more,we love it!

[decoy409]

Boy talk about cooking books,do you get paid to do that?

[Steady As She Goes]

Jan 11, 2012 14:40:04 GMT -5 decoy409 said:

Yes I would agree,you are full of holes steady!

Now run along and spread some more garbage. That certainly has become your No. 1 trait.

And there we have it ... decoy resorting to personally attacking another poster.

[decoy409]

Opps and old steady forgot to include the ENTIRE YEAR OF 2011 and the LOSSES in jobs.

That's ok sport,the recent is just for the past few weeks as in LESS than a month.

Detour you keep up that fine bookeeping now ya hear.