djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:35:38 GMT -5
The reason I ignore most of your posts is that you only think you're responding- perfect example: is it now? let's see, shall we?What does the fact that youth unemployment is the last to recover have to do with anything? It's a fact I won't even dispute- let's stipulate this is true. Now, explain why it's the highest it has ever been? You didn't address that at all. yes i did. i UNDERLINED it above.if you spent less time ignoring me, you might recognize that i DO actually answer your questions, Paul. so much for perfect examples.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 23:36:41 GMT -5
That may be true, however since Obama has been President the universe of jobs is 6 million jobs smaller. If you are correct- and I have no reason to believe you're not- then show me the rate at which jobs have been disappearing for 10 years.
Is it the same rate, has the rate slowed, or are we shedding jobs faster under Obama? I don't know- I'm asking. I have my suspicions.
Is there a chart someplace that shows when the universe of jobs began to get smaller?
Again, I never blamed the BLS- I'm just looking at the internal numbers. Are you asserting something here? Are you saying the cause is workers opting for retirement? Can you back that up?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 23:38:37 GMT -5
The reason I ignore most of your posts is that you only think you're responding- perfect example: is it now? let's see, shall we?What does the fact that youth unemployment is the last to recover have to do with anything? It's a fact I won't even dispute- let's stipulate this is true. Now, explain why it's the highest it has ever been? You didn't address that at all. yes i did. i UNDERLINED it above.if you spent less time ignoring me, you might recognize that i DO actually answer your questions, Paul. so much for perfect examples. Ah, but you see this recession is NOT the worst since the Great Depression. And it's certainly not worse than the Great Depression. So, why is this measure so high right now? It's an interesting thought, but there's nothing to it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:41:09 GMT -5
That may be true, however since Obama has been President the universe of jobs is 6 million jobs smaller. If you are correct- and I have no reason to believe you're not- then show me the rate at which jobs have been disappearing for 10 years. Is it the same rate, has the rate slowed, or are we shedding jobs faster under Obama? I don't know- I'm asking. I have my suspicions. Is there a chart someplace that shows when the universe of jobs began to get smaller? yes. i will go find it. the rate is increasing. but that could easily be explained by the fact that more people wait until 65 than retire early. again, adding 65 to the end of the war, we get a number that falls right in the middle of Obama's first term, so it really does make sense that the number is increasing, and will CONTINUE TO DO SO until it reaches it's peak, which is the peak of the post WW2 baby boom. but rather than suggesting this possibility, FOX merely says that the BLS is cooking the books. i think that is incredibly bad journalism, and quite possibly slanderous.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:42:00 GMT -5
if you spent less time ignoring me, you might recognize that i DO actually answer your questions, Paul. so much for perfect examples. Ah, but you see this recession is NOT the worst since the Great Depression. it's not? which recession was worse, Paul? oh, and i DID answer the question, Paul. you might take a minute out of your busy nitpicking schedule to at least acknowledge that fact.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 23:43:49 GMT -5
Nope. The fact is that more than 2.6 million people lost their jobs in the last 30 days.
The BLS assumes that the seasonally adjustment number is 250,000 people found jobs, but that number is a guess. Again, the BLS has been using the seasonal adjustment for long enough now that I won't quibble with that-- I'll assume it's right. But the fact is 2.6 million people lost their jobs. Maybe it'll all shake out and we'll look back and see that indeed 250,000 found work in the last 30 days, but what we know for certain- that we don't have to guess about is that over 2.6 million people lost their job.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:45:00 GMT -5
here it is. the LPR has been falling since Bush took office: pragcap.com/chart-of-the-day-the-collapsing-labor-force-participation-rateit fell 1% during Bush, and it has fallen another 1.8% during Obama. this corresponds quite well with the post WW2 baby boom if you consider early retirement: Year US resident population (thousands) Net change (thousands) Percent change 1941 133,121 1,161 0.88 1942 133,920 799 0.60 1943 134,245 325 0.24 1944 132,885 −1,360 −1.01 1945 132,481 −404 −0.30 1946 140,054 7,573 5.72 1947 143,446 3,392 2.42 1948 146,093 2,647 1.85 1949 148,665 2,572 1.76 1950 151,868 3,203 2.1510 year average - 1,991 1.43 as you can see from the above table, approximately 17M people were born between 1946 and 1950. that is roughy 13M more than were born in the preceding 5 years (almost HALF of that difference was in 1946 ALONE). now, i am sure that over half of them are gone since then, which leaves the other half to retire. that is about 6.5M MORE people retiring than would be expected during any normal stretch. if you lose your job during the worst recession since the Great Depression, and you are eligible for retirement, why NOT call it quits? i dunno. i really think that there is a demographic explanation for this, but you will never convince the "blame Obama" crowd of that.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 6, 2012 23:45:44 GMT -5
Message deleted by zipity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:54:49 GMT -5
Message deleted by djlungrot.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 0:03:07 GMT -5
Nope. The fact is that more than 2.6 million people lost their jobs in the last 30 days. you mean seasonal workers? yes. that happens every year. that is why the BLS tracks it. it distorts the statistics to put seasonal employes in the same category as non-seasonal workers. they do this for teenage summer employment too, btw. it actually makes for more ROBUST AND USEFUL statistics. you know- the kind the businessmen like YOU can make decisions using?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 0:05:40 GMT -5
we don't have to guess about is that over 2.6 million people lost their job. what the BLS does is a lot better than guesswork. for you to imply otherwise is to engage in the kind of speculation that would put YOU in the unemployment lines at that agency.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2012 13:54:47 GMT -5
Bush Sr lost because of the economy and Ross Perot. How do you explain Ronald Reagan getting re elected after raising taxes 16 times? Bush had to deal with Ross Perot because he was a RINO. A conservative would never have been weak enough to invite a challenge. Reagan got re-elected because he lowered the right taxes- and he raised the right taxes. I've said so on these very forums- we do need to raise taxes. We need a massive tax increase on the middle class- especially those paying nothing.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2012 13:55:25 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 22:17:40 GMT -5
Bush Sr lost because of the economy and Ross Perot. How do you explain Ronald Reagan getting re elected after raising taxes 16 times? Bush had to deal with Ross Perot because he was a RINO. A conservative would never have been weak enough to invite a challenge. Reagan got re-elected because he lowered the right taxes- and he raised the right taxes. I've said so on these very forums- we do need to raise taxes. We need a massive tax increase on the middle class- especially those paying nothing. you want to tax the unemployed?
|
|