That isn't the only reason for me, but I think it's the biggest reason. The GOP has been nothing less than completely obstructionist from day one. They felt like their number 1 goal wasn't helping America get out of the hole they helped us get into, but instead gaining power again through stopping anything and everything Obama tried to do. To me it's of critical importance that this strategy doesn't work. I wish it would have backfired more than it seems to be, but at the very least we need to send a message as a nation that this is not acceptable behavior. We send you guys to Washington to help us not to play a literal game of thrones over power. It scares the shit out of me if the strategy actually works. What then? Do democrats do the same thing? Even if they back down under a republican presidency and compromise what happens next time America as a whole decides we want a new direction and gets a democrat again? Do the republicans try the same shit because it worked this time? That just means a slow march further to the right for America, and even if you want America moving to the right, you shouldn't want it to happen in that way.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
August jobs report: hiring down, unemployment falls
- Thread starter ThisWreckage
- Start date
- Status
That isn't the only reason for me, but I think it's the biggest reason. The GOP has been nothing less than completely obstructionist from day one. They felt like their number 1 goal wasn't helping America get out of the hole they helped us get into, but instead gaining power again through stopping anything and everything Obama tried to do. To me it's of critical importance that this strategy doesn't work. I wish it would have backfired more than it seems to be, but at the very least we need to send a message as a nation that this is not acceptable behavior. We send you guys to Washington to help us not to play a literal game of thrones over power. It scares the shit out of me if the strategy actually works. What then? Do democrats do the same thing? Even if they back down under a republican presidency and compromise what happens next time America as a whole decides we want a new direction and gets a democrat again? Do the republicans try the same shit because it worked this time? That just means a slow march further to the right for America, and even if you want America moving to the right, you shouldn't want it to happen in that way.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Wait, is this is standard method of calculating unemploment in the entire world?
Indeed. When your economy is struggling like this, you don't cut spending; especially when interest rates for borrowing are negative! You borrow that money and you invest the shit into public works programs and subsidies. You want to increase the purchasing power of your middle and lower class so that our service-based economy can thrive.
More employed people means more taxes coming in. More business means more taxes coming in. This way by the time you have to pay back the money you borrowed, it's not a problem.
The last Obama stimulus worked...but he and everyone else misjudged how fucked our economy was and he put in too little. We need more - a lot more - before we can crawl out of this hole.
Pretty much. Remember that the double-income family is a relatively new idea -- counting housewives or -husbands as unemployed would make the statistics somewhat misleading. Similarly with retirees. There are always a certain number of people who aren't looking for work for personal reasons and would not take a job.
...This post is simply lies. It says 1.483 million people left the work force on the same page where it links to the report, which very clearly states that 386,000 people left the workforce. I'm just not sure what to say other than that it's a flagrant and complete lie. Did you read this post before posting it?
I guess he took the non-seasonally-adjusted data (which is, you know, the real data without adjustments that may or may not be correct). Not a flagrant and complete lie then...
On a different point, comparing Aug. 2011 to Aug. 2012 is also interesting.
I guess he took the non-seasonally-adjusted data (which is, you know, the real data without adjustments that may or may not be correct). Not a flagrant and complete lie then...
And yet, in the same data, the number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job increased by less than 200,000. So over a million of those people leaving the labor force did so because they no longer want to work at all -- something else is a bigger priority for them.
Hmm. What could be happening around August that might change people's priorities from jobs to something else? Something, perhaps, that might disproportionately affect people between 16 and 19? (A demographic over a million of the people leaving the workforce fall into.) Something, even, that happens every year, so that the seasonal adjustment essentially takes it almost entirely into account? (The number of 16-19 years olds leaving the workforce after seasonal adjustment is less than 200,000.)
Anyone? Bueller?
BLS said:
Any theories now?
But you're right -- it's not a flagrant and complete lie. It's either a deliberate attempt to deceive or just an incredibly idiotic reading of the statistics. I apologize for my inaccuracy.
I see your point, however read the whole paragraph. What it says is that this number of people leaving the work force is a major reason for the 0.2% decrease in the unemployment rate.
Also, the post contains many more charts which put the numbers in perspective.
Still, I learned something about reading those numbers from this discussion, so thanks for that.
Sure -- sorry if I was too aggressive. It's certainly accurate to say that the decrease in the unemployment rate was due to people leaving the work force and that overall there were more Americans out of work in August than July (especially because we aren't keeping up with population growth). However, I think the way he presents his argument fails to take into account some very important factors that are basically why we have seasonal adjustments, and I find it somewhat deceptive as a result.
marathonfool
Member
If you've got any good programming, database, or web application background, come to Seattle. Seriously, the number of jobs here in the tech sector is ridiculous. Medical too. Recruiters are necessary to poach candidates.
While I understand there are parts of the country that are struggling to transition to the new economy, there are places where the economy is striving.
While I understand there are parts of the country that are struggling to transition to the new economy, there are places where the economy is striving.
Republicans blocked this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jobs_Act
This is what it would have done: http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/american-jobs-act-significant-boost-to.html
It's the Republicans fault that the recovery isn't as strong as it could be.
This is what it would have done: http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/american-jobs-act-significant-boost-to.html
It's the Republicans fault that the recovery isn't as strong as it could be.
from POLIGAF:
Battleground States matter
Under Bush: 2001 to 2009
Under Obama: 2009-2012*
Battleground States
Who is better off now than four years ago
Michigan - 11.3 - 9%
Ohio - 8.6 to 7.2%
Iowa - 6.1 to 5.3%
Who is worse off now than four years ago
Nevada - 9.6 to 12 %
North Carolina - 9 - 9.6%
Colorado 6.6 to 8.3%
Who is unchanged
Virginia - 5.8 to 5.9%
Wisconsin - 7.2 to 7.3%
Florida - 8.7 to 8.8%
I've always thought the national unemployment percentage was BS. Looking at by each state and applying more factors makes it more sensible. The national scope is misdealing whether things are good or bad.
These numbers don't mean shit. Not only will most people look at the UE drop above anything else, but the majority blame this economy on Bush and the Republicans, not Obama and the Dems.
Which is why I always laugh at news shows who don't understand why the president has a 50% approval rating, but 61% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. They believe that we're on the wrong track because of Republican obstruction.
Obama has this in the bag unless something dramatic happens. Romney is one of the worst presidential candidates in modern history, and his recent flap about the troops is just another nail in his coffin.
At this point we should all take solace in the fact that the day after election day, Facebook and Fox News will be a joy to behold.
Which is why I always laugh at news shows who don't understand why the president has a 50% approval rating, but 61% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. They believe that we're on the wrong track because of Republican obstruction.
Obama has this in the bag unless something dramatic happens. Romney is one of the worst presidential candidates in modern history, and his recent flap about the troops is just another nail in his coffin.
At this point we should all take solace in the fact that the day after election day, Facebook and Fox News will be a joy to behold.
It's a lie. As far as the government is concerned once you stop requesting an unemployment check you're no longer looking. So whenever people exhaust their unemployment, assuming they don't keep reporting in (and why would you waste your time doing so?) you are no longer looking for work.
1000 years of darkness will beset the great USA. If Obama is voted into office again, I'm moving to Canada to get away from this socialist hellhole America is becoming.
The economy being in the state it is makes me oddly happy I ended my higher education aspirations early on and took full time employment in a local warehouse. I may never make the huge amount I could have had I finished but being employed through the tough times is a food feeling, although I feel sorry for all the people who hinged their dreams on their education leading them to the promised land only to end up in the dumps.
We'll see if I am saying the same thing in ten years when my back is a twisted mess and I have lost the feeling in my fingers and toes, however.
We'll see if I am saying the same thing in ten years when my back is a twisted mess and I have lost the feeling in my fingers and toes, however.
The federal government can do this no problem, but state and local governments cannot. They can issue bonds but its a lot harder for them to do so. Their only choice is to cut back on employment/services.
elrechazado
Banned
"would have done". Lol. Just like what the stimulus "would do", right? Obama promised under 6% unemployment if the stimulus passed. Which it did. Current rate, as we know from this thread is a *bit* higher.
If we had the same labor participation as when he took office, current unemployment rate would be 11.2.
Phoenix
Member
We've already reached that tipping point. The problem is that several elections ago one president (he who will not be named) convinced America that we didn't need those jobs - that new information economy jobs would replace those jobs. That same president didn't actually address the fact that the national labor pool wasn't yet suited to doing these jobs though. Consequently the investment necessary to maintain and retool the American manufacturing machine, which WOULD have been able to do make manufacturing cheaper (albeit with fewer jobs), was never made and its going to take a while and some risky investments for it to change.
elrechazado
Banned
Ahh, so obama's own administration projections are not promises. Nice semantic dodge.
From your link:
"In the past week, the administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.
and
Stephanopoulos correctly noted that projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office at the time were slightly less optimistic than the administration's."
Did he now?
Since when are projections promises? If thats the case we can never trust anything from the CBO. If we don't take projections into account there is really no way to move forward with economic policy because there is a possibility that it won't align with projections. Projections are based of of models which estimate the impact of the policy. Sorry projections are not promises. You don't understand projections clearly.
elrechazado
Banned
How fitting that the true unemployment rate is in fact over 11% when you discount those who have dropped out.
Do you know what a projection is?
No. Clearly not.
What was the "true unemployment rate" when Bush was in office?
That shit didn't matter then, and it doesn't matter now.
elrechazado
Banned
If the Paul Ryan plan projected that deficits would decrease by 10 trillion dollars, and that 10,000,000 jobs would be created, I'm sure that nobody arguing this point in this thread would call him a liar, or hold him accountable for those projections.
Of course it mattered and matters. Obama thought that employment numbers mattered. When the rate was about 5.5%. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-in-2004-criticized-job-growth-under-bush/
I don't know participation rates at the time, but certainly bush got his own "benefit" on the rate from people dropping out of the labor hunt. My how times change.
So you are straw manning now. That's the best you can do. I am disappoint.
He wouldn't be a liar. It's a projection fool. Not even made by him. You would have to call the projection inaccurate.
ThisWreckage
Banned
Real unemployment is at least 15% at the very least. It boggles the mind how many people are working jobs without benefits, how many people are underemployed, how many people have given up looking for work, how many people are depending on the government for benefits, and how many college students that are doing a job that doesn't pertain to their degree whatsoever.
We'd probably hold him accountable for the economic math behind his projections, since it would obviously be nonsensical.
Is there some critique you have of the method by which Obama's team created those projections? That would be a valid discussion point. Your first!
PhoenixDark
Banned
You do realize the stimulus projections were based off GDP calculations that turned out to be incorrect. The magnitude of the recession was not known, thus throwing off the numbers.
Yeah, because none of that happened before 2009.
elrechazado
Banned
Reductio ad hominem, nice. "That's the best you can do".
Wait, who was dodging questions and straw manning again?
You are barely making a cogent argument. A projection is not a promise.
Krauthammer is that you?
I wasn't responding to a question.
In any case, the point is this; These numbers don't matter. Unless something dramatic happens, Obama is winning re-election. Most people rightfully blame Republicans for the curremt economic malaise.
elrechazado
Banned
When projections are used to pass, sell, and campaign on the success of bills, yes, they are. Playing semantic games to avoid responsibility for one's preferred politician's inaccuracies is quite typical of partisan hacks of both sides.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I didn't say it did or didn't. The fact that you were so defensive over what I said speaks volumes. The economy is in the shitter. That is a fact. The stimulus probably shouldn't have worked as well it should have and the Republicans are cockblocking morons. No one is innocent in this.
So now nobody can use projections or models. How is anything every supposed to get done with economic policy? I mean if we can't use projections as at least some sort of forecasting for a policies impact what are we supposed to do. I'm talking both parties.
elrechazado
Banned
But George Bush. Or something.
I'm not sure how you came up with this gem. How about "people should be responsible to the arguments they make in favor of the actions they take". Sounds unreasonable I know.
Way to keep the straw flying - keep smacking dat strawman.
Last word is yours. It's quite bizarre that anyone is in here making excuses for anyone for the state of unemployment. Partisan hackery.
The economy was in the shitter when the stock market was in triple digits, GDP was in negative growth, and we were shedding 700k jobs a month.
We're in a slow recovery. If not for Republican obstructionism, it would be a faster recovery.
You didn't answer my question. You keep dodging the questions because you have no answer.
Maybe I should simplify it for you. What value are projections? This has nothing to do with a party. Are they useless? Yes or no.
HocusPocus
Member
Still waiting to see what Obama does about this one. Maybe during his 3rd presidency after the rules are changed to allow it.
yea well, liberals gave Bush crap after his projections that Saddam Hussein had WMDs turned out wrong, so it's just Obama's turn.
Projections are predictions based of of models. Did they use some sort of WMD predictor model lol?
So you're just not going to respond to me, because I asked you a substantive question about what you think. Good plan!
Does anyone else think that our current situation, or at least something close to it, will become the infamous "new normal"? My department has dropped about 20% of its staff since 2008, and honestly I realize now we didn't need them at all. I assume that I'm not the only one in this situation. I just hope there are enough people out there on the opposite side - groups that desperately need a few more people - to offset it.
That wasn't a projection. They said they had evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and that Hussein had ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. All of that turned out to be bullshit. Furthermore he stood on a damn aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him saying that the war was essentially over when in fact the war was just getting underway.
You don't start a war based on projections because people die.
All things considered, Bush got off easy.
No. Most economist predict that the economy will fully rebound between 2014 and 2016.
- Status