RE: US JOB Growth Strong

RE: US JOB Growth Strong (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 8:12:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You asked how many of those jobs were part time. I responded that, according to the BLS, there was not an appreciable increase in the number of part time jobs from last month. If it doesn't matter to those who blah blah blah, why did you fucking ask the question? Did you want the information or not? If you did, I gave it to you. You're welcome. If you didn't, don't ask the fucking question. I asked the question, also and I thank you for pointing me in the direction of the BLS website. I'm not a statistician and, as I have said before: I'm not exactly on the best terms with numbers and math, but if I gathered the information correctly, there was a huge divestiture of full-time jobs between 2010 (when Obummercare was first passed) and 2014. My best guess is that some businesses really needed to get rid of full time employees or risk going broke due to the Obummercare regulations and that some businesses over-reacted, initially and got rid of those full time positions and then, realized they could push even full time employees out into the exchanges. I think, what we may be seeing now is a "correction" for those companies that over-reacted. Certainly with only 47% of Americans employed full time, the over-all situation is a huge shit sandwich to which the current failure-in-chief may have only added a layer. Michael

tj444 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 8:28:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You asked how many of those jobs were part time. I responded that, according to the BLS, there was not an appreciable increase in the number of part time jobs from last month. If it doesn't matter to those who blah blah blah, why did you fucking ask the question? Did you want the information or not? If you did, I gave it to you. You're welcome. If you didn't, don't ask the fucking question. I asked the question, also and I thank you for pointing me in the direction of the BLS website. I'm not a statistician and, as I have said before: I'm not exactly on the best terms with numbers and math, but if I gathered the information correctly, there was a huge divestiture of full-time jobs between 2010 (when Obummercare was first passed) and 2014. My best guess is that some businesses really needed to get rid of full time employees or risk going broke due to the Obummercare regulations and that some businesses over-reacted, initially and got rid of those full time positions and then, realized they could push even full time employees out into the exchanges. I think, what we may be seeing now is a "correction" for those companies that over-reacted. Certainly with only 47% of Americans employed full time, the over-all situation is a huge shit sandwich to which the current failure-in-chief may have only added a layer. Michael Omg.. only 47%??? and how many of those are good paying jobs? there are a lot of full-time minimum wage workers, some jobs the workers don't even get minimum wage.. and they put in long hours...

Marini -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 8:31:19 PM)
OMG [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] It is a known fact, by almost everyone, that the majority of whatever job growth that is going on, is for part-time workers, in MOST area's of the US. NPR part time workers juggling act Ratio of part time workers remains high Here is a fairly detailed employment situation release from the Bureau of Labor {March 6. 2015} that is fairly detailed and worth a look. Bureau of Labor/Employment Situation, March 2015 From the BLS link above: "The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2.7 million in February. These individuals accounted for 31.1 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed is down by 1.1 million. (See table A-12.) The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.8 percent, changed little in February and has remained within a narrow range of 62.7 to 62.9 percent since April 2014. The employment-population ratio was unchanged at 59.3 percent in February but is up by 0.5 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.) The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in February at 6.6 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.) In February, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)"

MrRodgers -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 9:15:30 PM)
You just gotta love how now, we have to parse every nook of the employment data when before say in Reagan's 'great' recovery, most were just happy to have any fucking job most of which were created by building a 600 ship Navy we didn't need with ridiculous and counterproductive incentives in one of history's most creative tax codes and were as temporary as G H W Bush's recession...and only temporary thanx to Clinton's violation of every right wing economic precept...that resulted in the greatest economic boom of the 20th century. Frankly, I've long since had quite enough for what passes for economic debate today with [its] 40 year intellectually bankrupt academic 'expert' regime. It's not govt's job to create, protect or enhance jobs. Hasn't anybody learned that since Nixon's Bretton Woods ? The govt. is not here to protect society at large...that's socialism. Govt. exists only to protect the bankers and equities. You know, the paper the capitalist has turned into money !! The govt. is here to provide socialism (protection) for the rich and the speculators and...capitalism for the poor. The rest is only so much conversation. Presidents do what they need to do to stay alive and...hope they get lucky. Some do...some don't on both counts. How do I add to the great mix ? I work part time (3 days a week) and make quite a bit more than full time minimum wage earners. Does the BLS and do the experts have me covered ? It my not be much but I can thank Obama a whole lot more than anybody else in govt.

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 9:16:10 PM)
Don't know why it is so consistently hard for you to find factual information: Obamacare and Part-Time Employment Over the past two years many have speculated that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) has played a role in company decisions about full-time versus part-time employment. The $2,000 per employee penalty for companies that do not comply with regulations has influenced some to rethink their employment policies. In July 2013 the government pushed the start of the penalty from January 2014 to January 2015. But the anticipation of the penalty, even though delayed a year, no doubt influenced the decisions of private employers. With regard to Obamacare and part-time employment, the surge in part-time employment was triggered by the recession, not by the Affordable Care Act, as the next chart clearly illustrates. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php

MrRodgers -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 9:56:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Don't know why it is so consistently hard for you to find factual information: Obamacare and Part-Time Employment Over the past two years many have speculated that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) has played a role in company decisions about full-time versus part-time employment. The $2,000 per employee penalty for companies that do not comply with regulations has influenced some to rethink their employment policies. In July 2013 the government pushed the start of the penalty from January 2014 to January 2015. But the anticipation of the penalty, even though delayed a year, no doubt influenced the decisions of private employers. With regard to Obamacare and part-time employment, the surge in part-time employment was triggered by the recession, not by the Affordable Care Act, as the next chart clearly illustrates. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php I don't know if you were directing that to my post specifically but I stand by my comments. It doesn't matter who is in the white house. There is and has been for over those 40 years, a continuing lack of the govt. enforcement required in our highly leveraged, speculative paper economy resulting in a 'cost-of-capital' sensitivity where growth is dependent on ever more leveraging and thus even more slave to those same speculators but one where whose very tenuousness is so fragile, that if only 4% of the cash in it were withdrawn...it isn't there. Guess who would have to provide it and could only do so if possible at all...electronically ? Now you get my drift ?

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:41:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 actually no, you didn't give me the specific numbers or web page with that specific data.. I don't have a month to go thru that website (omg..) and figure out where they are hiding that info.. but,.. comparing the number this month to last month is sorta ridiculous/pointless as the conversion of jobs from full-time to part-time has been going on for a couple of decades.. so I would want to compare the numbers from today to various points back 20 or more years.. Really, there are a lot of factors that go into the whole picture.. there are young people that cant find a job so they can pay their student loans, there are old farts that retired but ran outta money so had to go back to work, there are those multi-millions of offshore jobs that were supposed ta come back onshore (have they?), there are robots taking jobs, other tech eliminating/reducing the number of jobs, etc etc.. and we know the govt fucks around with the numbers/stats & the unemployment rate is really double the rate they quote.. they just disqualify certain people from being "unemployed" so their numbers look better.. and what is the real wage today compared to 20 or more years ago, inflation has eaten away earnings and people are actually earning less now that they did back then.. so strong job growth??? I don't think so... I call it mediocre job growth.. too many people are like hamsters on little wheels, spinning their little heart out and getting nowhere.. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Took me all of one minute (I admit, my internet connection is pretty damn fast, so it may take you longer), and a couple clicks. You asked how many were part time jobs. I told you that the number of part time jobs hadn't appreciably risen from the month prior. The US added almost 300k jobs, of which an appreciable amount were not part time jobs. Would it have been better had I quoted the report? quote: The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in February at 6.6 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.) Did that help? How about this: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm From January 2015 to February 2015, the number of part time workers for non-economic reasons rose by 15k, but the number of part time workers for economic reasons dropped by 175k, a relative drop in the number of part time wokers of 160k. It's not difficult to find information that is available as releases from the BLS. Quit being a "Negative Nellie" and look for yourself some time.

bounty44 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 4:08:50 AM)
quote: joether It would be up to you to provide the burden of evidence that states this... no---its a plain methodological premise that doesn't require a burden of proof. there is no control group with which to compare present conditions, so you cannot say "the aca didn't hurt job growth." its the job of the proponent to isolate the variable in question in order to speak about it definitively---otherwise, the waters are pretty muddy.

mnottertail -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 7:15:13 AM)
one can go to the BLS and or several healthcare related sites. Healthcare is hiring. Done.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 2:16:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: joether It would be up to you to provide the burden of evidence that states this... no---its a plain methodological premise that doesn't require a burden of proof. there is no control group with which to compare present conditions, so you cannot say "the aca didn't hurt job growth." its the job of the proponent to isolate the variable in question in order to speak about it definitively---otherwise, the waters are pretty muddy. I hope you didn't spend much time on that message. I do think it's a lost cause, though. You're completely right, but, truth doesn't always sit well with some, especially when it's not supportive of their agenda.

mnottertail -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 2:20:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: joether It would be up to you to provide the burden of evidence that states this... no---its a plain methodological premise that doesn't require a burden of proof. there is no control group with which to compare present conditions, so you cannot say "the aca didn't hurt job growth." its the job of the proponent to isolate the variable in question in order to speak about it definitively---otherwise, the waters are pretty muddy. I hope you didn't spend much time on that message. I do think it's a lost cause, though. You're completely right, but, truth doesn't always sit well with some, especially when it's not supportive of their agenda. But particularly when the truth is untutored asswipe, that is not supported by actual credible, citable facts.

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:27:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy? How can it be stated that the ACA isn't killing off job growth, if there is nothing to compare it to? Is the Affordable Care Act on the legal books from between March of 2010 and March 29th of 2015? 'Yes' would be the correct answer. Has job growth taken place between those two dates? Yes. Is it solely due to the ACA? I would say the 'ACA' and 'job growth' to share a distant relationship with each other. Meaning the ACA is not solely to thank for the job growth, yet, in some key areas both in the government and private sector, its impact may have improved things more directly (i.e. employment-wise). Have people that were against the ACA (and still against it) stated the ACA would kill job growth in the nation? 'Yes'. But we have already established both the ACA existing in a time frame, and job growth taking place (and the relationship between the two terms). The fact here is those that stated the ACA would kill job growth, are placing the two concepts together. Implying 'correlation means causation' before the facts were accounted. If you recall, I've stated that the ACA is not a law that brings socialism into play at a national level. But rather the law's wording establishes rules by which health insurance policies are bought and sold in America. IOW, you very well may be mistaking correlation for causation. Got it. No, I'm stating there isn't a realistic way of answer the question you have, given circumstances. The only way to test the question under the same circumstances, would be to travel to a differen dimension of 'time and space' when the law was not passed. And see how events play out on the employment front. I'm fresh out of time travel devices. How about you?

Tkman117 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: joether It would be up to you to provide the burden of evidence that states this... no---its a plain methodological premise that doesn't require a burden of proof. there is no control group with which to compare present conditions, so you cannot say "the aca didn't hurt job growth." its the job of the proponent to isolate the variable in question in order to speak about it definitively---otherwise, the waters are pretty muddy. By your own logic, you also cannot say that it has hurt job growth. You can't have it one way and not the other, that's called a biased viewpoint. In any case, the American economy is growing, booming in fact, despite the doomsday predictions of naysayers of the ACA. Tons of people are now on health insurance at more affordable prices, so in the end the people really won in this case.

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:35:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Certainly with only 47% of Americans employed full time, the over-all situation is a huge shit sandwich to which the current failure-in-chief may have only added a layer. Where do you get this 47% figure from?

Tkman117 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:36:55 PM)
Probably the same one Romney did, his ass

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:40:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: joether It would be up to you to provide the burden of evidence that states this... no---its a plain methodological premise that doesn't require a burden of proof. there is no control group with which to compare present conditions, so you cannot say "the aca didn't hurt job growth." its the job of the proponent to isolate the variable in question in order to speak about it definitively---otherwise, the waters are pretty muddy. By your own logic, you also cannot say that it has hurt job growth. You can't have it one way and not the other, that's called a biased viewpoint. In any case, the American economy is growing, booming in fact, despite the doomsday predictions of naysayers of the ACA. Tons of people are now on health insurance at more affordable prices, so in the end the people really won in this case. The leading and trailing indicators are stating the economy is growing. Either that or every liberal, moderate, and conservative business news outlet is lying to us.

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:43:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy? then from a methodological perspective, you cannot rightly say that the aca didn't hurt job growth...there are other things you can say, but not that. Your the one stating the ACA hurts job growth. For that to be true, you would have to prove it....with evidence....that your statement is true. Therefore, calling on you to 'provide the burden of evidence' is well within reason. That your stalling here, show's you dont have any real evidence. That I'm calling your political bluff as the bullshit statement(s) it/they are!

DaddySatyr -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:44:51 PM)
Here. A real gentleman would apologize. I'll not hold my breath, waiting for either of you to assume that mantle. Michael

Tkman117 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 3:54:05 PM)
I stand corrected, although it might have been a good idea to attach a link to your source the next time you make a claim, makes it look much more legitimate and less prone to criticism.

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 4:42:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 so in the end the people really won in this case. That's a good way of putting it. Sure, things could be better -- but there's a crowd here that simply feels on the outside of US job growth and stock market resurgence. Good news only irritates them. The larger point I see is how Conservatives feel more beleaguered by imagined hardships (Obama/Clinton) than by real ones (GWB.) Maintaining one's conservative belief system is actually more important than real world facts or realities. One change we've all seen since the midterms is a complete cessation of conservative rhetoric that the country is going off a cliff into a oblivion from EBOLA, immigrant invasions, big government healthcare, ISIS, debt, etc. Now that the Republicans have Congress, that noise machine has all but SHUT UP even though nothing's changed in the world at all.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875