http://abcnews.go.com/Business/august-jo...d=20170086

Not a surprise at all. There is no recovery w/o jobs.

Let's see. We were expecting 180,000 jobs and unemployment to stay at 7.4%. We got 169,000 jobs, and employment dropped to 7.3%. What looks strange about those numbers?

And oh, by the way, we revised the July number down by 58,000, and the June number down by 16,000. So we're looking at a net gain of 95,000. Wonderful.

Pay attention to the jobs number, not the unemployment rate. We need 120,000-150,000 per month just to hold serve with population growth.

This is how it goes when the government easily hands out welfare. Liberals act with no thought about the consequences.


Dem candidate:
"We need to appeal to the poor to get the votes we need. Ok, lets give them easier gov assistance. In the meantime, I'll promise a growing economy."
Lower class America eats it up.

Rep candidate:
"We need a better economy and job growth. Lets make it stiffer to get gov assistance so able people will have to go get a job."
Lower class America threatens assassination.

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need 120,000-150,000 per month just to hold serve with population growth.

What's your source on this? I know there is a lot of contention in those figures. Thanks.

(09-06-2013 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need 120,000-150,000 per month just to hold serve with population growth.

What's your source on this? I know there is a lot of contention in those figures. Thanks.

I've seen multiple sources in that range. That's why I list it as a range. What have you seen?

Dang people looking for jobs. Skewing the whole thing.
We could have 0% unemployment is even more just quit looking.

(09-06-2013 09:52 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Dang people looking for jobs. Skewing the whole thing.
We could have 0% unemployment is even more just quit looking.

If only there was a way to issue an executive order to delay an employment mandate.

We don't need Congress anyway since the Obama administration took over their duties.
Could get rid of them as long as they promised not to look for a job.

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's see. We were expecting 180,000 jobs and unemployment to stay at 7.4%. We got 169,000 jobs, and employment dropped to 7.3%. What looks strange about those numbers?

It "helps" that over 500k people dropped out of the labor force, pushing the participation rate to a 35 year low.

And no one has even mentioned yet that the vast majority of the jobs added are lousy ones.

(09-06-2013 11:05 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's see. We were expecting 180,000 jobs and unemployment to stay at 7.4%. We got 169,000 jobs, and employment dropped to 7.3%. What looks strange about those numbers?

It "helps" that over 500k people dropped out of the labor force, pushing the participation rate to a 35 year low.
And no one has even mentioned yet that the vast majority of the jobs added are lousy ones.

Oh, I know.

Was just sorta hoping that one of our leftists would come on here to admit that.

I'll admit that and I have, but if you need a job you're usually not quite that picky.

(09-06-2013 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need 120,000-150,000 per month just to hold serve with population growth.

What's your source on this? I know there is a lot of contention in those figures. Thanks.

I've seen multiple sources in that range. That's why I list it as a range. What have you seen?

I've seen those as well. But I think I also saw some that said it's closer to the 80,000 to 100,000 range.

(09-06-2013 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need 120,000-150,000 per month just to hold serve with population growth.

What's your source on this? I know there is a lot of contention in those figures. Thanks.

I've seen multiple sources in that range. That's why I list it as a range. What have you seen?

I've seen those as well. But I think I also saw some that said it's closer to the 80,000 to 100,000 range.

I've never seen anything lower than 100,000. Actually I think 110,000 was the lowest I ever saw.

Clearly we are not getting the 200,000 a month that we pretty much sustained during the middle four years of Shrub.

(09-06-2013 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need 120,000-150,000 per month just to hold serve with population growth.

What's your source on this? I know there is a lot of contention in those figures. Thanks.

I've seen multiple sources in that range. That's why I list it as a range. What have you seen?

I've seen those as well. But I think I also saw some that said it's closer to the 80,000 to 100,000 range.

I've never seen anything lower than 100,000. Actually I think 110,000 was the lowest I ever saw.

Clearly we are not getting the 200,000 a month that we pretty much sustained during the middle four years of Shrub.

We're also not growing government like shrub did!

(09-06-2013 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need 120,000-150,000 per month just to hold serve with population growth.

What's your source on this? I know there is a lot of contention in those figures. Thanks.

I've seen multiple sources in that range. That's why I list it as a range. What have you seen?

I've seen those as well. But I think I also saw some that said it's closer to the 80,000 to 100,000 range.

I've never seen anything lower than 100,000. Actually I think 110,000 was the lowest I ever saw.

Clearly we are not getting the 200,000 a month that we pretty much sustained during the middle four years of Shrub.

New Math Makes It Easier to Lower the Unemployment Rate

(09-06-2013 11:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 11:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What's your source on this? I know there is a lot of contention in those figures. Thanks.

I've seen multiple sources in that range. That's why I list it as a range. What have you seen?

I've seen those as well. But I think I also saw some that said it's closer to the 80,000 to 100,000 range.

I've never seen anything lower than 100,000. Actually I think 110,000 was the lowest I ever saw.

Clearly we are not getting the 200,000 a month that we pretty much sustained during the middle four years of Shrub.

We're also not growing government like shrub did!

Actually, the middle four years weren't when government was really growing under Shrub. IIRC it was more the beginning two years with 9/11 related stuff and the latter two years when the democrats got congress and started expanding social programs, then the stimulus/bailout stuff. From 2003 to 2007, the deficit actually shrank about $100 billion per year.

Is 80,000 Jobs Monthly The Minimum Employment Growth to Reduce Unemployment?