We can always use more engineers : ). Finding a job after college was comically easy for me.

(06-03-2016 01:32 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  We can always use more engineers : ). Finding a job after college was comically easy for me.

Engineering requires lots of studying, etc. Can't be having that when there's a protest to attend!!!

(06-03-2016 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 10:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Discuss

Is that the U3 or U6 numbers fit?

If it's U3... it's a worthless stat.

It's U3 of course, worthless as tits on a bull.

500,000 simply quit looking.altogether, so guess what? *Poof* they're no longer unemployed! Ta-Daaaaa!!!

Created a whopping 38,000 net new jobs, many sectors including housing lost jobs.


Fueling further speculation that we may well be heading into another recession when we barely crawled our way out the last one with the worst "recovery" from a recession in modern American history.

Gang that can't shoot straight. Just pathetic.

As of March 2016, there were 5.8 million job openings in the US.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

Bullschit. Many, probably the vast majority of those "openings" are contractors collecting resumes for bids or company HR collecting resumes for data or managers just keeping the position active without the intent to fill them so if the climate gets better they can fill them without having to justify them. If you have 10 contractors posting for the same position, it isn't 10 jobs, it is 1. And that job is only a new job if there isn't an incumbent contractor. If there is, the net gain is 0, and with a competitive bid, the salary for that job is likely to go down.

Do you have a source for your dismissal of a documented figure calculated by the BLS? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

This is pure anecdotal...and the jobs aren't the greatest...but nearly every business I drive by in my town has a hiring sign of some sort out front.

(06-03-2016 10:14 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No...it's not. That's the common referred to measure that we've used each month for years now, and it's fairly consistent and accurate. But it's only one measure released each month by the BLS.

If you want the other measures, they publish those too and you're free to go peruse them.

Accurate how? I mean, yes.. it reports what it claims to report, but that doesn't mean that it means what people want to believe it means. Besides, the 'way' we measure it actually HAS changed over the years... not that this changes anything else, but just to be clear.

All it does is measure ONE aspect of 'the jobs market' or the economy. I suspect you've chosen it because it SOUNDS good (unemployment is down... which implies something not measured by the index)

Said simply, because LOTS of people don't understand it... This number only really gives you a picture of the economy if you look at things like under-employment, stopped-looking, average hourly earnings and numerous other factors...

Even when economists and traders 'trade' on this information, it often isn't the 'headline number' that they are betting or trading on, and rarely is it the headline number ALONE.

(06-03-2016 10:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Not sure the unemployment rate was ever meant to estimate anything other than jobs.

My point exactly. It doesn't measure jobs at all... and you are claiming it is. What it measures (said simply) is the percentage of people still looking for work, who can't find it.

It doesn't measure those who have stopped looking. It doesn't measure those who have found work. It doesn't measure those who have found part-time or temporary work who would like full time or permanent, and it certainly doesn't measure jobs.

(06-03-2016 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 10:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Is that the U3 or U6 numbers fit?

If it's U3... it's a worthless stat.

It's U3 of course, worthless as tits on a bull.

500,000 simply quit looking.altogether, so guess what? *Poof* they're no longer unemployed! Ta-Daaaaa!!!

Created a whopping 38,000 net new jobs, many sectors including housing lost jobs.


Fueling further speculation that we may well be heading into another recession when we barely crawled our way out the last one with the worst "recovery" from a recession in modern American history.

Gang that can't shoot straight. Just pathetic.

As of March 2016, there were 5.8 million job openings in the US.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

Bullschit. Many, probably the vast majority of those "openings" are contractors collecting resumes for bids or company HR collecting resumes for data or managers just keeping the position active without the intent to fill them so if the climate gets better they can fill them without having to justify them. If you have 10 contractors posting for the same position, it isn't 10 jobs, it is 1. And that job is only a new job if there isn't an incumbent contractor. If there is, the net gain is 0, and with a competitive bid, the salary for that job is likely to go down.

Do you have a source for your dismissal of a documented figure calculated by the BLS? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

This is pure anecdotal...and the jobs aren't the greatest...but nearly every business I drive by in my town has a hiring sign of some sort out front.

I'm not shooting from the hip. I am a business intelligence manager. I do this for a living. It is all a part of the competition.

(06-03-2016 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  It's U3 of course, worthless as tits on a bull.

500,000 simply quit looking.altogether, so guess what? *Poof* they're no longer unemployed! Ta-Daaaaa!!!

Created a whopping 38,000 net new jobs, many sectors including housing lost jobs.


Fueling further speculation that we may well be heading into another recession when we barely crawled our way out the last one with the worst "recovery" from a recession in modern American history.

Gang that can't shoot straight. Just pathetic.

As of March 2016, there were 5.8 million job openings in the US.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

Bullschit. Many, probably the vast majority of those "openings" are contractors collecting resumes for bids or company HR collecting resumes for data or managers just keeping the position active without the intent to fill them so if the climate gets better they can fill them without having to justify them. If you have 10 contractors posting for the same position, it isn't 10 jobs, it is 1. And that job is only a new job if there isn't an incumbent contractor. If there is, the net gain is 0, and with a competitive bid, the salary for that job is likely to go down.

Do you have a source for your dismissal of a documented figure calculated by the BLS? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

This is pure anecdotal...and the jobs aren't the greatest...but nearly every business I drive by in my town has a hiring sign of some sort out front.

I'm not shooting from the hip. I am a business intelligence manager. I do this for a living. It is all a part of the competition.

Well...I realize that sure there will be some inflation in that figure for the types of things that you mention, but even if it's inflated by 50%, there'd still be 2.9 million jobs available.

(06-03-2016 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  As of March 2016, there were 5.8 million job openings in the US.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

Bullschit. Many, probably the vast majority of those "openings" are contractors collecting resumes for bids or company HR collecting resumes for data or managers just keeping the position active without the intent to fill them so if the climate gets better they can fill them without having to justify them. If you have 10 contractors posting for the same position, it isn't 10 jobs, it is 1. And that job is only a new job if there isn't an incumbent contractor. If there is, the net gain is 0, and with a competitive bid, the salary for that job is likely to go down.

Do you have a source for your dismissal of a documented figure calculated by the BLS? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

This is pure anecdotal...and the jobs aren't the greatest...but nearly every business I drive by in my town has a hiring sign of some sort out front.

I'm not shooting from the hip. I am a business intelligence manager. I do this for a living. It is all a part of the competition.

Well...I realize that sure there will be some inflation in that figure for the types of things that you mention, but even if it's inflated by 50%, there'd still be 2.9 million jobs available.

That averages as less than one per square mile.

It's because the economy knows that Trump is coming.

(06-03-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bullschit. Many, probably the vast majority of those "openings" are contractors collecting resumes for bids or company HR collecting resumes for data or managers just keeping the position active without the intent to fill them so if the climate gets better they can fill them without having to justify them. If you have 10 contractors posting for the same position, it isn't 10 jobs, it is 1. And that job is only a new job if there isn't an incumbent contractor. If there is, the net gain is 0, and with a competitive bid, the salary for that job is likely to go down.

Do you have a source for your dismissal of a documented figure calculated by the BLS? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

This is pure anecdotal...and the jobs aren't the greatest...but nearly every business I drive by in my town has a hiring sign of some sort out front.

I'm not shooting from the hip. I am a business intelligence manager. I do this for a living. It is all a part of the competition.

Well...I realize that sure there will be some inflation in that figure for the types of things that you mention, but even if it's inflated by 50%, there'd still be 2.9 million jobs available.

That averages as less than one per square mile.

Right...we definitely need more jobs on the Alaskan tundra.

(06-03-2016 04:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...I realize that sure there will be some inflation in that figure for the types of things that you mention, but even if it's inflated by 50%, there'd still be 2.9 million jobs available.

That averages as less than one per square mile.

Right...we definitely need more jobs on the Alaskan tundra.

Okay, that wasn't the best response....

But I'm not even sure 50% is reasonable, since if you post on Monster, it's also on Indeed and LinkedIn and probably 2-3 others as well. 50% means it's only posted on two sites.


Wow, it may be even more than that... I found a specific job on Monster, and then did a search for the 'job title' and that ONE job is posted on the parent site, plus monster, plus TexasJobMarket/com, plus adsensejob, plus ziprecruiter, plus indeed... and that is just the first yahoo page

But let's go ahead and go with that number...

Let's pick a number for people of working age. That's ABOUT 200mm is that fair? 57% of the population? a 4.7% unemployment rate means there are 9.4mm people actively looking for work... more than 3 times an AGGRESSIVE estimate of the number of jobs...

Of course, not mentioning the whole... Job in Podunk but person in BigCity 500 miles away, or an IT job with no IT unemployed

That really is an issue by the way....

Most poor/unemployed live in larger cities because that's where the services are.

Many 'good' jobs are in smaller towns because that is where the land and taxes are cheaper

(06-03-2016 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Discuss

So, you say "Discuss" because you're not intelligent enough to interpret it yourself.

Look at the participation rate by age group, and then "Discuss":

Total - From 67.0% down to 62.7%

16-24 - From 64.7% down to 54.9%
25-34 - From 85.0% down to 81.5%
35-44 - From 84.6% down to 82.4%
45-54 - From 82.8% down to 79.8%

Now let's look at the OVER 55 people:

55-64 - From 58.3% UP to 63.9% - higher than the overall average!
65+ - From 13.1% UP to 19.4%

Younger people are feeling the Bern because they can't get jobs and are smothered in debt. But Obama trots out a few days ago and says this is the best economy in history. He's a lying troll.

(06-03-2016 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That really is an issue by the way....

Most poor/unemployed live in larger cities because that's where the services are.

Many 'good' jobs are in smaller towns because that is where the land and taxes are cheaper

In older cities, I think that is certainly true, but in many southern cities, at least the ones that are booming, there are tons of good jobs in the cities because companies that relocate to these cities find that they can rent in downtown areas far cheaper than they can in places like New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, Washington, DC, and other insanely expensive areas.

In Charlotte for example, our three most prestigious business areas, Uptown, SouthPark, and Ballantyne are all in the city limits. There are some small office parks outside Charlotte, but virtually all of Charlotte's power players are located in the three areas i mentioned.

(06-04-2016 09:36 AM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Discuss

So, you say "Discuss" because you're not intelligent enough to interpret it yourself.

Look at the participation rate by age group, and then "Discuss":

Total - From 67.0% down to 62.7%

16-24 - From 64.7% down to 54.9%
25-34 - From 85.0% down to 81.5%
35-44 - From 84.6% down to 82.4%
45-54 - From 82.8% down to 79.8%

Now let's look at the OVER 55 people:

55-64 - From 58.3% UP to 63.9% - higher than the overall average!
65+ - From 13.1% UP to 19.4%

Younger people are feeling the Bern because they can't get jobs and are smothered in debt. But Obama trots out a few days ago and says this is the best economy in history. He's a lying troll.

Behold the effects of a $10-$15 minimum wage.

Unemployment down to 4.7%

(06-04-2016 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Unemployment down to 4.7%

exactly.

(06-04-2016 09:43 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That really is an issue by the way....

Most poor/unemployed live in larger cities because that's where the services are.

Many 'good' jobs are in smaller towns because that is where the land and taxes are cheaper

In older cities, I think that is certainly true, but in many southern cities, at least the ones that are booming, there are tons of good jobs in the cities because companies that relocate to these cities find that they can rent in downtown areas far cheaper than they can in places like New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, Washington, DC, and other insanely expensive areas.

In Charlotte for example, our three most prestigious business areas, Uptown, SouthPark, and Ballantyne are all in the city limits. There are some small office parks outside Charlotte, but virtually all of Charlotte's power players are located in the three areas i mentioned.

That's true and precisely the point.

If you wanted to build a new factory, are you more likely to build it in Queens NY or Sugar Land, Texas? Both are VERY close to large metropolitan cities, but land and taxes and regulation (the cost of doing business) is FAR lower in Sugar Land... especially if you have to pay $15/hr for labor in either place?? But are there more social services in Queens or Sugar Land?

Our bus systems are often designed around the needs of people who can't afford cars, so where do people who can't afford cars live? On the bus lines.

It's not someone's 'fault', but that doesn't mean that it isn't true and that we don't need to find a solution. I think if you look at crime and racism and everything else, it comes back to this as well. Most white drug dealers are making meth in a trailer on 5 acres. Most 'non-white' drug dealers live in urban settings. Most poor whites live in the country. Most poor non-whites live in the cities. Far easier to patrol 'the projects' than 'the woods', so more police activity is natural.

(06-04-2016 11:45 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Unemployment down to 4.7%

exactly.

we don't need your employment services anymore....that's what tech is doing....that cotton gin was only the beginning of covert ops....didn't you get the memo....

set camp on the porch, plump 'em up, tat up, and continue to toss eggs....

you'll get shot eventually...

y'alls weak sauce.....it's comical at best....

see how easy fire with fire is.....

your only defense it to continue to impregnate the womb and the border at this point.....

you're thinking is screwed regardless.....we all know it.....only the weak hide behind continual rhetoric....

have a great day....you don't have many vouchers left.....

edit: trust me....it ain't a skin color issue boys...your free stuffings is bleeding over.....sucks hearing it explained that way, eh?

oh wellzy.....

(06-04-2016 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Unemployment down to 4.7%

No it's not.

Unemployment is probably up to about 20% - 23%. Not quite as bad as the Great Depression, but still very, very bad for way too many people...and interestingly, very bad for the very people that this administrations said they were going to "help."