I'm not the smartest guy in this site but when someone says that ONLY 20,000 jobs were added I'm ecstatic that they weren't jobs lost. I guess this guy would be Ps'ed if he won on a lottery ticket and be Ps'ed because he only won 20k instead of the millions.

Even their sarcasm falls short.

(03-08-2019 07:30 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I'm not the smartest guy in this site but when someone says that ONLY 20,000 jobs were added I'm ecstatic that they weren't jobs lost. I guess this guy would be Ps'ed if he won on a lottery ticket and be Ps'ed because he only won 20k instead of the millions.

Even their sarcasm falls short.

Well you aren't a Democrat that hates America so....

We all know that wages are only rising because of #fightforfifteen

(03-08-2019 07:30 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I'm not the smartest guy in this site but when someone says that ONLY 20,000 jobs were added I'm ecstatic that they weren't jobs lost. I guess this guy would be Ps'ed if he won on a lottery ticket and be Ps'ed because he only won 20k instead of the millions.

Even their sarcasm falls short.

Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

Additionally, this figure of 20,000 is a preliminary figure and WILL be adjusted...most likely twice...over the next two months.

So you see, I didn't capitalize "only," you did. And I put the question at the end because we don't actually know yet the final amount of jobs added (or lost) for February. It could actually be that we lost jobs in February. For example, December of 2018 had a final revision of 85,000 less than it's initial report.

A Better Way To Think About February’s Jobs Numbers

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 07:30 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I'm not the smartest guy in this site but when someone says that ONLY 20,000 jobs were added I'm ecstatic that they weren't jobs lost. I guess this guy would be Ps'ed if he won on a lottery ticket and be Ps'ed because he only won 20k instead of the millions.

Even their sarcasm falls short.

Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

Additionally, this figure of 20,000 is a preliminary figure and WILL be adjusted...most likely twice...over the next two months.

So you see, I didn't capitalize "only," you did. And I put the question at the end because we don't actually know yet the final amount of jobs added (or lost) for February. It could actually be that we lost jobs in February. For example, December of 2018 had a final revision of 85,000 less than it's initial report.

A Better Way To Think About February’s Jobs Numbers

Trump has already gotten millions of people jobs. Real jobs. Not part time burger flipping jobs. He has employed so many who were out of work or seriously under employed that the skilled workforce has very few people left in it who dont have a job.

That was not the case with Obama, who simply had people give up ever looking for work. And there wasnt jobs to keep pace with the new influx of workers.

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.

I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.

I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150k was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

(03-11-2019 08:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.

I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150 was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

name a sector of value added jobs gained during the ZERO era.....

I'll do that due.....just name ONE!

(03-11-2019 08:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.

I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150 was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

name a sector of value added jobs gained during the ZERO era.....

I'll do that due.....just name ONE!

I'll shoot from the hip and say oil & gas w/ the shale boom.

(03-08-2019 11:05 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:18 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:09 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 09:59 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  or maybe there is a smaller unemployed group to choose from? Just my guess...

#rememberthelaborparticipationrate?

It's the highest it's been in a while.

not really
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-stat...ation-rate

This is why the left is as passe' as Hee Haw. There's just no market for "Gloom, despair, and agony on me. Deep dark depression, excessive misery. If it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. Gloom, despair and agony on me."

Now if you guys had some babes lounging around on the porch looking hot it might still work. But all you have is a horse toothed harpy, Fauxcohantas, RBG, Kagan, and Nancy Pelosi who has had so many face lifts that if you look real close you'll see that the cleft in her chin is really her naval.

Here's laughing at 2020!

(03-11-2019 09:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:05 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:18 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:09 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 09:59 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  or maybe there is a smaller unemployed group to choose from? Just my guess...

#rememberthelaborparticipationrate?

It's the highest it's been in a while.

not really
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-stat...ation-rate

This is why the left is as passe' as Hee Haw. There's just no market for "Gloom, despair, and agony on me. Deep dark depression, excessive misery. If it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. Gloom, despair and agony on me."

Now if you guys had some babes lounging around on the porch looking hot it might still work. But all you have is a horse toothed harpy, Fauxcohantas, RBG, Kagan, and Nancy Pelosi who has had so many face lifts that if you look real close you'll see that the cleft in her chin is really her naval.

Here's laughing at 2020!

No gloom, just waiting for Americans to get off the sidelines and start looking for work. Looks like more of the same.

(03-11-2019 09:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.

I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150 was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

name a sector of value added jobs gained during the ZERO era.....

I'll do that due.....just name ONE!

I'll shoot from the hip and say oil & gas w/ the shale boom.

shhhh....that's taboo in the land of their green....

(03-11-2019 08:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.

I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150 was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

name a sector of value added jobs gained during the ZERO era.....

I'll do that due.....just name ONE!

Healthcare

(03-12-2019 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.

I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150 was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

name a sector of value added jobs gained during the ZERO era.....

I'll do that due.....just name ONE!

Healthcare

skipping a shiteload of steps, you're advocating subsidizing hyper-inflated rates due to the boomers and uninsured....

that's about what I expected....

do you realize I live in a planned retirement community, have an ENT BIL, and other docs in the pock....

the Rx community is arse raping the masses now.....or does that fly over your head too....

why do you think DJT is begging to revise healthcare with published rates and prescription drug oversight?

you'd most likely be against that too....

nuts zongo would call that moreIRONY....

Im not advocating anything. You said there wete no value added jobs and I simply pointed to healthcare. We have an aging population and healthcare stands to be the beneficiary over the 20 years.

I think both sides of the aisle recognize the bloat but the money in the industry buys the votes of the legislators.

Republicans had 2 years of complete control and only focused on the political theatre of overturning the ACA with nothing in place to replace it.

(03-12-2019 08:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Republicans had 2 years of complete control and only focused on the political theatre of overturning the ACA with nothing in place to replace it.

No they did not have complete control. You don't have control of the senate without 60 votes to invoke cloture. They had a majority, but not control, of the senate.

Noe as far as what they did, I will not hold back criticism there. The solution to health care is obvious--Bismarck is universal care at the same time it is more free market than what we have now. They should also have turned up the heat on the likes of Strzok, Lisa Page, "Andy," and Comey. Get it all out in the open and get to over with.

(03-11-2019 08:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.
I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150k was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

Anything under 150K is not keeping up with population growth. But the context was vastly different. Under Obama we were supposedly recovering from a deep recession, and job creation should have vastly exceeded population growth. Now we are at or very near structural full employment, and we have more jobs looking for people than people looking for jobs.

The 20,000 number is the number of cases were employers and employees actually reached agreement. In a market with fewer people seeking jobs, that number is going to go down. The interesting things will be seeing how much that number goes back up in the next few months, and whether there are any subsequent revisions. Is it a blip or a trend?

(03-12-2019 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apparently you missed, or "conveniently" forgot, the discussions when Obama was president that we need to gain a certain number of jobs each month (way more than 20,000) to outpace worker retirements/deaths, etc.

The jobs report includes worker retirement/deaths etc. It ostensibly counts the number of people working, which of course would omit such people. If you look at the BLS site, they specifically include such things in the model.
I think what you're referring to was the participation rate.... which of course has been steady since iirc, 2013... but fell a lot from 2008-2013 (the peak was 2000)

No... he’s right. You frequently dismissed job gains under Obama... stating anything under +150k was a net negative and not keeping up with population growth.

Anything under 150K is not keeping up with population growth. But the context was vastly different. Under Obama we were supposedly recovering from a deep recession, and job creation should have vastly exceeded population growth. Now we are at or very near structural full employment, and we have more jobs looking for people than people looking for jobs.

The 20,000 number is the number of cases were employers and employees actually reached agreement. In a market with fewer people seeking jobs, that number is going to go down. The interesting things will be seeing how much that number goes back up in the next few months, and whether there are any subsequent revisions. Is it a blip or a trend?

The context is always different when you compare a Republican to a Democrat.

So, in the period of 2 years we’ve gone from anemic job growth to full employment? The reality is there had been slow steady growth since 2009, and Trump has enjoyed riding that sustained wave.

(03-08-2019 12:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:05 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:18 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:09 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 09:59 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  or maybe there is a smaller unemployed group to choose from? Just my guess...

#rememberthelaborparticipationrate?

It's the highest it's been in a while.

not really
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-stat...ation-rate

The better source is the BLS, but you're correct that it's not higher than it's been in a while. We've been essentially flat since 2013 (within a 0.3 range) since 2013, but of course that is after a significant fall 2008-2013... but it actually peaked in 2000.


The fallacy in your comment of course is that Obama was touting gains from 2008-2013, ignoring the falling labor participation rate. The rate isn't impacting these numbers in any meaningful way, so the comment is ridiculous

Having said that, the participation rate for those 24-54 (that's the range BLS uses, I didn't pick it) is as high as it's been since 2011 though still well off its peak

It's really the 16-24 age demographic that has taken the hit... and Demos want it that way

Exactly. They would rather the 16-24 year olds be in re-education camps called liberal arts universities, racking up debt that will keep them beholden to the state.

(03-12-2019 10:04 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 12:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:05 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:18 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:09 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  #rememberthelaborparticipationrate?

It's the highest it's been in a while.

not really
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-stat...ation-rate

The better source is the BLS, but you're correct that it's not higher than it's been in a while. We've been essentially flat since 2013 (within a 0.3 range) since 2013, but of course that is after a significant fall 2008-2013... but it actually peaked in 2000.


The fallacy in your comment of course is that Obama was touting gains from 2008-2013, ignoring the falling labor participation rate. The rate isn't impacting these numbers in any meaningful way, so the comment is ridiculous

Having said that, the participation rate for those 24-54 (that's the range BLS uses, I didn't pick it) is as high as it's been since 2011 though still well off its peak

It's really the 16-24 age demographic that has taken the hit... and Demos want it that way

Exactly. They would rather the 16-24 year olds be in re-education camps called liberal arts universities, racking up debt that will keep them beholden to the state.

Good Lord...
what time does Alex Jones air today?