[QUOTE]Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 157,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 7.9 percent. Retail trade, construction, health care, and wholesale trade added jobs over the month.[/QUOTE]
Source: [URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm[/URL]
The new job numbers were released today. 157,000 jobs were added, but employment went up from 7.8%, to 7.9%. The numbers are lower than they should be because the unemployment rate only counts people who are in the labor force. People who gave up looking for a job aren't counted as unemployed.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
This is what we have to show for $6 trillion in deficit spending.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39441873]Source: [URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm[/URL]
The new job numbers were released today. 157,000 jobs were added, but unemployment went up from 7.8%, to 7.9%. The numbers are lower than they should be because the unemployment rate only counts people who are in the labor force. People who gave up looking for a job aren't counted as unemployed.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
This is what we have to show for $6 trillion in deficit spending.[/QUOTE]
[I]because[/I] [I]Obama caused the economic crash[/I] :downs:
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39442322]Obama caused the economic crash :downs:[/QUOTE]
No he didn't. Are you stupid?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39441873]This is what we have to show for $6 trillion in deficit spending.[/QUOTE]
do you hate obama or something
honestly most of the threads you post in SH are about how awful Obama is and how great Reagan was
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39442353]do you hate obama or something[/QUOTE]
Who said this has anything to do with Obama? I wasn't aware that Obama is the one who controls the economy now.
I love how people always have to find something negative about improving unemployment numbers.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442365]Who said this has anything to do with Obama? I wasn't aware that Obama is the one who controls the economy now.[/QUOTE]
You're implying something when you say that it's still worse than the previous President.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39442375]I love how people always have to find something negative about improving unemployment numbers.[/QUOTE]
Please explain to me how growing unemployment is a side effect of an improving economy.
Good job people who rated me dumb, sarcasm.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442391]Please explain to me how growing unemployment is a side effect of an improving economy.[/QUOTE]
Are you dense? Like do you have any comprehensive reading skills? Improving unemployment numbers mean that less people are unemployed, thus a lower number.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39442408]Good job people who rated me dumb, sarcasm.[/QUOTE]
It's honestly hard to tell when you're in SH
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39442430]It's honestly hard to tell when you're in SH[/QUOTE]
I'd say the obvious emoticon was an easily noticeable symbol of sarcasm.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39442418]Are you dense? Like do you have any comprehensive reading skills? Improving unemployment numbers mean that less people are unemployed, thus a lower number.[/QUOTE]
So how is going from 7.8% unemployment to 7.9% unemployment an improvement?
Unemployment can mean more people searching for jobs after taking a break.
Discouraged workers were the result of the economic crash, these people are outside the unemployed, actually reducing unemployment rate.
After things lighten up, more people attempt to rejoin, but are futile, they end up in the unemployment.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39442454]Unemployment can mean more people searching for jobs after taking a break.[/QUOTE]
To be counted in the labor force, you must be actively seeking employment.
Discouraged people aren't counted in the labor force, which is why the unemployment number is a lot lower than it should be.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442365]Who said this has anything to do with Obama? I wasn't aware that Obama is the one who controls the economy now.[/QUOTE]
you blame him in every other thread
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39442418]Are you dense? Like do you have any comprehensive reading skills? Improving unemployment numbers mean that less people are unemployed, thus a lower number.[/QUOTE]
Except this is about the unemployment numbers still not being under bush level and being shown lower then what it really is due to people not looking for a job being excluded.
I think you should take a nice long reread of his post.
I guess it's worth pointing out that at this point in Bush's presidency, unemployment was at 5.3% and 'still not under Clinton level'
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442476]To be counted in the labor force, you must be actively seeking employment.
Discouraged people aren't counted in the labor force, which is why the unemployment number is a lot lower than it should be.[/QUOTE]Yes... this is why you should look at total # employed verses unemployment rate and it will tell you more about the economy then anything right now.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
[url]http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/[/url]
Change in jobs over months. The data shows employment increasing after 2009 consistently.
[QUOTE=smurfy;39442521]I guess it's worth pointing out that at this point in Bush's presidency, unemployment was at 5.3% and 'still not under Clinton level'[/QUOTE]
What relevance does this have what so ever to do with this thread?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442601]What relevance does this have what so ever to do with this thread?[/QUOTE]
Since nobody else has said it, they think your threads are part of some sort of a conspiracy against obama.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39442657]Since nobody else has said it, they think your threads are part of some sort of a conspiracy against obama.[/QUOTE]
I kind of figured.
To be honest, if people are naive enough to believe I'm blaming Obama, then they clearly cannot read, or choose to judge someone instead of reading what is given to them.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;39442646]Shut the fuck up Jesus Christ, he didn't say anything about Obama, you guys are just starting shit.[/QUOTE]
But he did being up the last president to compare the current times to. It's not exact, but context does matter
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39442763]But he did being up the last president to compare the current times to. It's not exact, but context does matter[/QUOTE]
So just because I brought up a previous president means I'm blaming Barack Obama?
I don't follow your logic. Please explain to me.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442808]So just because I brought up a previous president means I'm blaming Barack Obama?
I don't follow your logic. Please explain to me.[/QUOTE]
I don't follow where you read that. I didn't say that so you must have made me say that in your head.
What I did do is acknowledge that past and present when brought up together are usually used to contrast a specific point. You may not be blaming him, but you are comparing their times.
Fucking context.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39442886]I don't follow where you read that. I didn't say that so you must have made me say that in your head.
What I did do is acknowledge that past and present when brought up together are usually used to contrast a specific point. You may not be blaming him, but you are comparing their times.
Fucking context.[/QUOTE]
not to mention he brings up his spending in the article too.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;39442906]not to mention he brings up his spending in the article too.[/QUOTE]
So you think the president is responsible for all spending? What about the senate? What about the house of representatives?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442601]What relevance does this have what so ever to do with this thread?[/QUOTE]
I guess this is what we have to show for two wars unpaid for thanks to useless tax cuts and a deregulated housing industry that caused a global collapse dDOHOHOHOHOHOHOH
Children, this is why deficit spending is bad.
Don't vote for Republican again.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39442926]So you think the president is responsible for all spending? What about the senate? What about the house of representatives?[/QUOTE]
stop acting like youre not, in every single thread about government you have been posting how terrible obama is, and you said the spending in a negative way to passively show it.
I like how when unemployment was 7.8% under bush everyone blames him and is outraged.
Then when unemployment is 7.9%, everyone thinks things are fine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
