Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8% - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

The importance is that the number is improving rather than getting worse and that will matter more in the election than all the conventions and debates combined.

Last month there were LESS new jobs created than the month before. This month there were LESS new jobs than last month.

Both months are way below the number required to "break even". How is that "improving"?

Is that Washington D.C. style "improving"? You know like when they "cut" the budget by spending more money? lol

Rochard · 10-05-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

The real number is around 23%, which includes people unemployed along with those who stopped looking and those who are underemployed working part time or lower quality jobs than what they are qualified for...

I find that number highly unlikely. I know a lot of people and not one of them are unemployed.

directfiesta · 10-05-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I was there and if he had something to do with it or not, why didn't Carter do it? Scary if he did it and Carter couldn't. Pretty much, they weren't afraid of Carter, they were afraid of Reagan. He dealt with foreign powers with strength. He sure as hell didn't bow to them.

You obviously are either reading impaired or mentally handicapped .

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

Yes, thank you.

Did they mention what the number / percentage is for these people that are not in the work force compared to the past? Or..."number of people in the job market were the same as when Obama took office"...What was that number compared to now?

You don't have to dig up info if you have better shit to do, just curious.

I'm just eating something and fucking around on GFY before I go to the gym. But here is what I found real quick:
"April 2009, the specific number was 154,731,000 in the civilian workforce. There are also approximately 1,500,000 in the military workforce."

I can't find the exact numbers for 2012 with a quick search on Google. But I did find the exact numbers of new jobs and people who LEFT the workforce: There were 114,000 NEW jobs created this month. BUT...342,000 people LEFT the workforce!

So the unemployment numbers "see" that as the unemployment rate getting better by 456,000 ! That's how the rate "dropped"

But there were not 456,000 new jobs created.

Only 114,000
And you have to create 200,000 actual new jobs every month to keep up with population growth.

I'm sure that over the next few days we will see the actual number of people that are in the workforce posted as the numbers get analyzed and posted.

sperbonzo · 10-05-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I find that number highly unlikely. I know a lot of people and not one of them are unemployed.

.

DWB · 10-05-2012, 11:08 AM

shadowstats.com

Zoxxa · 10-05-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm just eating something and fucking around on GFY before I go to the gym. But here is what I found real quick:
"April 2009, the specific number was 154,731,000 in the civilian workforce. There are also approximately 1,500,000 in the military workforce."

I can't find the exact numbers for 2012 with a quick search on Google. But I did find the exact numbers of new jobs and people who LEFT the workforce: There were 114,000 NEW jobs created this month. BUT...342,000 people LEFT the workforce!

So the unemployment numbers "see" that as the unemployment rate getting better by 456,000 ! That's how the rate "dropped"

But there were not 456,000 new jobs created.

Only 114,000
And you have to create 200,000 actual new jobs every month to keep up with population growth.

I'm sure that over the next few days we will see the actual number of people that are in the workforce posted as the numbers get analyzed and posted.

crockett · 10-05-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossku69

How ironic..

regardless, American's are greedy morons who think they deserve 10x than that they are really worth. Trust me, I've been trying to hire people for $10/hr to do a job that someone in another country would KILL for, yet they think they are worth 5x that.

Don't be an idiot.. cost of living is why people need more money in the US vs your little 3rd world workers that would kill for that. $10 hour is pretty much McDonald's wages in all honestly.

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

cost of living is why people need more money in the US

It's true. We've made our money worthless here in the U.S. and through all the various things that govt. has done over the past few decades we've driven the cost of business up to the point that everything in the U.S. costs a lot more than it used to.

I was just talking to a girl who moved here to Vegas from L.A. a year ago. I thought that living in Vegas is expensive (compared to South Carolina)...but she said that living in California was more than twice as expensive.

The unintended consequence of some of the fees, licensing, taxes, insurance, etc. is that it drives up the cost of living. And then we raise the minimum wage to match that...and that act itself drives up the cost even more.

It's like a vicious cycle

Relentless · 10-05-2012, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Last month there were LESS new jobs created than the month before. This month there were LESS new jobs than last month.

No. AFTER revising the last month numbers... they were. This month's numbers will also get revised in a month or two and will likely be better than what is shown now as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Both months are way below the number required to "break even". How is that "improving"?

The numbers are better than breaking even. You might want to read a little more about it. The numbers are not 'good' but they are clearly 'better' and the trend is positive without any doubt.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ez...ely-good-news/

Tom_PM · 10-05-2012, 11:51 AM

So lets just get right to the bottom line here.

When the unemployment numbers go up, it's all about look what a screw up Obama is.
That guy is ruining the country.

When they go down, it's look what a screw up Obama is.
That guy is ruining the country.

If a rigged number is 10 one month and 8 the next, you can still rely on it to the same CRUDE extent you relied on it when it was 10. An indicator.

The jobs number was known to be coming out today. There's nothing weird about it except reactions to it. It means something or it means nothing. Not just this time, but all times prior as well, so take your pick and just stand behind it.

The real bottom line is that this is good for the country and for Obama by virtue of being the sitting president. Thats life.

Relentless · 10-05-2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I find that number highly unlikely. I know a lot of people and not one of them are unemployed.

When you know 100% of the national population you can speak with authority about the employment of the population. Since you likely know less than .000001% of the population, you 'not knowing people who are unemployed' is authoritative only when discussing .000001% of the population, which is a statistically meaningless segment of society for determining national employment data.

In webmaster terms that would be like saying 'I know a few people who have been to that site, so it must be one of the highest traffic sites in the world.'

Relentless · 10-05-2012, 12:02 PM

For the crackpot conspiracy theorists:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...no-conspiracy/

Quote:

"BLS is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility," Tony Fratto, former deputy press secretary to President George W. Bush, wrote on Twitter.

Steve Haugen, an economist at the BLS who has been involved in the process of analyzing jobs data for nearly 30 years, flatly dismissed the idea that there was any way the White House or Obama campaign could have had a hand in how the numbers turned out.

"The data are not manipulated for political reasons. I've been involved in the process myself for almost three decades. There's never been any political manipulation of the data, period," Haugen told CBSNews.com.

Quote:

"The institutions that do this in government are exceedingly professional and hermetically sealed from political influence and manipulation," said James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University and the founder and director of AU's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.

The idea that the entire labor department (which has plenty of Republican policy wonks in it) could 'cook the numbers' and put billions of dollars of investments by private investors at risk without anyone finding out or blowing the whistle for political purposes is as crazy as the whack-jobs who say we never went to the moon or that the holocaust didn't happen. People can dislike Obama, they can say the recovery isn't fast enough or broad enough... or could be done better, but it is a simple fact that employment numbers are improving.

With so many true things to slam him about, it is nonsensical for people to try and make up false accusations about him.

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

The numbers are better than breaking even.

No they are not. You're reading a blog.

The govt. says that 200,000 NEW jobs have to be created to "break even" Only 114,000 were created which was even lower than the month before.
350,000 LEFT the job market this month.

Those are the numbers. I don't care what some blog says. I'm just telling you the numbers.

Vendzilla · 10-05-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

You obviously are either reading impaired or mentally handicapped .

How so shit for brains? What exactly are you even commenting on? If you're going to be part of the conversation, then say something that doesn't sound like it's sliding out of the end of your mouth or just shut the fuck up.

Brujah · 10-05-2012, 12:18 PM

Robbie, when Bush was winding down his 8 years, you said those high unemployment figures didn't mean much.
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=15107942&postcount=44

ThunderBalls · 10-05-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Robbie, when Bush was winding down his 8 years, you said those high unemployment figures didn't mean much.
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=15107942&postcount=44

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Robbie, when Bush was winding down his 8 years, you said those high unemployment figures didn't mean much.
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=15107942&postcount=44

They didn't. The economy was still good.

People weren't on welfare and foodstamps and loooonnnnnngggg unemployment benefits for years.

It's pretty much common sense that when companies are doing well, and the economy is doing well, and companies are NOT firing people in mass layoffs...then there are NOT hundreds of thousands of people leaving the work force.

I'm not sure why you keep thinking that I'm saying things that I'm not. Are you gunning for me? lol

Look...this is the worst economy in decades. The unemployment numbers during a booming economy are pretty close because there aren't tons of people giving up looking for a job. Does that make sense to you?

The numbers happening right now are being thrown off by the number of people who did give up. I think the number I read was 1.2 million people LESS in the workforce than there were 4 years ago.

I'm just telling you the numbers. Bush didn't have high companies going out of business and people losing their jobs in these huge numbers. So he didn't have the factor of people leaving the workforce to skew the numbers.

You can see that right?

EDIT: By the way you quoted me from a post on Nov. 16th 2008
The unemployment rate was at 6.8% then. So yeah...my post 4 years ago was at a time BEFORE the shit fell to pieces in 2009

Zoxxa · 10-05-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Robbie, when Bush was winding down his 8 years, you said those high unemployment figures didn't mean much.
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=15107942&postcount=44

I didn't really read anything damaging towards Robbie in this post.
Digging up old posts like that gets a little creepy.

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

I didn't really read anything damaging towards Robbie in this post.
Digging up old posts like that gets a little creepy.

Brujah is trying to take me down!

Brujah · 10-05-2012, 12:54 PM

lol no, but I think it's fascinating to compare posts made during different presidencies or parties, to see how they spin things. Mostly to see how they justify it being ok during one party, and then quite the opposite during another.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 10-05-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

"BLS is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility," Tony Fratto, former deputy press secretary to President George W. Bush, wrote on Twitter.

Steve Haugen, an economist at the BLS who has been involved in the process of analyzing jobs data for nearly 30 years, flatly dismissed the idea that there was any way the White House or Obama campaign could have had a hand in how the numbers turned out.

"The data are not manipulated for political reasons. I've been involved in the process myself for almost three decades. There's never been any political manipulation of the data, period," Haugen told CBSNews.com.

According to Haugen, the BLS has been getting its data for the household survey -- the one on which the unemployment figure is based -- from the Census Bureau since 1942. The BLS took over the responsibility for analyzing the employment and unemployment data in 1959. And Haugen says that survey used in the data collection process has been largely the same since 1994. The BLS says the White House is not involved in the process of gathering or analyzing data, and does not give directives on the collection, production, dissemination of data.

Asked directly if the Obama administration or the White House had directed the BLS to change its methodology in some way to make the numbers more favorable to the president, Haugen said "no."

In fact, the BLS says it does not at the moment have a single political appointee working in the entire agency.

Haugen explained how the data is collected for the household survey.

"Each month there's a survey of about 50,000 households, or addresses, actually, that are drawn randomly -- a random sample designed to represent the population -- and those data are collected both in person and by phone by Census Bureau interviewers," Haugen said. "The data are collected usually during the calendar week including the 19th of the month. The reference period for the survey -- the questions we're asking about what people are doing -- is related to the calendar week that's the 12th of the month, typically. So there's the interview week, the week of the 19th, then there's the week to process the data and then there's the week we release the data."

ADG

madm1k3 · 10-05-2012, 01:02 PM

People leaving the workforce is also due to seasonal employment, having said that the numbers will be even better next month due to campaigns hiring people for the election season.

but these numbers are meaningless

The only problem is that Mitt Romney based some of his attack on a fictional 8% figure and now its 7.8%. I fail to see how 0.2% of a fictional system means something

Rochard · 10-05-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

When you know 100% of the national population you can speak with authority about the employment of the population. Since you likely know less than .000001% of the population, you 'not knowing people who are unemployed' is authoritative only when discussing .000001% of the population, which is a statistically meaningless segment of society for determining national employment data.

In webmaster terms that would be like saying 'I know a few people who have been to that site, so it must be one of the highest traffic sites in the world.'

I'm just talking about the law of average. If twenty percent of the people are unemployed, that's 1 in 5 people. I know hundreds of people here in town and not one of them is unemployed. Granted, I would like to think that my friends are bit higher up the ladder than the bottom of the barrel, but still, odds say that I should know a few people who are out of work and looking. I don't.

Come to think of it, the only person I knew who was unemployed in the past four years was my wife...

Vendzilla · 10-05-2012, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madm1k3

The only problem is that Mitt Romney based some of his attack on a fictional 8% figure and now its 7.8%. I fail to see how 0.2% of a fictional system means something

I fail to see what the hell you're talking about, when Romney gave the debate, he said above 8% unemployment. Then it was above 8%. That number is based on those receiving unemployment. It's not fictional, it just doesn't show just how many people are truly out of work which is a lot higher. His attack was based on the FACT that under Obama, the unemployment rate has been above 8% for a long time, where don't you see that?

Rochard · 10-05-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

People weren't on welfare and foodstamps and loooonnnnnngggg unemployment benefits for years.

So this is a new thing, right? I mean, it's not like entire generations of families haven't been brought up on welfare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Look...this is the worst economy in decades. The unemployment numbers during a booming economy are pretty close because there aren't tons of people giving up looking for a job. Does that make sense to you?

But at any given time, no matter what the economy, there are people who are unemployed that aren't counted. Why is it only in the past few years that this has been an issue? The same problem existed while Bush was in office, but no one questioned it then.

tony286 · 10-05-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

For the crackpot conspiracy theorists:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...no-conspiracy/

The idea that the entire labor department (which has plenty of Republican policy wonks in it) could 'cook the numbers' and put billions of dollars of investments by private investors at risk without anyone finding out or blowing the whistle for political purposes is as crazy as the whack-jobs who say we never went to the moon or that the holocaust didn't happen. People can dislike Obama, they can say the recovery isn't fast enough or broad enough... or could be done better, but it is a simple fact that employment numbers are improving.

With so many true things to slam him about, it is nonsensical for people to try and make up false accusations about him.

i just heard David Brooks agree with you. He is a conservative.

Brujah · 10-05-2012, 01:17 PM

If you want to browse through some history...

The day before Obama was elected.
https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26...e=-1&page=2190

Around when Bush was elected for his second term.
https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26...e=-1&page=7658

tony286 · 10-05-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

So this is a new thing, right? I mean, it's not like entire generations of families haven't been brought up on welfare.

But at any given time, no matter what the economy, there are people who are unemployed that aren't counted. Why is it only in the past few years that this has been an issue? The same problem existed while Bush was in office, but no one questioned it then.

Because he wasnt Obama. lol

Vendzilla · 10-05-2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Because he wasnt Obama. lol

more like the unemployment rate wasn't above 8% for most of his presidency. BTW, this has been an issue for years as to how presidents have made changes to effect the %

directfiesta · 10-05-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Brujah is trying to take me down!

Easy ... just send you over a few big tits chicks ...

tony286 · 10-05-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

more like the unemployment rate wasn't above 8% for most of his presidency. BTW, this has been an issue for years as to how presidents have made changes to effect the %

Not true sorry. try again. off topic havent seen you here much. I hope you are doing well.

Vendzilla · 10-05-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Not true sorry. try again. off topic havent seen you here much. I hope you are doing well.

I believe it's right on topic as it relates to the problems of how people perceive how bad it really is. Presidents have done things like add the military to skew the real % ( Reagan did that )and added extra security to airports ( I think it was Clinton did this ). All to bump the % in the right direction.

I'm doing good, getting some paysites going and I'm going to be launching a gay site. I think I went a little crazy on the design, LOL.

Rochard · 10-05-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

more like the unemployment rate wasn't above 8% for most of his presidency. BTW, this has been an issue for years as to how presidents have made changes to effect the %

But I don't get this. The unemployment rate has little to do with Obama and everything to do with the Recession. Obama didn't cause the recession. President Bush was in office when it hit (and you can even argue Bush wasn't at fault as well).

Take politics out of it. Brett, you've been to my house and seen my hometown here. We were building and building like madmen before the recession hit. When the recession hit everything went to hell and a handbasket. Businesses went under, and our tax revenue disappeared. Tons of people lost their houses. Exactly half of the houses on my street were vacant. And now come election time they are pointing fingers at the current mayor and the current town council saying our town's problems are because of them. It isn't. They weren't in office leading up to this, and they weren't in office when the recession hit. Instead, they are doing their best to pick up the pieces and move forward - which is difficult at best if not impossible.

This isn't a four year problem. It's most likely not an eight year problem. It's a ten or twenty year problem. This is a massive world wide problem that has foreign governments on the brink of collapsing. This is massive and it happened under a Republican president.

We should be thankful un-employment is only at 8%.

Sly · 10-05-2012, 03:28 PM

I'm going to sup up this thread in six words.

My dad is better than your dad.

DWB · 10-05-2012, 03:29 PM

The reality is, it doesn't matter who is sitting in office. More and more companies are sending jobs over seas due to cheap labor, not always taxes. Americans are not the assets they once were and even within the USA, you are better off hiring someone better skilled who usually comes from another country.

There is no magic anything that is going to fix this. It's a global market now and fact is it's cheaper to do everything overseas.

dynastoned · 10-05-2012, 03:38 PM

i'd say it's closer to 20%

tgdguy · 10-05-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm going to sup up this thread in six words.

My dad is better than your dad.

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 03:54 PM

I just want to understand this:

The govt's own numbers say that it takes 200,000 new jobs being created each month to break even.

Any jobs created OVER 200,000 in a month means that the employment rate is rising and unemployment is dropping.
Anything UNDER 200,000 means the unemployment rate is rising.

The numbers came out today. They are 114,000
Far BELOW what was expected and 86,000 LESS than breaking even.

And yet the unemployment rate DROPPED.
They also released the numbers on people dropping out of the work force. 350,000 of them.

It sure does appear that Democrats and Obama supporters are so desperate to find ANYTHING to turn shit around after that debate that now they are completely ignoring the govt.'s own numbers.

I don't think I've ever seen the media try so hard to get a guy elected as they are for Obama. It's outrageous.

Vendzilla · 10-05-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But I don't get this. The unemployment rate has little to do with Obama and everything to do with the Recession. Obama didn't cause the recession. President Bush was in office when it hit (and you can even argue Bush wasn't at fault as well).

Take politics out of it. Brett, you've been to my house and seen my hometown here. We were building and building like madmen before the recession hit. When the recession hit everything went to hell and a handbasket. Businesses went under, and our tax revenue disappeared. Tons of people lost their houses. Exactly half of the houses on my street were vacant. And now come election time they are pointing fingers at the current mayor and the current town council saying our town's problems are because of them. It isn't. They weren't in office leading up to this, and they weren't in office when the recession hit. Instead, they are doing their best to pick up the pieces and move forward - which is difficult at best if not impossible.

This isn't a four year problem. It's most likely not an eight year problem. It's a ten or twenty year problem. This is a massive world wide problem that has foreign governments on the brink of collapsing. This is massive and it happened under a Republican president.

We should be thankful un-employment is only at 8%.

Part of the Glass?Steagall Act of 1933 was eliminated with the passage of the Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Many believe that this act is what allowed the banks to get into the trouble that started it all.
Obama had more power than any sitting president in a long time by having both the house and the senate in democrat control. There were many things he could have done to generate (Shovel Ready Jobs ) what limited him was all the regulations that the government itself has in place. That and giving all that money to Solyndra because of campaign contributions and 1.4 billion to Bright Source which was 1.8 billion in the red, but a major share holder was Robert Kennedy Jr and one of the employee's of Robert Jr was Sanjay Wagle, he was a major contributor to Obama's campaign and was given a job with the department of energy, he ended up as the person that gave the check to Bright Source.
What does that have to do with anything about jobs? Obama asked for our trust and was let down, he said that the stimulus would keep the country going and not let the unemployment rate get to 8%, well, it went past that and stayed there till today. If Obama had handled that money better, the country would be in a better place now.

Obama took care of his hommies first I guess?

Rochard · 10-05-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Obama asked for our trust and was let down, he said that the stimulus would keep the country going and not let the unemployment rate get to 8%, well, it went past that and stayed there till today. If Obama had handled that money better, the country would be in a better place now.

Obama took care of his hommies first I guess?

So your saying we should trust Romney who is telling us he'll create five million jobs, reduce the deficit, fix Obamacare - which is the same exact thing he just passed in Mass - all while lowering taxes... Something does add up here.

Did it ever occur to anyone in the Republican party that when Romney left office in Mass he only had a 34% approval rate.

Robbie · 10-05-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Did it ever occur to anyone in the Republican party that when Romney left office in Mass he only had a 34% approval rate.

He was lucky to have a 0% approval rating. That is "Tax-a-chussetts" and it was a miracle they ever elected a Republican governor.

Captain Kawaii · 10-05-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laj

thread saved... Carry on.

bless you!

Captain Kawaii · 10-05-2012, 05:10 PM

Anyone catch how they do the numbers?

A unit in treasury randomly calls 60,000 households and does a survey. They take the data, play with it, massage it, oil it up and pass it to bureau of statistics... I'm not saying the numbers are fudged but...apparently the only straight ones are the number crunchers in (BOS) who it is claimed are data slaves. But in every other step, somebody can play, from treasury to the office where report is printed. thats why, apparently numbers have been up/down/corrected/up/corrected/down all year long....so they say.

Im with DWB. We'll all probably have 2 jobs on Nov 2nd and no jobs on Nov 4th.

Rochard · 10-05-2012, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

Anyone catch how they do the numbers?

A unit in treasury randomly calls 60,000 households and does a survey. They take the data, play with it, massage it, oil it up and pass it to bureau of statistics... I'm not saying the numbers are fudged but...apparently the only straight ones are the number crunchers in (BOS) who it is claimed are data slaves. But in every other step, somebody can play, from treasury to the office where report is printed. thats why, apparently numbers have been up/down/corrected/up/corrected/down all year long....so they say.

Im with DWB. We'll all probably have 2 jobs on Nov 2nd and no jobs on Nov 4th.

Our fucking government still isn't automated... Sad.

directfiesta · 10-05-2012, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I believe it's right on topic as it relates to the problems of how people perceive how bad it really is.

bla bla bla ....

Again, you fail at basic reading skills .
Here is the original post of Tony286:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Not true sorry. try again. off topic havent seen you here much. I hope you are doing well.

Ponctuations ( . ) are to delimit beginning and end ... So he basically told you :
- it is not true
- try again
- Off topic, havent seen you here much. I hope you are doing well.

So his last sentence was inquiring about you , as he hasn`t seen you here in a while , and wishing you are well ...

This course was graciously offered by a foreigner who`s first language is NOT english ...

PS: I will always remember that post where you claimed that you spent most of your childhood ' in the back of a little red pickup ' ....

PornMD · 10-05-2012, 10:30 PM

Forgot where I read it, but somewhere today or yesterday I read that poverty here was at its highest since 1993 and close to the highest since the '60s. This after 29-30 months of job growth?

I think a lot of job growth might be shitty jobs, in which case who gives a shit how many jobs places like McDonalds adds? Can't support a family flipping burgers.

In fact, I wonder if in counting jobs, they count 2 for someone needing to work a full time and either a part time or another full time in order to make a living, because I bet there's muuuch more of that going on today than in the past.

Paul Markham · 10-06-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Last month there were LESS new jobs created than the month before. This month there were LESS new jobs than last month.

Both months are way below the number required to "break even". How is that "improving"?

Is that Washington D.C. style "improving"? You know like when they "cut" the budget by spending more money? lol

So tell us how you think we can add jobs? This problem isn't unique to the US and if you have the solution you could be the next President.

Paul Markham · 10-06-2012, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Don't be an idiot.. cost of living is why people need more money in the US vs your little 3rd world workers that would kill for that. $10 hour is pretty much McDonald's wages in all honestly.

However, he's spot on. Jobs are leaving the West to go Eats for one reason. COST.

No one exporting jobs gives a fuck if we lose our jobs. In truth neither do we, if you're not out of work and buying imported goods.

woj · 10-06-2012, 06:24 AM

100 unemployed...

10-05-2012, 11:51 AM	#61
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	So lets just get right to the bottom line here. When the unemployment numbers go up, it's all about look what a screw up Obama is. That guy is ruining the country. When they go down, it's look what a screw up Obama is. That guy is ruining the country. If a rigged number is 10 one month and 8 the next, you can still rely on it to the same CRUDE extent you relied on it when it was 10. An indicator. The jobs number was known to be coming out today. There's nothing weird about it except reactions to it. It means something or it means nothing. Not just this time, but all times prior as well, so take your pick and just stand behind it. The real bottom line is that this is good for the country and for Obama by virtue of being the sitting president. Thats life. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

10-05-2012, 12:18 PM	#66
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Robbie, when Bush was winding down his 8 years, you said those high unemployment figures didn't mean much. https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=15107942&postcount=44 __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

10-05-2012, 12:54 PM	#71
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	lol no, but I think it's fascinating to compare posts made during different presidencies or parties, to see how they spin things. Mostly to see how they justify it being ok during one party, and then quite the opposite during another. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

10-05-2012, 01:02 PM	#73
madm1k3 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 472	People leaving the workforce is also due to seasonal employment, having said that the numbers will be even better next month due to campaigns hiring people for the election season. but these numbers are meaningless The only problem is that Mitt Romney based some of his attack on a fictional 8% figure and now its 7.8%. I fail to see how 0.2% of a fictional system means something __________________ Always looking for trades on Linkspun! Check my Id here

10-05-2012, 01:17 PM	#78
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	If you want to browse through some history... The day before Obama was elected. https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26...e=-1&page=2190 Around when Bush was elected for his second term. https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26...e=-1&page=7658 __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

10-05-2012, 11:08 AM	#56
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	shadowstats.com

10-05-2012, 03:28 PM	#85
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,289	I'm going to sup up this thread in six words. My dad is better than your dad. __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Wanted: CCBill pay sites for sale

10-05-2012, 03:29 PM	#86
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	The reality is, it doesn't matter who is sitting in office. More and more companies are sending jobs over seas due to cheap labor, not always taxes. Americans are not the assets they once were and even within the USA, you are better off hiring someone better skilled who usually comes from another country. There is no magic anything that is going to fix this. It's a global market now and fact is it's cheaper to do everything overseas.

10-05-2012, 03:38 PM	#87
dynastoned mmm yeah! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: roseville, ca Posts: 5,061	i'd say it's closer to 20%

10-05-2012, 03:54 PM	#89
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	I just want to understand this: The govt's own numbers say that it takes 200,000 new jobs being created each month to break even. Any jobs created OVER 200,000 in a month means that the employment rate is rising and unemployment is dropping. Anything UNDER 200,000 means the unemployment rate is rising. The numbers came out today. They are 114,000 Far BELOW what was expected and 86,000 LESS than breaking even. And yet the unemployment rate DROPPED. They also released the numbers on people dropping out of the work force. 350,000 of them. It sure does appear that Democrats and Obama supporters are so desperate to find ANYTHING to turn shit around after that debate that now they are completely ignoring the govt.'s own numbers. I don't think I've ever seen the media try so hard to get a guy elected as they are for Obama. It's outrageous. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

10-05-2012, 05:10 PM	#94
Captain Kawaii So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,748	Anyone catch how they do the numbers? A unit in treasury randomly calls 60,000 households and does a survey. They take the data, play with it, massage it, oil it up and pass it to bureau of statistics... I'm not saying the numbers are fudged but...apparently the only straight ones are the number crunchers in (BOS) who it is claimed are data slaves. But in every other step, somebody can play, from treasury to the office where report is printed. thats why, apparently numbers have been up/down/corrected/up/corrected/down all year long....so they say. Im with DWB. We'll all probably have 2 jobs on Nov 2nd and no jobs on Nov 4th. Last edited by Captain Kawaii; 10-05-2012 at 05:12 PM..

10-05-2012, 10:30 PM	#97
PornMD Mainstream Businessman Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Diego Posts: 9,291	Forgot where I read it, but somewhere today or yesterday I read that poverty here was at its highest since 1993 and close to the highest since the '60s. This after 29-30 months of job growth? I think a lot of job growth might be shitty jobs, in which case who gives a shit how many jobs places like McDonalds adds? Can't support a family flipping burgers. In fact, I wonder if in counting jobs, they count 2 for someone needing to work a full time and either a part time or another full time in order to make a living, because I bet there's muuuch more of that going on today than in the past. __________________ Want to crush it in mainstream with Facebook ads? Hit me up.

10-06-2012, 06:24 AM	#100
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	100 unemployed... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager