Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama and job growth

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Bush had a harder time, with two recessions in his 8 years. Obama's first term sucked for jobs, as it inherited the pain of the second recession. However, the second term is in a healing economy. Whether or not the economic growth is Obama's doing or something entirely unrelated would require a great deal of research to determine.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:05:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:34:44 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Bush had a harder time, with two recessions in his 8 years. Obama's first term sucked for jobs, as it inherited the pain of the second recession. However, the second term is in a healing economy. Whether or not the economic growth is Obama's doing or something entirely unrelated would require a great deal of research to determine.

Here's the job growth by year (in thousands, [] represents a negative number)

88 - 3001
89 - 1638
90 - [467]
91 - [875]
92 - 1214
93 - 2532
94 - 3654
95 - 1763
96 - 2936
97 - 3271
98 - 2582
99 - 2795
00 - 1422
01 - [2389]
02 - [521]
03 - 260
04 - 1809
05 - 2537
06 - 1798
07 - 624
08 - [4580]
09 - [4172]
10 - 1329
11 - 2692
12 - 2149
13 - 2291

Yes, we are "recovering" in a respect, but this recovery is overall causing more growth than many previous recoveries (granted, this recession was also significantly more extreme).

For example, let's look at Bush's first (which should be viewed as Clinton's, not Bush's). The job loss started in Jan 2001 and stopped (though it did bounce around for a little while after stopping) in April 2003 after losing 3.3 million jobs (we could also note that this recession continued most the way through Bush's first term). It wasn't until Jun of 2005 that we returned to the pre-loss levels. From the start of the crash, until we gained back the jobs took 4 1/2 years.

Let's look at the current situation. The job loss started in Feb of 2008 and bottomed in Dec 2009 (almost 2 years) and lost almost 8.8 million (over 2 1/2 times more than the first recession). However, we are currently only 6 years and 1 month from the start of the collapse and right now, only 129,000 private sector jobs from being back at the pre-collapse level. I've done it in other threads, but our recovery is faster (in relation to the size of the collapse) than all previous collapses since the BLS began recording.

Now, I made a prediction a while back (it was right after Obama won his second term), that we would see something like 7 1/2 - 8 million private sector jobs in Obama's last term. Right now, we are on pace to pass that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:16:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My problem with this data is that most of these jobs pay low wages, such as in the retail/ fast food industry.

Can't remember the source at the moment though.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:25:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:05:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:34:44 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Bush had a harder time, with two recessions in his 8 years. Obama's first term sucked for jobs, as it inherited the pain of the second recession. However, the second term is in a healing economy. Whether or not the economic growth is Obama's doing or something entirely unrelated would require a great deal of research to determine.

Here's the job growth by year (in thousands, [] represents a negative number)

88 - 3001
89 - 1638
90 - [467]
91 - [875]
92 - 1214
93 - 2532
94 - 3654
95 - 1763
96 - 2936
97 - 3271
98 - 2582
99 - 2795
00 - 1422
01 - [2389]
02 - [521]
03 - 260
04 - 1809
05 - 2537
06 - 1798
07 - 624
08 - [4580]
09 - [4172]
10 - 1329
11 - 2692
12 - 2149
13 - 2291

Yes, we are "recovering" in a respect, but this recovery is overall causing more growth than many previous recoveries (granted, this recession was also significantly more extreme).

For example, let's look at Bush's first (which should be viewed as Clinton's, not Bush's). The job loss started in Jan 2001 and stopped (though it did bounce around for a little while after stopping) in April 2003 after losing 3.3 million jobs (we could also note that this recession continued most the way through Bush's first term). It wasn't until Jun of 2005 that we returned to the pre-loss levels. From the start of the crash, until we gained back the jobs took 4 1/2 years.

Let's look at the current situation. The job loss started in Feb of 2008 and bottomed in Dec 2009 (almost 2 years) and lost almost 8.8 million (over 2 1/2 times more than the first recession). However, we are currently only 6 years and 1 month from the start of the collapse and right now, only 129,000 private sector jobs from being back at the pre-collapse level. I've done it in other threads, but our recovery is faster (in relation to the size of the collapse) than all previous collapses since the BLS began recording.

You can't oversimplify the complexity of the economy, and assume it's that systematic. Just because it recovered faster under Obama doesn't mean it's because of him. That's Post Hoc in the purist form. One thing Obama had going for him was that people have since learned better spending habits, aiding economic growth by along shot.

Now, I made a prediction a while back (it was right after Obama won his second term), that we would see something like 7 1/2 - 8 million private sector jobs in Obama's last term. Right now, we are on pace to pass that.

The numbers aren't really that useful, however. Two reasons is because it excludes the self-employed jobs, and anyone with 2 jobs is considered two employed people. Job growth could imply two entirely separate situations without context.

But none-the-less. You have only shown correlation, not causation. Bush did have a harder time with an economy that didn't know how to handle it's situation. Obama's economy has been through recession for over a decade now and knows had to properly treat the wound.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:40:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:25:09 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:05:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:34:44 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Bush had a harder time, with two recessions in his 8 years. Obama's first term sucked for jobs, as it inherited the pain of the second recession. However, the second term is in a healing economy. Whether or not the economic growth is Obama's doing or something entirely unrelated would require a great deal of research to determine.

Here's the job growth by year (in thousands, [] represents a negative number)

88 - 3001
89 - 1638
90 - [467]
91 - [875]
92 - 1214
93 - 2532
94 - 3654
95 - 1763
96 - 2936
97 - 3271
98 - 2582
99 - 2795
00 - 1422
01 - [2389]
02 - [521]
03 - 260
04 - 1809
05 - 2537
06 - 1798
07 - 624
08 - [4580]
09 - [4172]
10 - 1329
11 - 2692
12 - 2149
13 - 2291

Yes, we are "recovering" in a respect, but this recovery is overall causing more growth than many previous recoveries (granted, this recession was also significantly more extreme).

For example, let's look at Bush's first (which should be viewed as Clinton's, not Bush's). The job loss started in Jan 2001 and stopped (though it did bounce around for a little while after stopping) in April 2003 after losing 3.3 million jobs (we could also note that this recession continued most the way through Bush's first term). It wasn't until Jun of 2005 that we returned to the pre-loss levels. From the start of the crash, until we gained back the jobs took 4 1/2 years.

Let's look at the current situation. The job loss started in Feb of 2008 and bottomed in Dec 2009 (almost 2 years) and lost almost 8.8 million (over 2 1/2 times more than the first recession). However, we are currently only 6 years and 1 month from the start of the collapse and right now, only 129,000 private sector jobs from being back at the pre-collapse level. I've done it in other threads, but our recovery is faster (in relation to the size of the collapse) than all previous collapses since the BLS began recording.

You can't oversimplify the complexity of the economy, and assume it's that systematic. Just because it recovered faster under Obama doesn't mean it's because of him. That's Post Hoc in the purist form. One thing Obama had going for him was that people have since learned better spending habits, aiding economic growth by along shot.

Now, I made a prediction a while back (it was right after Obama won his second term), that we would see something like 7 1/2 - 8 million private sector jobs in Obama's last term. Right now, we are on pace to pass that.

The numbers aren't really that useful, however. Two reasons is because it excludes the self-employed jobs, and anyone with 2 jobs is considered two employed people. Job growth could imply two entirely separate situations without context.

But none-the-less. You have only shown correlation, not causation. Bush did have a harder time with an economy that didn't know how to handle it's situation. Obama's economy has been through recession for over a decade now and knows had to properly treat the wound.

Correlation is correlated with causation (lol, couldn't resist). While, yes, the economy is extremely complex and no single action or entity can be 100% fully traced to ever be certain enough to establish direct causation in such a system (we could argue that "knowing" anything is not logically possible and we can only presume based on correlation, but that is for a different thread). However, we can say based on the correlation that it is far more likely and plausible that Obama has benefited the economy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:46:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

Sorry, I've put your post off for too long.

http://www.bls.gov...

I'll see if I can dig up the old DDO blog that I posted which explained how I reached the numbers that I did. When jobs collapse, companies try not to let go employees if they think it is short term. One common thing that they do is cut hours to attempt to hold heads (after all, those people have 100% relevant job experience and training), so we see average hours take a dive.

Those hours have mostly come back, though they have hit another speed bump, though not as significant (mostly likely related to healthcare). Though I would bet that we will see that recover.

The only sad part is that this data has only been tracked since 2006 and we do not get to see a nice long history of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:52:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:16:16 PM, Contra wrote:
My problem with this data is that most of these jobs pay low wages, such as in the retail/ fast food industry.

Can't remember the source at the moment though.

http://www.bls.gov...

Average wages are actually slowly going up (though that does not measure income discrepancy between "classes") about 1.5% per year (big whoop, my rent is going up about 8% per year).

There's a lot of fun in here

https://www.census.gov...

Though this is only the census, so only goes to 2010.

http://finance.townhall.com...

We actually see that wealth inequality has been steadily growing in the US since the late 60's and early 70's. While, yes, it is still expanding, that is not anything new.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 12:31:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry to interrupt this Obama, fact free circle jerk with some facts, but...

The employment to population ratio (the proper measurement of employment) was 61% in December of 2008, the last full month Barack Obama was not president. The most recent report has the employment to population ratio in February of 2014 at 58.8%.

Employment has fallen under Obama.

Why is that surprising?

When you pass legislation that makes it harder to add jobs, less people will add jobs. Source:

http://research.stlouisfed.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 1:58:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 12:31:16 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this Obama, fact free circle jerk with some facts, but...

The employment to population ratio (the proper measurement of employment) was 61% in December of 2008, the last full month Barack Obama was not president. The most recent report has the employment to population ratio in February of 2014 at 58.8%.

Employment has fallen under Obama.

Why is that surprising?

When you pass legislation that makes it harder to add jobs, less people will add jobs. Source:

http://research.stlouisfed.org...

http://data.bls.gov...

it is actually at 63.0%, down from its high of 67.3% in 2000. It has been going down for 14 years. Another fun fact, in the 40's. 50's, and 60's (some of our best economies) we were always below 60%. It wasn't until halfway through 1969 that we went over 60% and just kept growing (this tends to follow the income disparity).

Also (because there is just so much wrong with your post), this would have only been relevant if I talked about the unemployment rate (which I didn't). JOBs themselves are actually up, regardless if more people don't need to work.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 2:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:46:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

Sorry, I've put your post off for too long.

http://www.bls.gov...

I'll see if I can dig up the old DDO blog that I posted which explained how I reached the numbers that I did. When jobs collapse, companies try not to let go employees if they think it is short term. One common thing that they do is cut hours to attempt to hold heads (after all, those people have 100% relevant job experience and training), so we see average hours take a dive.

Those hours have mostly come back, though they have hit another speed bump, though not as significant (mostly likely related to healthcare). Though I would bet that we will see that recover.

The only sad part is that this data has only been tracked since 2006 and we do not get to see a nice long history of it.

That's interesting, for sure.
Tsar of DDO
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 7:58:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 12:31:16 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this Obama, fact free circle jerk with some facts, but...

The employment to population ratio (the proper measurement of employment) was 61% in December of 2008, the last full month Barack Obama was not president. The most recent report has the employment to population ratio in February of 2014 at 58.8%.

Employment has fallen under Obama.

Why is that surprising?

When you pass legislation that makes it harder to add jobs, less people will add jobs. Source:

http://research.stlouisfed.org...

Give it up dude.

There's no room for FACTS in discussions regarding obama. The liberal agenda doesn't allow for them. And the reply to your factual comment is priceless: this is a discussion about employment, NOT unemployment.

Unemployment is currently sitting at 6.7 (Source: http://data.bls.gov...), and it's been falling, I'll grant you that, but WHY has it been falling? Could it be that there are people falling OFF the unemployment-dole payroll, and are now unaccounted for? That's a fun fact that OP forgot to mention. But what am I thinking... this is a post about employment, NOT unemployment.

My bad.

Also, to the OP: full-time jobs were lost, and have been replaced by part-time jobs. And that's a good thing? Over 50% of the country is on food-stamps. And that's a good thing? People have to work TWO jobs now (and possibly THREE), when they were working only ONE previously, and that's a good thing? Adding part-time jobs to the economy... congratulations obama. But what about about full-time, decent-paying, corporate jobs?

As jimtimmy3 stated: When you pass legislation that makes it harder to add jobs, less people will add jobs.

And contrary to what you may think... 2-3 part-time jobs does not equal 1 full-time job. One could argue that obama is adding to the demise of the family unit, as parents are having to spend additional hours AWAY from the family home/children, in order to make ends meet, where they could do it in 40hrs previously (now it's 70-80hrs).
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 2:16:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 7:58:59 AM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 4/2/2014 12:31:16 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this Obama, fact free circle jerk with some facts, but...

The employment to population ratio (the proper measurement of employment) was 61% in December of 2008, the last full month Barack Obama was not president. The most recent report has the employment to population ratio in February of 2014 at 58.8%.

Employment has fallen under Obama.

Why is that surprising?

When you pass legislation that makes it harder to add jobs, less people will add jobs. Source:

http://research.stlouisfed.org...

Give it up dude.

There's no room for FACTS in discussions regarding obama. The liberal agenda doesn't allow for them. And the reply to your factual comment is priceless: this is a discussion about employment, NOT unemployment.

Unemployment is currently sitting at 6.7 (Source: http://data.bls.gov...), and it's been falling, I'll grant you that, but WHY has it been falling? Could it be that there are people falling OFF the unemployment-dole payroll, and are now unaccounted for? That's a fun fact that OP forgot to mention. But what am I thinking... this is a post about employment, NOT unemployment.

That would be a non sequitur. You're missing several possibilities, or should I say "dismissing" several possibilities, likely due to political opinions.

Yes, as you brought up, the unemployment has been falling. From the bottom of the job loss (dec 2009, as previously shown), the labor participation has dropped from 64.6 to 63.0, a whooping 1.6%, while unemployment has dropped 3.4% from its peak.

There are two things that can cause the unemployment to go down (well, one way it goes down, and two ways to make that one way). Less people are looking for a job, because they now have a job, or because they cannot find a job and have given up.

Since we are averaging almost 200,000 new private sector jobs per month, it is not because they are not finding work. There are other reasons people may choose to drop out of the labor force, going down to a single income family because one member got a promotion and raise. Going back to school, etc.

When looking at is it PT or FT, this might help

http://www.bls.gov...

People in PT jobs for ECONOMIC REASONS are down from 15.86 million (in Feb 2013) to 14.26 million (in Feb 2014). So the growth is not just PT work. If we include those working PT for non economic reasons it is still down, just not as much.

So the conclusion that unemployment is down because people cannot find jobs does not match with reality.


My bad.

Also, to the OP: full-time jobs were lost, and have been replaced by part-time jobs. And that's a good thing? Over 50% of the country is on food-stamps. And that's a good thing? People have to work TWO jobs now (and possibly THREE), when they were working only ONE previously, and that's a good thing? Adding part-time jobs to the economy... congratulations obama. But what about about full-time, decent-paying, corporate jobs?

As jimtimmy3 stated: When you pass legislation that makes it harder to add jobs, less people will add jobs.

And contrary to what you may think... 2-3 part-time jobs does not equal 1 full-time job. One could argue that obama is adding to the demise of the family unit, as parents are having to spend additional hours AWAY from the family home/children, in order to make ends meet, where they could do it in 40hrs previously (now it's 70-80hrs).

Already addressed, thank you.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:16:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 12:39:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Did both my friendly foes run away?

No point in discussing it.

I'll never be able to present enough "facts" and links, etc, to convince you of anything other than what you hold onto as reality, just as you'll never be able to present me with anything that'll have me thinking & believing anything other than what MY reality is.

Ask 1M completely random American citizens (above the age of 25) if they are better off today than they were 8 years ago. What do you think their answer will be? There is NOTHING good about the economy we're in, and no amount of debate and link posting can change that.

Debating politics & religion is akin to beating ones head against a wall repeatedly. The Left will never convince the Right that they are correct, and visa-versa. The theists will never convince the atheists that there is a god(s), and visa-versa. Talk about it all day long until you're blue in the face, and those 2 things will never change. Present HARD facts, and someone that believes the opposite position of the facts you're presenting, will always find a way to argue their way AROUND your hard facts.

I've only been here a short time and have only been commenting (not debating, as I'm pretty much a moron when it comes to debate, and was never any good at it in HS), but what I've seen is precisely what I've seen on other sites, except you guys use bigger, fancier words. An individuals faith & belief go DEEP, and convincing them of something that goes against their personal 'grain', is impossible. You may win your debates with people, but you haven't/didn't convince them they were wrong. You simply used bigger words than they did, and got your point across more clearly, and had more votes than they did. In their eyes, you're still as wrong as you were as when the debate started.

Peace.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:24:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

This. Also you have to consider the quality and duration of those jobs. Creating temporary jobs might look good on paper, but it does not help the worker in the long term. Furthermore, if they are all minimum wage jobs, it might be leaching off potential growth in higher paying job markets. Hell if the state hired everyone who was unemployed, we would have full employment, but we would all starve.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 6:57:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This ignores the fact that the population has been growing quite a bit, so it is much less impressive to have large employment numbers when the population is larger. In 2000 it was only 282 million, now its 314 million. When reagan was in office, the population was only 229.5 million.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:52:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:16:16 PM, Contra wrote:
My problem with this data is that most of these jobs pay low wages, such as in the retail/ fast food industry.

Can't remember the source at the moment though.

http://www.bls.gov...

Average wages are actually slowly going up (though that does not measure income discrepancy between "classes") about 1.5% per year (big whoop, my rent is going up about 8% per year).

Health care costs, higher education costs, the cost of housing, and general inflation (Consumer Price Index) are all rising as well. So the modest rise in wages isn't overall going to help middle-class Americans.

There's a lot of fun in here

https://www.census.gov...

Though this is only the census, so only goes to 2010.

http://finance.townhall.com...

We actually see that wealth inequality has been steadily growing in the US since the late 60's and early 70's. While, yes, it is still expanding, that is not anything new.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 6:04:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:16:48 AM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:39:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Did both my friendly foes run away?

No point in discussing it.

I'll never be able to present enough "facts" and links, etc, to convince you of anything other than what you hold onto as reality, just as you'll never be able to present me with anything that'll have me thinking & believing anything other than what MY reality is.

Ask 1M completely random American citizens (above the age of 25) if they are better off today than they were 8 years ago. What do you think their answer will be? There is NOTHING good about the economy we're in, and no amount of debate and link posting can change that.

Debating politics & religion is akin to beating ones head against a wall repeatedly. The Left will never convince the Right that they are correct, and visa-versa. The theists will never convince the atheists that there is a god(s), and visa-versa. Talk about it all day long until you're blue in the face, and those 2 things will never change. Present HARD facts, and someone that believes the opposite position of the facts you're presenting, will always find a way to argue their way AROUND your hard facts.

I've only been here a short time and have only been commenting (not debating, as I'm pretty much a moron when it comes to debate, and was never any good at it in HS), but what I've seen is precisely what I've seen on other sites, except you guys use bigger, fancier words. An individuals faith & belief go DEEP, and convincing them of something that goes against their personal 'grain', is impossible. You may win your debates with people, but you haven't/didn't convince them they were wrong. You simply used bigger words than they did, and got your point across more clearly, and had more votes than they did. In their eyes, you're still as wrong as you were as when the debate started.

Peace.

I would have to respectfully disagree with that assessment. While I cannot change if you won"t consider new facts and be open to changing your mind, there are plenty of others that do. This site has a significant number of young members, and young viewers, like middle and high school age, who are not cemented into their beliefs. There are also a significant number of members that are on here for the social and non-political aspects and so may not have that solidified stance. If they come by and read the conversation, they may be swayed.

I also must think that you believe there is some merit in changing people"s minds, as if you didn"t then I don"t understand why you would have even posted anything to begin with. If you believe that no matter what you say, you won"t change anyone or anything, why take the time and effort to make a post?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 6:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:24:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

This. Also you have to consider the quality and duration of those jobs. Creating temporary jobs might look good on paper, but it does not help the worker in the long term. Furthermore, if they are all minimum wage jobs, it might be leaching off potential growth in higher paying job markets. Hell if the state hired everyone who was unemployed, we would have full employment, but we would all starve.

1)I only looked at private sector employment, not any public sector stuff, so we know that it isn"t just the government hiring people.
2)Since the job creation has been positive for something like 36 months straight, we know that they are not temporary jobs. While there may be some temporary jobs in the mix, the overall is a long term growth. If it was just temp jobs, we would see a spike, followed by a crash. If you are referring to holiday jobs, all the numbers I used are adjusted for seasonal employment.
3)Also, as pointed out, the average wage has gone up, suggesting that it is not all minimum wage jobs, as a sudden influx of low paying jobs would cause the average wage to go down.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 6:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 6:57:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
This ignores the fact that the population has been growing quite a bit, so it is much less impressive to have large employment numbers when the population is larger. In 2000 it was only 282 million, now its 314 million. When reagan was in office, the population was only 229.5 million.

This is why I did not quote overall job market size, only job growth. When I compared the size of the collapse, I did it in percentages to make them relevant and to remove the skew that different economy sizes would have. The BLS website does work in percentages for job growth, but it only goes to a 1/10 of a percent, so it isn"t too accurate (though they have the accurate numbers if one wants to do the calculations manually)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:34:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 6:09:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:24:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

This. Also you have to consider the quality and duration of those jobs. Creating temporary jobs might look good on paper, but it does not help the worker in the long term. Furthermore, if they are all minimum wage jobs, it might be leaching off potential growth in higher paying job markets. Hell if the state hired everyone who was unemployed, we would have full employment, but we would all starve.

1)I only looked at private sector employment, not any public sector stuff, so we know that it isn"t just the government hiring people.
>.> Obama's stimulus was implemented through government contracts with private firms, they did not hire them directly.
2)Since the job creation has been positive for something like 36 months straight, we know that they are not temporary jobs.
That is not true, there was actually ups and downs. We did not have 36 months with more jobs than the previous month.

Furthermore, you cannot tell that by statistics alone. Let's say the labor force is 100 people, and 50 are employed. Now let's say I give 50 laborers a 3 month temporary job, while 20 of the 50 stable jobs were lost. That means for the 1st 3 months we gained a net 30 jobs. Now after that 3 month period, let's say 60 temporary jobs were created while another 5 stable jobs were lost; that means we gained a net 35 jobs, by replacing 25 stable jobs with 60 unstable jobs.

While there may be some temporary jobs in the mix, the overall is a long term growth. If it was just temp jobs, we would see a spike, followed by a crash. If you are referring to holiday jobs, all the numbers I used are adjusted for seasonal employment.
You can only create long term employment by increasing the long term product of labor. That means you would need to increase capital (such as technology, equipment, and so on), and/or increase the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the workers in areas relevant to the desired job.
3)Also, as pointed out, the average wage has gone up, suggesting that it is not all minimum wage jobs, as a sudden influx of low paying jobs would cause the average wage to go down.
If you are referring to the Median Wage, I would like to point out that Median "Averages" are not the same as Mean "Averages". A single high wage can completely change the Median wage, as can changes in the minimum wage.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ItRemainsToBeSeen
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 12:14:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I oppose many of Obama's policies in the economic realm, but I am actually glad that private sector jobs are being created at this pace, and I can give the President credit where credit is due. I was pleasantly surprised to hear the latest news about the labor markets, but many concerns remain to which others have spoken in this thread. As OP previously acknowledged, the economy is simply too complex to be directly traceable in substantial sum to any one person or entity.

I don't know precisely how much of the economic growth the POTUS has spearheaded in our recovery, but, whatever that figure is in relative terms, I remain skeptical that his role is as outsized as I think may be alluded to earlier.

I don't take issue with the assertion that many of the folks interfering with the labor market participation rate numbers are actually many people going back to colleges, turning into single-income households, and such. That's a constant in labor markets.

We do have to recall, however, that when the Great Recession began, many economists, including many within the Federal Reserve, predicted we would not reach pre-recession unemployment until around 2017. It would be highly irregular and spectacularly accurate, if not outright impossible, for the Fed to prognosticate the political future, as it unfolded, in predicting those numbers.

I am not going to bother with the mathematics because I don't possess the skills, but it sounds as if we are just about on pace to hit that milestone, barring an unforeseen economic renaissance or precipitous decline.

The question that poses about the Obama Administration and job growth is whether Obama's policies have actually inhibited the growth we are experiencing to some degree, which then may have otherwise been stronger growth, say, under a McCain Administration (as horrifying as that sounds).

This is clearly theoretical, and cannot be reduced to figures and facts in absolute terms due to the impossibility of comparative analysis (excluding historical, which is the basis of the entire thread. It is valid, but has its limits), but is interesting to ponder nonetheless.

I'm not too certain anyone can say with a serious face that the economy is doing absolutely fantastic right now. I also am not too sure anyone can say the economy is in pure shambles either. Things could be a lot better; things could be a lot worse. Any suggestion otherwise is purely partisan motivated.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 12:23:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 12:14:48 AM, ItRemainsToBeSeen wrote:
The question that poses about the Obama Administration and job growth is whether Obama's policies have actually inhibited the growth we are experiencing to some degree, which then may have otherwise been stronger growth, say, under a McCain Administration (as horrifying as that sounds).


Obamas policies and their shield that is the senate have at the very least created demand. Artificial or not it's safe to say if they didn't stimulate demand - production would've continued decrease. I don't remember what McCain was selling, but his party seems to think you stimulate growth by taking money out of the economy.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 1:07:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:34:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/4/2014 6:09:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:24:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

This. Also you have to consider the quality and duration of those jobs. Creating temporary jobs might look good on paper, but it does not help the worker in the long term. Furthermore, if they are all minimum wage jobs, it might be leaching off potential growth in higher paying job markets. Hell if the state hired everyone who was unemployed, we would have full employment, but we would all starve.

1)I only looked at private sector employment, not any public sector stuff, so we know that it isn"t just the government hiring people.
>.> Obama's stimulus was implemented through government contracts with private firms, they did not hire them directly.

And that stimulus was when and lasted how long?

2)Since the job creation has been positive for something like 36 months straight, we know that they are not temporary jobs.
That is not true, there was actually ups and downs. We did not have 36 months with more jobs than the previous month.

BLS says other wise. The last month that had fewer private sector jobs than the previous month (when adjusting seasonally) was March 2010. We are currently at 49 months in a row of job growth.


Furthermore, you cannot tell that by statistics alone. Let's say the labor force is 100 people, and 50 are employed. Now let's say I give 50 laborers a 3 month temporary job, while 20 of the 50 stable jobs were lost. That means for the 1st 3 months we gained a net 30 jobs. Now after that 3 month period, let's say 60 temporary jobs were created while another 5 stable jobs were lost; that means we gained a net 35 jobs, by replacing 25 stable jobs with 60 unstable jobs.

That is not realistically sustainable for 50 straight months. Also, the BLS measures temp jobs.

http://www.bls.gov...

In the last 12 months, we've added 2.265 million private sector jobs and only 247,000 were classified as temporary positions (which means that the "secure" jobs were still more than 2 million created).


While there may be some temporary jobs in the mix, the overall is a long term growth. If it was just temp jobs, we would see a spike, followed by a crash. If you are referring to holiday jobs, all the numbers I used are adjusted for seasonal employment.
You can only create long term employment by increasing the long term product of labor. That means you would need to increase capital (such as technology, equipment, and so on), and/or increase the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the workers in areas relevant to the desired job.
3)Also, as pointed out, the average wage has gone up, suggesting that it is not all minimum wage jobs, as a sudden influx of low paying jobs would cause the average wage to go down.
If you are referring to the Median Wage, I would like to point out that Median "Averages" are not the same as Mean "Averages". A single high wage can completely change the Median wage, as can changes in the minimum wage.

Do you have anything to back up that that is actually what is occurring?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 9:59:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 1:07:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:34:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/4/2014 6:09:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:24:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

This. Also you have to consider the quality and duration of those jobs. Creating temporary jobs might look good on paper, but it does not help the worker in the long term. Furthermore, if they are all minimum wage jobs, it might be leaching off potential growth in higher paying job markets. Hell if the state hired everyone who was unemployed, we would have full employment, but we would all starve.

1)I only looked at private sector employment, not any public sector stuff, so we know that it isn"t just the government hiring people.
>.> Obama's stimulus was implemented through government contracts with private firms, they did not hire them directly.

And that stimulus was when and lasted how long?

Even after the government stops spending money on private firms, it takes awhile for the market to respond to the end in spending. There is a lag, because other investors followed suite when the government gave firms stimulus money. The stimulus also involved artificially low interest rates, which they are just now planning on stopping, which also sends false market signals.

2)Since the job creation has been positive for something like 36 months straight, we know that they are not temporary jobs.
That is not true, there was actually ups and downs. We did not have 36 months with more jobs than the previous month.

BLS says other wise. The last month that had fewer private sector jobs than the previous month (when adjusting seasonally) was March 2010. We are currently at 49 months in a row of job growth.

Actually the BLS says it was in September, and the growth still fluctuated from month to month.

Furthermore, you cannot tell that by statistics alone. Let's say the labor force is 100 people, and 50 are employed. Now let's say I give 50 laborers a 3 month temporary job, while 20 of the 50 stable jobs were lost. That means for the 1st 3 months we gained a net 30 jobs. Now after that 3 month period, let's say 60 temporary jobs were created while another 5 stable jobs were lost; that means we gained a net 35 jobs, by replacing 25 stable jobs with 60 unstable jobs.

That is not realistically sustainable for 50 straight months. Also, the BLS measures temp jobs.

http://www.bls.gov...

And according to BLS statistics, job growth in cities is predominately temporary jobs.
http://www.bls.gov...
In the last 12 months, we've added 2.265 million private sector jobs and only 247,000 were classified as temporary positions (which means that the "secure" jobs were still more than 2 million created).

"We"? Who is "We"? Government does not create jobs, firms create jobs. Firms create jobs so long as there is an incentive in creating jobs. Remove the incentive, and you lose the jobs.

While there may be some temporary jobs in the mix, the overall is a long term growth. If it was just temp jobs, we would see a spike, followed by a crash. If you are referring to holiday jobs, all the numbers I used are adjusted for seasonal employment.
You can only create long term employment by increasing the long term product of labor. That means you would need to increase capital (such as technology, equipment, and so on), and/or increase the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the workers in areas relevant to the desired job.
3)Also, as pointed out, the average wage has gone up, suggesting that it is not all minimum wage jobs, as a sudden influx of low paying jobs would cause the average wage to go down.
If you are referring to the Median Wage, I would like to point out that Median "Averages" are not the same as Mean "Averages". A single high wage can completely change the Median wage, as can changes in the minimum wage.

Do you have anything to back up that that is actually what is occurring?

It does not matter why the median wage is going up, your point is mute, because the median wage is not reflective of the mean wage.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 10:31:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 9:59:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/5/2014 1:07:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:34:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/4/2014 6:09:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:24:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

This. Also you have to consider the quality and duration of those jobs. Creating temporary jobs might look good on paper, but it does not help the worker in the long term. Furthermore, if they are all minimum wage jobs, it might be leaching off potential growth in higher paying job markets. Hell if the state hired everyone who was unemployed, we would have full employment, but we would all starve.

1)I only looked at private sector employment, not any public sector stuff, so we know that it isn"t just the government hiring people.
>.> Obama's stimulus was implemented through government contracts with private firms, they did not hire them directly.

And that stimulus was when and lasted how long?

Even after the government stops spending money on private firms, it takes awhile for the market to respond to the end in spending. There is a lag, because other investors followed suite when the government gave firms stimulus money. The stimulus also involved artificially low interest rates, which they are just now planning on stopping, which also sends false market signals.

And when did we stop the stimulus?


2)Since the job creation has been positive for something like 36 months straight, we know that they are not temporary jobs.
That is not true, there was actually ups and downs. We did not have 36 months with more jobs than the previous month.

BLS says other wise. The last month that had fewer private sector jobs than the previous month (when adjusting seasonally) was March 2010. We are currently at 49 months in a row of job growth.

Actually the BLS says it was in September, and the growth still fluctuated from month to month.

1) http://www.bls.gov...
"Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 148,000 in September [2013]"

2) Of course the growth changes month to month, but it has still been growth every month.


Furthermore, you cannot tell that by statistics alone. Let's say the labor force is 100 people, and 50 are employed. Now let's say I give 50 laborers a 3 month temporary job, while 20 of the 50 stable jobs were lost. That means for the 1st 3 months we gained a net 30 jobs. Now after that 3 month period, let's say 60 temporary jobs were created while another 5 stable jobs were lost; that means we gained a net 35 jobs, by replacing 25 stable jobs with 60 unstable jobs.

That is not realistically sustainable for 50 straight months. Also, the BLS measures temp jobs.

http://www.bls.gov...

And according to BLS statistics, job growth in cities is predominately temporary jobs.
http://www.bls.gov...

From your own source...

"29,000 in temporary help services. Over the year, employment in temporary help has increased by an average 21,000 per month. "

"Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in March."

And your source does not talk about city jobs and temps.

In the last 12 months, we've added 2.265 million private sector jobs and only 247,000 were classified as temporary positions (which means that the "secure" jobs were still more than 2 million created).

"We"? Who is "We"? Government does not create jobs, firms create jobs. Firms create jobs so long as there is an incentive in creating jobs. Remove the incentive, and you lose the jobs.

"We" as a collective economy. You're arguing over passive vs active sentencing.


While there may be some temporary jobs in the mix, the overall is a long term growth. If it was just temp jobs, we would see a spike, followed by a crash. If you are referring to holiday jobs, all the numbers I used are adjusted for seasonal employment.
You can only create long term employment by increasing the long term product of labor. That means you would need to increase capital (such as technology, equipment, and so on), and/or increase the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the workers in areas relevant to the desired job.
3)Also, as pointed out, the average wage has gone up, suggesting that it is not all minimum wage jobs, as a sudden influx of low paying jobs would cause the average wage to go down.
If you are referring to the Median Wage, I would like to point out that Median "Averages" are not the same as Mean "Averages". A single high wage can completely change the Median wage, as can changes in the minimum wage.

Do you have anything to back up that that is actually what is occurring?

It does not matter why the median wage is going up, your point is mute, because the median wage is not reflective of the mean wage.

First off, you have the Mean and Median backwards. The Mean is changed drastically by a single high paying job. Second, while the median is a better measure, the mean is not worthless.

But, just to end this.

http://www.bls.gov...

Here, the BLS has mean and median wages, and both are increasing.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 12:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 10:31:26 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/5/2014 9:59:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/5/2014 1:07:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:34:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/4/2014 6:09:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:24:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:30:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/1/2014 10:28:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So Obama's first year of his second term is in the books. And 2013 saw 2.3 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs created (source, BLS). He's broken 2 million PS jobs a year in 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Now before people jump up and down saying that the market was going to do that anyway (nice excuse, by the way) or that it would have been better under someone else. Bush Jr only broken 2 million in a single year once in his 8 years. Reagan only did it 3 times (only 2 years in a row). Though to be fair, Bush Sr did it in his first year, but only because he was riding Reagan (It was done in Reagan's last year and Bush Sr's first year) and the jobs started dying right away.

Of course, we can look at Clinton and see that Bush Sr lost 875,000 in his last year (and the number was dropping every year for all 4 of his years) and that was turned around. In Clinton's 8 years, he broke the 2 million mark 6 times.

http://www.bls.gov...

Those numbers are impressive, but how do they break down in terms of full time v. part time jobs?

This. Also you have to consider the quality and duration of those jobs. Creating temporary jobs might look good on paper, but it does not help the worker in the long term. Furthermore, if they are all minimum wage jobs, it might be leaching off potential growth in higher paying job markets. Hell if the state hired everyone who was unemployed, we would have full employment, but we would all starve.

1)I only looked at private sector employment, not any public sector stuff, so we know that it isn"t just the government hiring people.
>.> Obama's stimulus was implemented through government contracts with private firms, they did not hire them directly.

And that stimulus was when and lasted how long?

Even after the government stops spending money on private firms, it takes awhile for the market to respond to the end in spending. There is a lag, because other investors followed suite when the government gave firms stimulus money. The stimulus also involved artificially low interest rates, which they are just now planning on stopping, which also sends false market signals.

And when did we stop the stimulus?

The FED plans to stop it's stimulus later this year. As for the ARRA stimulus spending; it will be slowly faded out by 2020. ARRA spending has declined, but it hasn't stopped; the spending peaked in 2010. http://www.recovery.gov...

2)Since the job creation has been positive for something like 36 months straight, we know that they are not temporary jobs.
That is not true, there was actually ups and downs. We did not have 36 months with more jobs than the previous month.

BLS says other wise. The last month that had fewer private sector jobs than the previous month (when adjusting seasonally) was March 2010. We are currently at 49 months in a row of job growth.

Actually the BLS says it was in September, and the growth still fluctuated from month to month.

1) http://www.bls.gov...
"Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 148,000 in September [2013]"

http://data.bls.gov...
2) Of course the growth changes month to month, but it has still been growth every month.

Sporadic growth =/= steady growth


Furthermore, you cannot tell that by statistics alone. Let's say the labor force is 100 people, and 50 are employed. Now let's say I give 50 laborers a 3 month temporary job, while 20 of the 50 stable jobs were lost. That means for the 1st 3 months we gained a net 30 jobs. Now after that 3 month period, let's say 60 temporary jobs were created while another 5 stable jobs were lost; that means we gained a net 35 jobs, by replacing 25 stable jobs with 60 unstable jobs.

That is not realistically sustainable for 50 straight months. Also, the BLS measures temp jobs.

http://www.bls.gov...

And according to BLS statistics, job growth in cities is predominately temporary jobs.
http://www.bls.gov...

From your own source...

"29,000 in temporary help services. Over the year, employment in temporary help has increased by an average 21,000 per month. "

"Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in March."

Don't measure an average against an independent variable, that is statistically deceptive.
And your source does not talk about city jobs and temps.

http://www.economicmodeling.com...
In the last 12 months, we've added 2.265 million private sector jobs and only 247,000 were classified as temporary positions (which means that the "secure" jobs were still more than 2 million created).

"We"? Who is "We"? Government does not create jobs, firms create jobs. Firms create jobs so long as there is an incentive in creating jobs. Remove the incentive, and you lose the jobs.

"We" as a collective economy. You're arguing over passive vs active sentencing.


Do you have anything to back up that that is actually what is occurring?

It does not matter why the median wage is going up, your point is mute, because the median wage is not reflective of the mean wage.

First off, you have the Mean and Median backwards. The Mean is changed drastically by a single high paying job. Second, while the median is a better measure, the mean is not worthless.

The Median is the exact middle while the mean is the sum divided by the count.

So let's look at a sets of salaries;
2 people making $100k
2 people making $50k
2 people making $25k
2 people making $15k
2 people making $10k
The mean = $40k
The Median = $25k

Now let's say the salaries change;
1 person making $200k
1 person making $100k
2 people making $50k
2 people making $25k
4 people making $15k
The mean = $51k
The Median = $50k

Now let's say the salaries change again;
1 person making $300k
1 people making $100k
3 people making $25k
5 people making $15k
The mean = $55k
The Median = $62.5k

As you can see a rising median wage is not reflective of the economic situation. The best reflection of the economic situation would be the mode.

But, just to end this.

http://www.bls.gov...

Here, the BLS has mean and median wages, and both are increasing.
Again, the mode would be the best reflection.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 1:22:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1) if you have a problem with the comparison of temp to total jobs, that's on you, as that was from your source, not me.

2) You are completely wrong about the median and mode.

http://www.purplemath.com...

The median is the best measure for any range that may have extremes. Also, you completely miscalculated it on your examples, which leads me to believe that you have an incorrect understanding of what it is, as opposed to an arithmetic error.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"