Jobs report

#803
#803
Jobs Friday: Added 173,000 jobs in August, below the 220,000 jobs Wall Street anticipated. The unemployment rate fell to 5.1% for the month, while economists expected it to fall to 5.2% from 5.3% the month prior. The labor force participation rate, meanwhile, held steady at 62.6%. The fed may be more likely to raise rates on September 17th. Market is troubled and futures are down hard going into a long weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#805
#805
Business's confidence is increasing. Great news. They, like many, know obama only has about a year left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#808
#808
theFallGuy said:
and the lowest labor participation rate since the 1970's. #missionaccomplished
Click to expand...

That does not change the number of jobs lost during the W Administration nor does it change the number of jobs created during the O Administration.


Good paying jobs were lost during the W years.

Low paying jobs have been added during the Obama Administration
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#809
#809
Gramps said:
That does not change the number of jobs lost during the W Administration nor does it change the number of jobs created during the O Administration.


Good paying jobs were lost during the W years.

Low paying jobs have been added during the Obama Administration
Click to expand...

I agree. But judging from Kingston's previous posts he is most likely posting that info to applaud Barry on a job well done. I feel the need to put this rosy picture into perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#810
#810
theFallGuy said:
I agree. But judging from Kingston's previous posts he is most likely posting that info to applaud Barry on a job well done. I feel the need to put this rosy picture into perspective.
Click to expand...

It's not "mission accomplished" but it's "hey we're still moving in the right direction."

Let's acknowledge that it could be much worse - and you don't have to go too far back to prove it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#813
#813
Kingston Vol said:
It's not "mission accomplished" but it's "hey we're still moving in the right direction."

Let's acknowledge that it could be much worse - and you don't have to go too far back to prove it.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear that the economy is moving along DESPITE Obama. He has not instituted one single economic policy that anyone can point towards as being something that has helped spur the economy one iota. It's actually quite impressive that the economy is doing anything under this regime. Think what the economic rebound could be if he actually new anything about economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#815
#815
"The tepid growth rate so far in 2015 merely extends the track record of the 23 quarter post-Great Recession recovery. The annualized growth rate of 2.24% dead last compared to the six other recoveries since 1960, which averaged 3.97% after 23 quarters. This translates into nearly $1.7 trillion (in constant 2009 dollars) in absent economic growth.

But the more amazing comparison is that of the Reagan – which trounces this current so-called recovery. That recovery’s sizzling 4.8% annualized growth through 23 quarters was more than twice the rate of the current recovery. In other words, for every $1 of economic growth experienced during the present time, the Reagan recovery produced more than $2. As a result, the Reagan recovery gap now stands at a record $2.48 trillion of real annual GDP (in 2009 dollars). The economy is now more than 15 percent smaller than it would have been with Reagan style growth."

Our dismal GDP numbers: Under Obama US stuck in slow growth rut
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#816
#816
theFallGuy said:
"The tepid growth rate so far in 2015 merely extends the track record of the 23 quarter post-Great Recession recovery. The annualized growth rate of 2.24% dead last compared to the six other recoveries since 1960, which averaged 3.97% after 23 quarters. This translates into nearly $1.7 trillion (in constant 2009 dollars) in absent economic growth.

But the more amazing comparison is that of the Reagan – which trounces this current so-called recovery. That recovery’s sizzling 4.8% annualized growth through 23 quarters was more than twice the rate of the current recovery. In other words, for every $1 of economic growth experienced during the present time, the Reagan recovery produced more than $2. As a result, the Reagan recovery gap now stands at a record $2.48 trillion of real annual GDP (in 2009 dollars). The economy is now more than 15 percent smaller than it would have been with Reagan style growth."

Our dismal GDP numbers: Under Obama US stuck in slow growth rut
Click to expand...


And he did all that by raising tax revenue more than any president in history, particularly certain types of taxes on the wealthy.

Hmmmm .....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#817
#817
lawgator1 said:
And he did all that by raising tax revenue more than any president in history, particularly certain types of taxes on the wealthy.

Hmmmm .....
Click to expand...

Negative, Obama raised taxes on everybody.

Full List of Obama Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform
ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” - Barry

Shouldn't you be in the Hillary thread campaigning still?
 
#818
#818
theFallGuy said:
Negative, Obama raised taxes on everybody.

Full List of Obama Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform
ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” - Barry

Shouldn't you be in the Hillary thread campaigning still?
Click to expand...


I'm just saying that the theory that the key to stronger growth is more tax breaks for the investment class is demonstrably wrong. At least, it is according to RWR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#820
#820
lawgator1 said:
I'm just saying that the theory that the key to stronger growth is more tax breaks for the investment class is demonstrably wrong. At least, it is according to RWR.
Click to expand...
Define the investment class. DO you own a house? Investment. Do you have a 401k? Investment. Do you own any stocks on your own? Investment.

You suck the life out of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#821
#821
theFallGuy said:
93 million not in the labor force as of August.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Click to expand...


Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over



latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2005_2015_all_period_M08_data.gif

Also see:

Declining Labor Participation Rates

The following graph from BLS shows the civilian labor force participation rate between 1948 and 2015. As the graph shows, the participation rate in February 2015 (62.8 percent) is the lowest since March 1978. But the rate was lower than that every month between 1948 and 1978.
Click to expand...

As for Priebus tying the participation rate to the “Obama economy,” there’s more to that story as well. The labor force participation rate has been declining for more than a decade, and economists predict it will continue to decline for the next decade and more.
Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.
​
Among the reasons cited for the trend:
1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#822
#822
lawgator1 said:
And he did all that by raising tax revenue more than any president in history, particularly certain types of taxes on the wealthy.

Hmmmm .....
Click to expand...

And still spends a hell of a lot more than what we're taking him, tax revenues are at an all-time high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#825
#825
The job market is skewed because of those who quit looking for jobs. The rate is probably closer to 8%. There were over 50,000 that quit looking for jobs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top