Ran across an interesting stat...

Ran across an interesting stat. concerning the 10.2% unemployment number. It seems that the old "last hired, first fired" truism is holding.

It appears that much of the total surge in unemployment representing a hefty rise in job losses is among very young adults and teen-agers, whose jobless rate rose from 25.9% to 27.6%. 25 and younger of both genders.

In contrast, October unemployment for those 25 years of age or older advanced just minimally to 8.7% (well below the 10.2% national rate) up from 8.6% in September.

 

Sorry, but I don't believe it. The links below aren't showing jobs of teenagers.

These stories don't include the millions who have taken15-30% paycuts.

Not looking so good these days

Read these and decide

Layoff Tracker - Forbes.com

Blame Obama for Sky-High Unemployment - FOXNews.com

 

I was using the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not articles in some mag. or media "news" releases which may or may not have an agenda. I believe Fox "News" does have one, but that is neither here nor there as to the statistics. Just how they are presented.

Unemployment in October 2009:

In October, the unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points.

In October, 35.6 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more, while 20 percent of the unemployed were jobless for 5 weeks or less.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.7 percent) and whites (9.5 percent) rose in October. The jobless rates for adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (27.6 percent), blacks (15.7 percent), and Hispanics (13.1 percent) were little changed over the month. (emphasis mine)

　
See:

Employment Situation Summary

and:

Unemployment in October 2009, The Editor's Desk

These data are from the Current Population Survey and are seasonally adjusted. For more information, see "The Employment Situation – October 2009," (HTML) (PDF), news release USDL-09-1331.

 

In October, 35.6 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more, while 20 percent of the unemployed were jobless for 5 weeks or less.


I see the statistics you reference, but I think you are trying to make things look better than they are. Adding the word "minimal" doesn't work here. And you leave out some details if I read this correctly.

From the site you listed these two paragraphs show that almost a million workers are no longer counted starting in October because they have given up looking. I heard somewhere that the policy of not including these workers is a new one begun in the O"bama administration.

About 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in October,
reflecting an increase of 736,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not sea-
sonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in
the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-13.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 808,000 discouraged workers in October,
up from 484,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Dis-
couraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The other 1.6 million persons marginally attached
to the labor force in October had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

There is no sugar coating this. Things are bad everywhere. Government at every level is broke beyond belief.
Government will not get us out of it. Only businesses creating jobs will and the current admin is not pro business by any stretch of the imagination.


　

 

I'm certainly NOT saying there is anything GOOD here, but pointing out that the numbers cannot be looked at as total numbers alone, without figuring in which portions of those numbers are represented by which population sectors. Who was let go first, and in what percentage.

That is all, this has to be reversed, but don't expect it to happen "overnight". Even in the relatively short Reagan recession of 1982-83 when the unemployment level last hit 10+%, it took almost twenty months for the numbers to creep back down to the levels from which they began. Jobs disappear in a "heartbeat" but return on broken legs.

Cutting tax for the Big Boys doesn't work, trickle down economics has been proven to be just what Bush Sr. called it; "voodoo economics". The greedy at the top just pocket the extra cash in off-shore accounts and never invest it back in the system. It simply is going to take time for this longest, deepest economic screw-up since the 1930s to show up on the employment rolls.

 

I cannot take any article seriously that uses Fox News as a source.

 

Spoken like true liberals

Let me guess - Rachel Madow, Keith Olberman, Katie Couric, etc.

 

"That is all, this has to be reversed, but don't expect it to happen "overnight". Even in the relatively short Reagan recession of 1982-83 when the unemployment level last hit 10+%, it took almost twenty months for the numbers to creep back down to the levels from which they began. Jobs disappear in a "heartbeat" but return on broken legs."

But this isn't what O'bama said. With all of his experience(tongue in cheek) he knew that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8 under his watch.

"Cutting tax for the Big Boys doesn't work, trickle down economics has been proven to be just what Bush Sr. called it; "voodoo economics". The greedy at the top just pocket the extra cash in off-shore accounts and never invest it back in the system. It simply is going to take time for this longest, deepest economic screw-up since the 1930s to show up on the employment rolls."

So, let me get this straight. Take money from businesses and earners, it goes to the government. The government takes half in operating costs, sends some to those who do nothing to earn it. Jobs start to appear. But we need to wait two years for this to occur. I got it.

 

On a more positive note :

C.O.D.E.

Jobs for Vets

 

Actually...gulp....I don't take my opinions for anyone on TV. Here is what I do, ok? Ready? I 1)Gather as much information from as many sources as possible (Except FoxNews because nothing they say has truth or merit) 2)I try my personal best to sort the nonsensical from the truthful 3) I then, I know this is crazy, form my OWN opinion!!
Which is why I'm not liberal, or conservative, or Donkey or Elephant. I'm informed. I don't follow one side blindly if the other side has better things to say. It sounds crazy but it's worth a try!

 

Luke

"Except FoxNews because nothing they say has truth or merit"

So, everything I hear or see on Fox news is a lie? A whole lotta people have left CNN, MSNBC because they believe the opposite. Fox more than doubles them combined but Fox lies and we are a bunch of idiots for watching. But you know better than those people.

This thread started with a posting which is incomplete from the original link and has words of emphasis added which change the facts of the story. I pointed these out and used the original source and others. Sometimes it is important to use the whole source unedited and not pick and choose paragraphs in order to show ones desired result. When I first joined someone was raking Carl over the coals because he made a claim without a citing. I even think you two were involved. Well, dare I say I did my research.

Then you jump in with the Fox news, not a liberal conservative bs which added nothing to the debate. It would be like me jumping in and asking how the whole Granholm, Levin, Stabenow, Kilpatrick, Dingell, Conyers (where are the independents?) thing is working out for ya. Adds nothing to the debate at hand.

Sarcasm aside, I don't need to defend Fox news because their ratings show they are far and away the best news source. When you attack our political identities (liberal, conservative etc) and call us uninformed and blind lemmings it only reflects back. To each his own on opinions but as someone who takes pride and enjoys his research I take offense to that.


"Which is why I'm not liberal, or conservative, or Donkey or Elephant. I'm informed. I don't follow one side blindly if the other side has better things to say. It sounds crazy but it's worth a try!"

I am sure there are folks from both sides who belong to this forum. In these quotes you just called us uninformed blind lemmings who aren't smart enough to form our own opinions. Why do I know Rachel Madow and Keith Olberman are party hacks? Because I have watched them.

 

hey, not every thing on Fox is a lie, but they have had to retract or change their stories at a higher percentage than any other "News" service. They run in the 70% area consistently, while the other "media" outlets run in the 45-55% area. Everybody makes mistakes, they just seem to make more than others.

Of course Fox itself points out that of its 24 hours of FoxNews, only 9 is devoted purely to "NEWS". The other is made up of opinion and entertainment.

 

This might alter your mind a bit, but I doubt it. You are so sure that Obama is wrong that all you can do is hope he fails. That seems a very poor approach to my mind. But, here is another interesting little dab of data for you to puruse. The past history of job creation proves that giving bucks to the corporate world and the fat cats doesn't work, cutting capital gains didn't work, and so it stagnated for a decade. Guess who was in charge for most of the decade in question? (italics from the article, of course)

Let's start with the single most-important economic number: jobs. Over the past 10 years, job creation has been extraordinarily weak. In September, on a seasonally adjusted basis, there were 108.544 million private (nongovernment) payroll jobs in the U.S.—almost precisely the number there were in June 1999. (To see the data, go here and then check "nonfarm private.") In the past decade, in other words, the private sector hasn’t created a single job. That’s poor, especially when you consider that the population grew 9 percent during those years, from 282 million in 2000 to 308 million today.

…Incomes were basically stagnant during the decade while the costs of vital goods and services—education, health insurance, energy—spiked. The latest report from the Census Bureau on income, poverty, and health insurance is full of interesting data which shows that median household income in 2008, at $50,303, was below where it was in 1998. The same report shows (see Table B-1 on page 44) that both the number and the percentage of people living below the poverty line rose, from 11.9 percent in 1999 to 13.2 percent in 2009.

…Since 2000, a period of generally low unemployment, the portion of the population getting insurance directly from the government rose from 24.7 percent to 29 percent, while the portion receiving employment-based coverage fell from 64.2 percent to 58.5 percent. Between 1999 and 2008 (see Table C-1, page 59) of the census report, the population of the U.S. rose 9 percent, but the uninsured population of the U.S. rose 19.5 percent.
　
See:

US Economy over the Decade by Dan Gross - Newsweek 2010

and click on the internal links of the article please.

 

"This might alter your mind a bit, but I doubt it. You are so sure that Obama is wrong that all you can do is hope he fails. That seems a very poor approach to my mind."

This is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. I don't want O'bama to fail. Conservatives don't glorify their government as opposed to the left (see socialists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler,Chavez(current liberals are flocking to see Chavez and Castro), Kim ill Sung, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot. Now there are some glorious leaders - can't ask the 100 million of their own people who were killed. We don't see them as leaders, we see them as working for us.
I want the small businesses in this country to succeed and his socialist mindset is destroying this opportunity. Any honest , even cursory look at his agenda shows he is anticapitalist and antibusiness. Destroy business by taxing and regulating and jobs will appear? Consumer spending-down, business investment-down, government spending way up equals GDP growth??? This would make the Soviets proud.
He was elected without ever having done thing. All people had to go with were his slogans of hope and change. His promises, for example, to start providing jobs immediately has failed miserably and your stats prove it. There is a growing list of things he campaigned on that are all either failing or he hasn't done.

Again , you make statements about what works and what doesn't that are pure left. I can post other studies showing the opposite.
Bottom line - nothing in the US Constitution gives the government the right to take anything from one and redistribute to another. Article One section 8 is not a blank check. We need to get back to this being the country of Opportunity and not the country of equality.
the end

 

I personally think this thread should be removed as Clint and I have a
Clint and Ted show going here.
So, from my side, take it down if that is possible. I think, though I don't know, that Clint might say the same.

 

Also, I will refrain from doing this in the future. Just got caught up in the moment!
Besides, Clint appears to be too hardheaded for me to change

 

Can I just point out the MASSIVE falacy of this statement, you say here 'their ratings show they are...the best news source.' Right, so what you are saying is that because loads of people watch it (ratings) it must be accurate (ergo the 'best' source). Now you must be able to see how crazy this is, apparently because a lot of people watch it, it must be accurate, but since the people watching it get their information from news sources primarily anyhow they are in no real position to know if what they are putting out is accurate or not.

If you were to say 'it has high ratings because they believe it is accurate' you would at least be making a logical statement though it would not in any way support your claim that it is accurate. Let's face it, just because a lot of people watch, endorse or support something doesn't make it good, otherwise Obama must be as fantastic as everyone claimed.

 

I'm tempted..... nah I'll let it go

don't think I could respond to this sort of geniu......nah I'll let it go.

The BBC being the high nahh.....I'll let it go

I'm proud of myself - happy face goes here

 

Well done, what a truly valuable and interesting contribution to the forum, you should be proud of yourself.

 

Apparently the Government is now estimating the unemployment figures will get up to 13%... Yikes!

Yours,

Bill