• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

214,000 new jobs - Rate down to 5.8% - 6 year low - good/bad?

Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132228

214,000 new jobs created but haven't looked to see if they are McService jobs or good, full time type of jobs.

Labor participation rate ticked up a tad.

5.8% Unemployment rate lowest in 6 years.

Good? Bad? Ugly?

Still seems like a recovery only for a select few though.
 
Obama is lying to you, the real rate is like 20% and inflation is running 25% a year.....

Or some herp derp bs. 😉

alternative story,

See how quickly the GOP wins in the mid-terms are paying dividends? Not even in office and the economy is growing faster.
 
income_workmoreearnless-wm.jpg

Engineer said:
... Still seems like a recovery only for a select few though.
Click to expand...


Ya think?

Uno
 
I just saw an analyst on CNN. What she said made a lot of sense. The economy is improving. This is 6 straight quarters that the economy has improved. Fields that pay well are hiring. The unemployment rate for someone with a bachelors degree in October was 3.2%. It was a little over 5% for high school graduates.

Seeing excellent news like this makes me wonder why Dems were shying away from Obama this election. It was as a stupid move.
 
Last edited:
Engineer said:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132228

214,000 new jobs created but haven't looked to see if they are McService jobs or good, full time type of jobs.

Labor participation rate ticked up a tad.

5.8% Unemployment rate lowest in 6 years.

Good? Bad? Ugly?

Still seems like a recovery only for a select few though.
Click to expand...

Jobs are jobs and a McManufacturing job isn't necessarily any better than a McService job. Better to classify what pay level the positions are (entry, professional, manager) and what the skill areas of those hired are to determine how healthy this job growth is. Part-time vs. full-time also doesn't matter quite as much in light of the prior questions - I'd rather a couple hundred web developers get hired part time than a couple hundred unskilled textile workers full time.
 
Since the low end was the hardest hit and slowed to recover. It makes sense it is leading the pack 6 years after the implosion. My understanding are educated skilled workers unemployment rates are quite low. Thus dont expect them to be pushing unemployment down.

I think positive job numbers are good.
 
Genx87 said:
Since the low end was the hardest hit and slowed to recover. It makes sense it is leading the pack 6 years after the implosion.
Click to expand...

IIRC, more middle class jobs were lost during the great recession than any other class and far more lower class jobs have been created in the 'recovery' than middle class jobs.
 
Engineer said:
IIRC, more middle class jobs were lost during the great recession than any other class and far more lower class jobs have been created in the 'recovery' than middle class jobs.
Click to expand...

Real hourly wages have stayed pretty much the same over this time period, which implies that the jobs being replaced are about the same as the ones that were lost.

Hourly-Wages-since-1964-Real.gif


Wages also haven't gone up, which is shitty, but that's a trend that predates this.
 
Sonikku said:
It didn't take long for the Jobs to rebound after the Repubs took back control. 🙂
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, it should be pretty funny to watch them take credit for the same things they were saying was horrendously and fearfully bad because they couldn't take credit for it being out of power at the time.

Well, at least they still have their whipping boy sitting in the White House to blame all of their failures on.

However, just as they've been accusing Obama of being a do nothing President while doing everything within their power to make it be and look that way, the President is now in a similar position to do the same to them.
 
Last edited:
dainthomas said:
They've already said how terrible low gas prices are, so might as well double down and say how bad more jobs are.
Click to expand...

I do get your point 😉. However, they're not going to do that anymore because they are now susceptible for being blamed for things like the jobs situation just as they want to take credit away from Obama and congratulate themselves for it if all goes well as it actually has been when we disregard the propagandistic use of fear that the Repubs have been using to swing votes their way.
 
Last edited:
More jobs; not connected to Obama, he can't take ANY credit for that.

Less jobs; Obama is at fault.

More jobs, but at less pay; yup, Obama is at fault,.. he should do something.

OK, so, Obama should get involved in raising the pay wages for these jo,...; DAT DUR IS COMUNIZUM!!!
 
He is the reality, jobs have moved in the right direction but it's still not good 3% or less is good for working people. Gains traditionally start at low pay positions and filter up. This is not to say minimum wage can be ignored. Also labor participation will continue to be low because the boomers are retiring, its supposed to be this way otherwise we'd all have to literally work until death.
Yes its good the number has gone down and no its still not a good number.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
He is the reality, jobs have moved in the right direction but it's still not good 3% or less is good for working people. Gains traditionally start at low pay positions and filter up. This is not to say minimum wage can be ignored. Also labor participation will continue to be low because the boomers are retiring, its supposed to be this way otherwise we'd all have to literally work until death.
Yes its good the number has gone down and no its still not a good number.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you want unemployment to be 3%? Not only has that number never been achieved in the history of the US to my knowledge, it would be really bad for the US, economically. (we would see huge inflation)
 
Mai72 said:
I just saw an analyst on CNN. What she said made a lot of sense. The economy is improving. This is 6 straight quarters that the economy has improved. Fields that pay well are hiring. The unemployment rate for someone with a bachelors degree in October was 3.2%. It was a little over 5% for high school graduates.

Seeing excellent news like this makes me wonder why Dems were shying away from Obama this election. It was as a stupid move.
Click to expand...

As I understand it that's true if you do not count the labor participation rate.

The number of people with bachelors degrees who are participating in the job market is remarkably lower today. It's roughly 75%. It used to be 82%.
 
eskimospy said:
Are you saying that you want unemployment to be 3%? Not only has that number never been achieved in the history of the US to my knowledge, it would be really bad for the US, economically. (we would see huge inflation)
Click to expand...

Oops I was thinking about my old,old text book. 4.5% is more like it
Yes I would accept some inflation provided wage increases covered it.
 
Sonikku said:
It didn't take long for the Jobs to rebound after the Repubs took back control. 🙂
Click to expand...

That's funny - which means you'll never make it as a politician. You have to sound serious. For example:

Political polling anticipated a Republican takeover of Congress for the November election. As a result of this optimistic outlook, businesses gained confidence that there would be fewer detrimental regulations and policies and were able to start hiring prior to the election.
 
eskimospy said:
Are you saying that you want unemployment to be 3%? Not only has that number never been achieved in the history of the US to my knowledge, it would be really bad for the US, economically. (we would see huge inflation)
Click to expand...

Maybe he meant the Fed should have its rate back up to 3% and then we're in good shape.

Of course that's not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top