new poll

[oldman420]

 

[conjur]

?

 

[viivo]

No, the number of hookers hired by RNC delegates will have no impact.

And a for me.

 

[maluckey]

How about twelve consecutive months of job growth, a GDP that out paces inflation, and 5.4 percent unemployment rate (lower than under Clinton in 1996). That speaks better than taking one month of job creation out of context.

 

[DoubleL]

Originally posted by:viivo
No, the number of hookers hired by RNC delegates will have no impact.

And a for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What would you have said if it was. Will 144,000 jobs lost have a impact, Hookers hired, How old are you?

 

[Red Dawn]

Any Job creations and Economic Groth is the result of the Privte Sector, not the Administration. Same goes for the Economic Growth under Clinton.

 

[oldman420]

is it true that they are mostly low wage jobs?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: maluckey
How about twelve consecutive months of job growth, a GDP that out paces inflation, and 5.4 percent unemployment rate (lower than under Clinton in 1996). That speaks better than taking one month of job creation out of context.

We've had the weakest job recovery since the start of a recession since the 1930's.

Job Watch

Some more

Even a bit more

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: oldman420
is it true that they are mostly low wage jobs?

I can't speak for most, but I'm in a lower paying job now. After a plant closing, and a clinic closing, I am now working for less, and worse hours. I hope it's temporary as it should be, but it's getting tough. So for me, yes, it's a low wage REALITY.

 

[yankeesfan]

how can there be no impact when there are 144,000 jobs?

 

[Moonbeam]

Because impact implies something more than a drop in the bucket.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: oldman420
is it true that they are mostly low wage jobs?

I can't speak for most, but I'm in a lower paying job now. After a plant closing, and a clinic closing, I am now working for less, and worse hours. I hope it's temporary as it should be, but it's getting tough. So for me, yes, it's a low wage REALITY.

Sorry, but better get used to it especially if Bush does manage to Buy the Electoral vote for another 4 years as you are now living the new Neocon American Dream.

 

[nageov3t]

150,000 jobs barely keeps up with population growth.

 

[oldman420]

900000 the total number of jobs lost since bush took office

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Because impact implies something more than a drop in the bucket.

well a drop in the bucket is more than "there will be be no impact whatsoever", which 40% of people still voted for. if only 1 job was created, there should still be no votes for that answer....:roll:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Because impact implies something more than a drop in the bucket.

well a drop in the bucket is more than "there will be be no impact whatsoever", which 40% of people still voted for. if only 1 job was created, there should still be no votes for that answer....:roll:

There wasn't an option stating.... "A drop is better than nothing... I guess"

 

[oldman420]

i gave that as an option so that people could display the dissatisfaction they feel or the praise they wish to provide on the other end.
it is true that that is a lot of jobs and lets say in a small city would make or break the economy.
but think about it how many unemployed people are not even part of that number they only count the registered unemployed people so they are a conservative guess i bet unemployment is closer to 7 percent vs the 5 the govt claims

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I believe the numbers were 108,000 service jobs, 22,000 manufacturing jobs, and something else. So, the low paying service jobs accounted for most of the new jobs created.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: oldman420
i gave that as an option so that people could display the dissatisfaction they feel or the praise they wish to provide on the other end.
it is true that that is a lot of jobs and lets say in a small city would make or break the economy.
but think about it how many unemployed people are not even part of that number they only count the registered unemployed people so they are a conservative guess i bet unemployment is closer to 7 percent vs the 5 the govt claims

You bet, so we should base our opinions on your estimations? Sorry, that's not how it works. Unemployment is calculated the same way it always has been, so trying to fudge numbers behind the scenes doesn't really accomplish anything other than trying to skew peoples' views to support your agenda.

The fact that jobs are now paying lower wages is also a myth. Factcheck.org has had a spot on this for quite a while, titled 'Kerry's Dubious Economics,' stating that the growth of jobs with higher wages is proceeding along well, while jobs with lower wages are not growing at all. I can't get on the site now for some reason, so I can't link to it directly.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I believe the numbers were 108,000 service jobs, 22,000 manufacturing jobs, and something else. So, the low paying service jobs accounted for most of the new jobs created.

Yup.

People are gonna' realize at some point that the main problem with our economy is not the number of jobs but the quality of jobs.

 

[Harvey]

Will there be fries with that?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: oldman420
i gave that as an option so that people could display the dissatisfaction they feel or the praise they wish to provide on the other end.
it is true that that is a lot of jobs and lets say in a small city would make or break the economy.
but think about it how many unemployed people are not even part of that number they only count the registered unemployed people so they are a conservative guess i bet unemployment is closer to 7 percent vs the 5 the govt claims

You bet, so we should base our opinions on your estimations? Sorry, that's not how it works. Unemployment is calculated the same way it always has been, so trying to fudge numbers behind the scenes doesn't really accomplish anything other than trying to skew peoples' views to support your agenda.

The fact that jobs are now paying lower wages is also a myth. Factcheck.org has had a spot on this for quite a while, titled 'Kerry's Dubious Economics,' stating that the growth of jobs with higher wages is proceeding along well, while jobs with lower wages are not growing at all. I can't get on the site now for some reason, so I can't link to it directly.

Are you denying that the numbers are incorrect? Forget the fact that this is how they come up with them and this is how they always have. We realize that. It still does not mean it is an accurate representation of the number of unemployed Americans. So quit using them to support YOUR agenda when you know they are wrong.

How many people in this country, percentage wise, do you think are smart enough to realize that the Unemployment numbers don't count people that have already run through their benefits or did not qualify for them in the first place? I would wager not even 50%. So please, spare us the skewing peoples' views to support your agenda bullsh!t.

The important thing is a great deal of the voting public actually think only 5% of the country does not have work right now and think that Bush is doing a great job in creating jobs. This as you know and can deny all you want, is simply not the case.

Edit: I also think that the REAL number would be closer to 10% than the 7% Oldman mentioned. Sad indeed.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Are you denying that the numbers are incorrect? Forget the fact that this is how they come up with them and this is how they always have. We realize that. It still does not mean it is an accurate representation of the number of unemployed Americans. So quit using them to support YOUR agenda when you know they are wrong.

How many people in this country, percentage wise, do you think are smart enough to realize that the Unemployment numbers don't count people that have already run through their benefits or did not qualify for them in the first place? I would wager not even 50%. So please, spare us the skewing peoples' views to support your agenda bullsh!t.

The important thing is a great deal of the voting public actually think only 5% of the country does not have work right now and think that Bush is doing a great job in creating jobs. This as you know and can deny all you want, is simply not the case.

Edit: I also think that the REAL number would be closer to 10% than the 7% Oldman mentioned. Sad indeed.

You state that the data may be skewed - then you must also admit any other data taken with this same system is likely skewed in the same manner. Therefore, you cannot use the data to argue either viewpoint. Note that I didn't state whether or not I thought the jobs would have any impact, nor did I argue that this was an important statistic. I simply stated that bastardizing data is not the way to achieve anything. You can pull out any number for what you think the *real* unemployment number is, but that's just not how it works. Otherwise, no historical data collected using this methodology is meaningful at all, and I could argue the same unemployment numbers during Clinton's, Bush I's, Reagan's, or anyone else's presidency. The numbers are what they are, regardless of what you think they should be.

 

[Cobalt]

I say no because the new jobs being creating are of low wage jobs, people are going back to work but making much less than they used to.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: loki8481
150,000 jobs barely keeps up with population growth.

That's right. It seems like only a small percentage of people on these threades realize that. 144000 more jobs is just standing still.