• 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.

US Job Numbers SUCK

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Didn't see this posted today so I thought I'd throw it down here. Frankly, the USA job number are awful. Canada created more jobs than the USA, talk about depressing.

I just want to add that I don't think that this is Obama's fault, rather, it's the current state of global affairs. Many more right wing people on this board have said how Reagan changed the mentality of the United States, and that Obama should be able to do the same. I would argue that Reagan changed the mentality by selling the United States future, which is pretty hard to fix.

Anyways, back to the point, this is really bad news.

This is the fault of everyone who thought government was a solution to the economy. As if every action it takes is not a leech off the economy. The more you do to 'fix' it, the more you're doing to HARM it.

All the stimulus and printing and government spending is Obama's fault. It's the Democrat's fault, and the Republican's fault. They are all in cahoots in the belief that government is the solution to everything, and if we just spend and print some money then everything will be alright.

Well it's not alright, and now we have a currency under fire with prices rising in addition to the bubble bust. Stop 'fixing' things and it will recover in spite of your 'best' efforts.
 
This is the fault of everyone who thought government was a solution to the economy. As if every action it takes is not a leech off the economy. The more you do to 'fix' it, the more you're doing to HARM it.

All the stimulus and printing and government spending is Obama's fault. It's the Democrat's fault, and the Republican's fault. They are all in cahoots in the belief that government is the solution to everything, and if we just spend and print some money then everything will be alright.

Well it's not alright, and now we have a currency under fire with prices rising in addition to the bubble bust. Stop 'fixing' things and it will recover in spite of your 'best' efforts.

What a heap of shit post. Federal, local and state gov'ts have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs this year. Stimulus spending has slowed down all year from their 2009 and 2010 highs. You're full of crap if you think bad job creation right now is the gov'ts fault, that's just conservative canard ideology. It's not based in any verifiable reality other than the preconceived one you want to believe.
 
Where are the jobs Boener!

Least productive congress since the do-nothing congress during Harry Trumans term.
 
Didn't see this posted today so I thought I'd throw it down here. Frankly, the USA job number are awful. Canada created more jobs than the USA, talk about depressing.



I just want to add that I don't think that this is Obama's fault, rather, it's the current state of global affairs. Many more right wing people on this board have said how Reagan changed the mentality of the United States, and that Obama should be able to do the same. I would argue that Reagan changed the mentality by selling the United States future, which is pretty hard to fix.

Anyways, back to the point, this is really bad news.

Oh, we've gone from "It's Bush's fault" to "It's Reagan's fault". Got it.
 
Where are the jobs Boener!

Least productive congress since the do-nothing congress during Harry Trumans term.

lol...

Okay, here's the current scorecard:

At Fault:

Bush
Reagan
Boehner

Not At Fault:
Obama
Clinton
Pelosi
 
That's the thing about bubbles and ponzi schemes - they tend to go bust, no matter how hard the powers that be try to preserve the status quo.
 
And so are yours. The basis for my opinion is this, the unscrupulous pursuit of profit has sold off American jobs for the sake of a few dollars here and there. Well, those missing jobs are costing the country a lot more than the sum of those extra profits.

I mean seriously, wouldn't America love to have those jobs back now? Reagan wasn't solely responsible, this is the culmination of the last 25 years bad decisions.

And were you complaining during that "unscrupulous" pursuit of profit when unemployment was 3%, middle class increased at their highest margins ever, Cold War was broken, etc.?
 
And were you complaining during that "unscrupulous" pursuit of profit when unemployment was 3%, middle class increased at their highest margins ever, Cold War was broken, etc.?

I would argue that is was a house of cards, built on the idea that the good times were going to last forever, and big surprise, they didn't.

The really big issue started to happen when the middle class started over extending themselves and the proliferation of home equity loans.
 
We're not looking for rocket scientists...just people with good organization skills, good ability to learn, and good reasoning skills. Nobody like that is applying because they've already figured out that they're more or less better off on unemployment.


And you expect people like that to work for less than minimum wage if you had your way?
 
All we need is another scheme and the unemployment rate can drop, dot coms, house flipping, junk bonds, mortgage crisis. C'mon guys.. whats the next big "thing"

we can all get in on it, abuse the hell out of it and first one out before the collapse wins
 
He started the major deregulation of the US financial sectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Deregulation under Reagan ...
The question of how much of the overall trend of deregulation can be credited to Reagan remains contentious.
The economists Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales point out that many of the major deregulation efforts had either taken place or begun before Reagan (note the deregulation of airlines and trucking under Carter, and the beginning of deregulatory reform in railroads, telephones, natural gas, and banking). They argue for this and other reasons that "the move toward markets preceded the leader [Reagan] who is seen as one of their saviors. Economist William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and later chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes that deregulation had the "lowest priority" of the items on the Reagan agenda given that Reagan "failed to sustain the momentum for deregulation initiated in the 1970s" and that he "added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover."
By contrast, economist Milton Friedman has pointed to the number of pages added to the Federal Register each year as evidence of Reagan's anti-regulation presidency (the Register records the rules and regulations that federal agencies issue per year). The number of pages added to the Register each year declined sharply at the start of the Ronald Reagan presidency breaking a steady and sharp increase since 1960. The increase in the number of pages added per year resumed an upward, though less steep, trend after Reagan left office. In contrast, the number of pages being added each year increased under Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and others.
The apparent contradiction between Niskanen's statements and Friedman's data may be resolved by seeing Niskanen as referring to statutory deregulation (laws passed by Congress) and Friedman to administrative deregulation (rules and regulations implemented by federal agencies). In sum, a large study by economists Paul Joskow and Roger Noll concludes that the changes in economic regulation simply do not reflect a sudden ideological change in federal executive branch views ... many of the significant changes in economic regulation began during the Carter administration and were initiated by liberal Democrats ... it is not particularly productive to refer to a generic deregulation movement or to think of it as a consequence of the election of Ronald Reagan.
I'd argue that you are wrong in your assessment.
 
All we need is another scheme and the unemployment rate can drop, dot coms, house flipping, junk bonds, mortgage crisis. C'mon guys.. whats the next big "thing"

we can all get in on it, abuse the hell out of it and first one out before the collapse wins

God forbid we manufacture anything and have a place for the semi-skilled to be employed.
 
lol...

Okay, here's the current scorecard:

At Fault:

Bush
Reagan
Boehner

Not At Fault:
Obama
Clinton
Pelosi

Good thing this isn't about assigning blame, else this would look like just another thread blaming everything bad on Republicans whilst grasping everything good as evidence of Democrats' almightiness.
 
Your blame is misplaced. Stop looking at the "evil capitalist megacorp owners". They don't employ the majority of Americans anyway. Small businesses do. And this economy, Bush's economy, and Obama's policies are NOT condusive to small business growth.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that policies hostile to small businesses are a serious problem. But I disagree that offshoring isn't also a serious problem. My father is a small business owner in Michigan, and a sizeable portion of his income comes out of the pockets of the auto industry. Do you think there would be five/six times as many people living in Michigan as Wisconsin without GM, Ford, and Chrysler? (The answer to that question is in Michigan's emigration rate.)

How many millions of small businesses are there in the US? What would happen to employment numbers if even half of them were to hire one more person?

This is something that my father laments constantly. His business has been in a position for years to hire an unskilled worker and be able to pay them $20K/year for 30 hours/week. He doesn't, because paying benefits would make the employee too expensive.

Nobody like that is applying because they've already figured out that they're more or less better off on unemployment.

This is the heart of the problem. No one is ashamed to suckle from the government teat anymore.

Blaming megacorps offshoring work that most Americans wouldn't want to do anyway is short-sighted and just plain wrong. It won't fix what's at the heart of the problem (entitlement attitude and overreaching policy by the Federal government).

Why do you think megacorps started offshoring to begin with? NAFTA and other trade agreements simply made it easier for them to do so. The reason small businesses don't offshore is simple: they can't.
 
The private sector added 57,000 jobs last month, accounting for all the jobs created, with government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at local and state governments.

So the private sector is growing, the public sector is shrinking and Republicans are... upset?
 
Like I said, I don't think it's fair to assign blame to Obama.. not everything is about assigning fault.

Wait.... what? Not everything is about assigning fault, yet in your very first post, the OP, you assigned blame to Reagan. Nice. 😱
 
The economy is being transferred to the third world and remaining service sector jobs are going into the hands of low-wage third-world immigrants. Both parties are to blame and neither has a real solution to the problem. Raising or lowering taxes is not the solution at all.
 
So the private sector is growing, the public sector is shrinking and Republicans are... upset?

The problem isn't that the public sector is shrinking, or that the private sector is growing, the problem is that the private sector is not growing nearly fast enough to keep up with the population, forget about trying to bring down the unemployment numbers.
 
Back
Top