Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, David Karp, Founder of Tumblr?
Way before Yahoo! came calling, we spoke with David Karp to find out how he launched the platform at the ripe old age of 20. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Unemployment drops to 7.7%

Unemployment drops to 7.7%

Post Reply Back to Forums

1–25 out of 73 messages

Author	Message

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 12/7/2012 10:29:34 AM \| show profile \| flag this post That's lower than when George W. Bush left office. And, we added more net jobs last month despite Hurricane Sandy. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-adds-146k-jobs-133151784.html That should only add to growing optimism among Americans, and help the President finally get his policies past obstructionists in the Republican Party: "Obama's approval rating stands at 57%, the highest since May 2011, when U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, and up 5 percentage points from before the election. And 42% say the country is on the right track, up from 35% in January 2009. " http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/07/3131071/ap-gfk-poll-obama-approval-rises.html

cruiser	Posted - 12/7/2012 12:10:36 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Before you start the party and pour the bubbly take time to realize that MOST of those new jobs are in the government (federal, state, local) and government jobs are a net DRAIN on the economy. They add NOTHING to the GDP. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/73-new-jobs-created-last-5-months-are-government Because it has no income sources of its own, government CANNOT sustain itself. It MUST tax its citizens. The bigger the government the bigger the tax bill and the FEWER gainfully employed people there are to pay it. As Lady Margaret Thatcher once said, "Pretty soon you run out of other peoples' money."

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 12/7/2012 12:24:08 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Your link goes to a biased site, cruiser. I can't find statistics on the BLS website supporting the claim in the link. It would be important to know what kind of government workers were hired -- such as teachers coming in August and September, road commission crews for summer, etc. The context is missing from that site's story.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 12/7/2012 1:26:33 PM \| show profile \| flag this post The BLS figures have shown... that layoffs of government workers -- mainly teachers, police and firefighters along with reductions in the federal workforce -- have been the largest sector holding back job growth for months. The private sector has been ADDING jobs under Obama's policies. The public sector has been CUTTING jobs -- though not by much this past month. From the actual BLS announcement today (emphasis added): "Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, transportation and warehousing, financial activities, and GOVERNMENT, showed LITTLE CHANGE in November." http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm I though you ONLY relied on BLS numbers when talking about unemployment, cruzo. Guess not.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 12/7/2012 1:33:24 PM \| show profile \| flag this post BTW, cruzo... The federal workforce is only 1% of the U.S. population under Obama. The same as it was under Ronald Reagan. http://zfacts.com/node/441

cruiser	Posted - 12/7/2012 2:17:19 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "Your link goes to a biased site" Leave it to the idiotic left wingers to attack the messenger when they clearly CANNOT refute the message.

cdnreprtr	Posted - 12/7/2012 2:21:59 PM \| show profile \| flag this post thats's unpossible!!1! everyone but the GOP and conservatives and Ayn Rand are tax leeches that don't create jobs! I bet they're also secret muslims, and when they're not contaminating our precious bodily fluids with fluoride they're burning down Christmas trees and nativity scene in their hate-filled War On Christmas! A radio talk show host told me, so it must be true. WHY WON"T THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ELITES REPORT THIS!!!1!!1

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 12/7/2012 3:39:20 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Whether it's biased or not... it's 100% wrong. The facts are that most of the jobs lost in the past year have been government jobs. And, as I pointed out, cruzo, the BLS says the government sector was relatively unchanged in November -- so the partisan site you cited is either wrong, incompetent, biased or just outright lying. Odd that you would cite them. For months you've argued that you only cite BLS figures when talking about unemployment. Now, we find out you rely on partisan sites instead.

mpdodgson	Posted - 12/7/2012 3:52:07 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Oh, don't rain on his parade cruise wants the unemployment numbers to be bad because it fits his narrative. If it's bad for the United States as a whole?? Who cares?!? Of course the BLS numbers are correct, and I personally thought it would be worse after 'Sandy', but thank God I was wrong. But I will go way out on a limb here and predict BELOW 7% by the beginning of Summer. That'll really piss off the wingnuts.

cruiser	Posted - 12/7/2012 4:20:59 PM \| show profile \| flag this post People who are unsophisticated and unskilled in language arts are the most likely to not understand what's being communicated...and to misquote what they attempt to convey. The FACT is I didn't cite a site. I cited BLS figures...and they indicate that 73 percent of the jobs created in the last five months were GOVERNMENT jobs, federal, state and local. The numbers cited were the total number of jobs created in that time period and the percentage that were government jobs. Either you totally misunderstood or you're trying to dishonestly muddy the waters so your president won't look bad in his negotiations with Boehner and the GOP. Since you obviously have difficulties with English. ..you didn't even recognize that it WAS a complete sentence I posted (subject, verb and object) I'm not terribly surprised that you cannot accurately assimilate the facts I presented in this thread.

mpdodgson	Posted - 12/7/2012 4:57:30 PM \| show profile \| flag this post One more time; THIS is why your side lost. You can't do basic math, and you 'flip-flop' whenever the mood suits you. "The FACT is I didn't cite a site" YES YOU DID. You almost never do it, but then when you actually docite a site?? You try to lapse into "Romnesia" and try to erase your past even though it's right there in front of our faces. "73 percent of the jobs created in the last five months were GOVERNMENT jobs, federal, state and local." First of all--SO WHAT?? These are cops, firemen, teachers, water and sewage workers, garbage men, prison guards, mailmen, unemploymnet and tax paper-pushers, first responders, the friggin National Guard, and everyone else in the military--these are people in YOUR community going back to work. And that's a BAD THING?!?!?! And second, IF you read the whole site you cited--which you said you didn't do--this comment struck me: "They have cherry picked the data to make it look as bad as possible. They could have picked a starting month so the number of government jobs went down. What matters is the trend, and the trend is very much down from the Bush highs of 2007." Whoa. A reasonable comment?? etaoin is correct (par for the course there) "Government jobs" are no higher than they were decades ago. And besides all that--jobs are jobs--and the work has to be performed {even if it's the local County Deeds office or public school janitor} Good news for the country, and our fellow Americans btw, should be celebrated--not spit on. Oh yea, one last thing--I hate it when you wingnuts do this: "...so your president won't look bad in his negotiations with Boehner and the GOP." He's your president too. Grow up. Live with it.

cruiser	Posted - 12/7/2012 6:15:24 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "you actually docite{sic} a site" Let me lay this out for you very slowly so you'll understand it: What I cited were the figures from the BLS. They just happened to be listed on the site I referenced. They are available elsewhere but were nicely summarized there. Once again, it is the NUMBERS that are important. But, of course, you left wingers want to quarrel with the messenger because you cannot refute the message. Typical.

cruiser	Posted - 12/7/2012 6:18:40 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "He's your president too" Not until he begins to represent ME. The very least he could do is compromise and not insist on having everything his way. He's alienating half the country.

cruiser	Posted - 12/7/2012 6:20:43 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "read the whole site you cited which you said you didn't do" Did NOT say that...you're a liar.

orthicon	Posted - 12/7/2012 7:55:51 PM \| show profile \| flag this post he's the president of the united states..which means.. he's the president of all of us..whether you agree with him or not..you don't get to pick and choose.. well, you do, but only on the first tuesday in november every four years.. we chose.. he won.. he's your president as well as mine.. deal with it..

mpdodgson	Posted - 12/7/2012 8:35:46 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Great, I'll do the same "Let me lay this out for you very slowly so you'll understand it:" (you condescending turd) What you cited was a site. A source to back up what you were saying. Period. That's what you did (and good for you) Why the hell are you so ashamed of it? All we were doing was pointing out that "nicely summarized" in your mind means they were cherry picked numbers. Five months out of years. And when you say "Once again, it is the NUMBERS that are important"--while that's true... JOBS ARE JOBS. That's why I pointed out that while YOU may think these jobs are nothing more than a "DRAIN" on the economy--they are JOBS in the local economy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the local cop, fireman, EMT, and sewage worker pay local, state, and federal taxes??? Cracks me up everytime I hear a Republican Congressman whining how the "Government doesn't create jons"--when the only job HE HAS is a government one. Second point: "He's your president too" "Not until he begins to represent ME" Well, thank God that's not part of his job description. His job is to the best of his Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He's doing just fine at that and the majority of the country agrees with me. Agreeng with you is not part of the oath.

cruiser	Posted - 12/8/2012 12:17:09 AM \| show profile \| flag this post See? YOU'RE not being rational.

mpdodgson	Posted - 12/8/2012 12:55:15 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Thank you orthicon; But he won't listen. One can only speculate IF Romney did win with the same numbers. Then (and I'm just just guesing here) it would be 'mandate this' and 'mandate that', and 'the voters have spoken....JUST LOOK at the Electoral College!! ..LANDSLIDE!!! and they CLEARLY rejected this Socialist type of road we've laid down... Yea, but that didn't happen. So we'll argue about something else. Like a lib's grammar. Or the unemployment rate isn't REALLY going down. (skwered numbres--and pollnumbers too, don't foerget that) Or--here's an oldie but goodie--HE may be the President--but he's not MY president. But but but..."See? YOU'RE not being rational." Yes I am. He is YOUR president, too. And he's a damn fine one to boot. Mt Rushmore caliber? Certainly not. But he won. (against all odds). Until some people come to grips with that reality, I suspect we will have disagreements.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 12/8/2012 10:58:04 AM \| show profile \| flag this post * Leave it to the idiotic left wingers to attack the messenger when they clearly CANNOT refute the message. * Yeah, right, cruiser -- that's the way to do it: Throw garbage out there, and if nobody can refute it, then it must be true. As for "attacking the messenger," YOU'RE "idiotic" if you don't vet the sources of your information for their biases. And as long as you continue labeling me politically when you know nothing about me and slinging around insulting adjectives, you'll continue looking like a rude, pompous individual with the intellectual capacity of a bedbug.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 12/8/2012 11:14:37 AM \| show profile \| flag this post * The FACT is I didn't cite a site. I cited BLS figures...and they indicate that 73 percent of the jobs created in the last five months were GOVERNMENT jobs, federal, state and local. * You didn't cite BLS figures. Your link went to a biased website. Post your link to the BLS site. In news reporting, we use original sources -- even average little guys like you who allow biased websites to dictate your loud opinions should check back to the original figures. You inform yourself so poorly, cruiser, I feel sorry for you at this stage of your life. The only thing you continue to provide that's of value on this forum is the underlying message that media have done a terrible job of showing average readers and average audiences how and where to verify information for themselves.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 12/8/2012 11:30:02 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Oh, and brainiac, for the record: Politically, I'm an independent. Not the lowercase "i." It means my vote is up for grabs. Bullying, belligerence and twisted "facts" don't earn my vote -- they repel it. Keep it in mind the next time you feel compelled to continue behaving like a jerk.

cruiser	Posted - 12/8/2012 11:52:19 AM \| show profile \| flag this post I don't care what letter follows your name I characterized you as a left winger based on your self-posted self-descriptions. If you EVER become balanced I'll notice and probably engage with you differently...but it'll depend on your attitude. Oh, and I DID vet the numbers. I chose the summary I posted because it was convenietly laid out. You're just complaining because you're too lazy to vet the numbers yourself...or you don't want to believe them so you're pretending they don't exist.

mpdodgson	Posted - 12/8/2012 1:59:32 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Grateful; It's only going to get worse The December Unemployment report will be even better. I'm still predicting 'below 7' by summer. Yea, yea, yea, it's good for the country as a whole, so for people like cruize, it's pure hell. And the 'government jobs' thing still sticks in my craw. They're still jobs of course, but some bizarre reason being a secretary for the Labor Department is a drain on the economy, but being a secretary for Schwab is an honest job.

mpdodgson	Posted - 12/8/2012 2:17:54 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Oh, and about those government jobs A friend of mine reminded me of this. Couple of months ago on one of the Sunday shows: "Flabbergasted Rand Paul Learns Public Employment Decreased Under Obama" One of the least appreciated but easily-confirmed facts about the current state of the American economy is that the number of Americans employed by the government has gone down under President Obama. But apparently this is news to one the Republican Party’s most prominent tea party conservatives. During a roundtable discussion on ABC this morning over the size and adequacy of the 2009 stimulus, a flabbergasted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) asked economist Paul Krugman if he was actually arguing that government employment had gone down under Obama: PAUL: The thing I don’t understand is that you’re arguing that the government sector is struggling. Are you arguing that there are fewer government employees under Obama than there were under Bush? KRUGMAN: Of course. That’s a fact. That’s a tremendous fact. PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under President Obama. KRUGMAN: If government employment had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Bush, we’d have a million and a half more people employed right now — directly. PAUL: Are there less people employed or more people employed now by government? Less." (But but but we know....ANYTHING, including a better unemployment rate, makes 'that guy' in the WH look like he's doing his job. And we can't have that)

cruiser	Posted - 12/8/2012 2:33:13 PM \| show profile \| flag this post If you understood ANYTHING about economics you'd know I'm right. In order to pay a secretary at the Labor Department money must first be extracted from the money supply by taxation. A secretary at Schwab is paid out of new capital generated by the production of goods and services. The dollars that find their way back into the economy from the Labor Department secretary are heavily discounted. For every dollar of taxes collected, significantly more than half of it gets eaten up by the bureaucracy that is Washington, DC. It is NOT counted in the GDP. That means when the Labor Dept secretary spends money only fifty cents or less of each dollar is returned to the economy. Conversely, when the Schwab secretary spends money EVERY dollar adds to the GDP. Her pay is derived from new capital created by the sale of goods and/or services...in other words, the free market or capitalism. This is why an ever-increasing government is undesirable...even unsustainable. And this is why Boehner and the GOP MUST oppose Obama's reckless call for $1.6 TRILLION in new taxes and his refusal to commit to firm, quantifiable spending cuts.