Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:25 AM - Edit history (1)

wages would not be so high and there would be a bounty of unemployed. Better late than never folk should agitate and vote for unions and higher wages. If we can just peel off the exploited from the GOP. Which I think we can do.

Wow.

Thanks, President Obama, and I mean that.

Of course, with a functional Congress, there might have been some amendments made to the original legislation so that it worked even better for more people.

Seriously, though, when can we look to the popular media to stop each and every Republican politician who inveighs against "job-killing Obamacare"? It's as patently untrue as saying the sun rises in the west.

...Debby Downer down-thread to remind us that things are just horrible. Do you think he thinks America has her back against the mat?


JURY: The OP is good news. The person to whom I am referring wants to make sure we keep focused on what they think is the bad news. My post is jmho.

and this is reality.



http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

People have lost decent paying jobs for low wage jobs. This isn't an improvement...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/28/3431351/recovery-jobs-low-wage/

explores such things in their calculations.

We can thank Clinton for the changes in how unemployment are calculated. If you can't actually change things and the changes you are making from your neoliberal philosophy are actually making things worse, just lie, massage the numbers, and change the rubrics so it appears that things are better than they actually are.

My son was making what I did in the early '80s until I got him in the Union.

which lists 3.824 million low wage jobs created versus 4.885 million mid and high level jobs created, from the recession to February 2014.

It clearly shows 3.8 million created on the low end vs 2.2 on the middle and 2.6 on the high.

versus 3.8 low wage jobs created. Therefore, most of the job creation (most meaning the majority), was in mid and high wage jobs.

as the dropping of long-term unemployed from the U-6 was 16 years prior and led to no particular skewing of data.

My inclination is to see the "gig economy", which has been the fastest growing sector since the recession, and generally off the books and off the radar. If people are working, but not at an officially counted job for some time, they are counted as long-term unemployed. That would imply there is essentially underground economy, which is nothing unusual in most countries, and not necessarily many people's last choice.

btw, this is also reality:



14 jobs created since the bush recession. Wage growth hasn't been good, but the median wage has improved only slightly. Which is to say, the average worker makes about the same, but there are 14 million more average workers.

The UE-relevant survey does not count "official" jobs. The basic question that determines employment status is simply whether the respondent has work or not. There are no follow up questions on type of work and no identification of job status. Both a priest and a mafia hitman would properly and simply answer "yes" and be counted as working.

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Shadowstat's "math" only works if you posit about 27 million workers, the entire population of Texas from newborn babes to senile centenarians, who really want to work, and can work, but have somewhat incongruously not gotten off their asses to submit one application or make one call looking for work in the last 12 months. Close to 10% of our entire population, and way more of our labor force, who have simply disappeared and are receiving no benefits and making no attempt whatsoever to work.

In other words, doomer bullshit.

doesn't actually provide the same level of research, stats, and knowledge but uses memes like 'invisible Texas' and 'doomer bullshit', I know the only one full of it is not Shadowstats.

Thanks for playing though.

What are they doing to live and why do they refuse to try to seek work even once in a year if they want work and can work?

I avn't even thank you for playing if you don't actually address the huge problems with such "numbers".

in rebuttal but you did try to sneak pass me the same non-argument as before.

You gotta work on that.

If you assume nonagenarians, HS sophomores, stay at home parents, the wealthy, the disabled, and students should be slaving at the salt mine then yes they are all unemployed.

If you understand the concept of labor force as opposed to population, then it's yep laughable bullshit.

It's almost like people forget why they are called "boomers" when the "unemployed" numbers started spiking 60-odd years after the baby boom for a start.

Yeah, sure.

Right wing talking point. Full stop.

edit: didn't intend to be hostile, you know what I'm saying here. I understand you weren't invoking the RW talking point.

I agree with you entrirely, except maybe thinking sensible people might do better to become MORE hostile to the doomer RWNJ enablers who parrot such nonsense, because the 90+MM unemployed "data" DOES include all those people, being based on assuming anyone over 16 is either working or "unemployed".

I know why Trump et al use the 90MM BS. I don't know why supposed liberals do. Since I hope they don't really think every frail senior, quadriplegiac, family caregiver and student should be working at a paid job, the only possible conclusions are that they want to make Obama look bad, or to vindicate laziness or incompetence in those who should and could be working but are not doing so by choice, pretending that they would be competing with many more people than they really are for each of the 5MM+ open jobs.

Or Muslin as they say in Florida.

Jobs have actually declined over the past 10-15 years. Don't believe the numbers the government feeds you. They are more cooked that an old stew. Real jobs -- not marginal, part time jobs -- have been in steady decline.