Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
torso
()
Date: October 05, 2012 08:05PM
"The U.S. created 114,000 jobs in September, close to the Wall Street consensus of 115,000 jobs. The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 8.1%. It's not a great number, but not an awful number, and reflects a stubbornly slow economy growing at about 1.7% a year, according to Wells Fargo. "
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/05/sept-jobs-perfi/1613569/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/05/sept-jobs-perfi/1613569/
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
asfk
()
Date: October 05, 2012 08:14PM
this is my opinion:
40% illegal immigrant jobs
30% low wage jobs
15% seasonal and temporary jobs
15% skilled jobs (good paying jobs)
40% illegal immigrant jobs
30% low wage jobs
15% seasonal and temporary jobs
15% skilled jobs (good paying jobs)
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Angerman
()
Date: October 06, 2012 05:53PM
That's about all we CAN add in America anymore. We don't make crap, we consume and consume. America doesn't read, watches crap on TV all the time, needs a dozen devices to watch the same YouTube, Facebook and Hulu tripe all day not to mention you better have 99 games loaded up and ready to go. If you're under 35, every other word is LIKE or LITERALLY. If you're under 25 you're screwed, no jobs for you.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
obamacare
()
Date: October 06, 2012 07:23PM
What gets me is the idea that someone is a child at age 25 according to Obama. I would hide in shame if I hadnt gotten out of the house by age 19. I think I would rather tell a prospective female I lived with three other slob room mates rather than I still live at home with mommy and daddy.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
NAWT
()
Date: October 06, 2012 07:40PM
Yeah, the Republicans really fucked the economy up pretty good didn't they?!
Thank God we have 4 more years of Obama to fix things. Hopefully the Repubtards in the House and Senate will get smacked down in the election so the Democrats can get some shit done and really fix the economy.
Thank God we have 4 more years of Obama to fix things. Hopefully the Repubtards in the House and Senate will get smacked down in the election so the Democrats can get some shit done and really fix the economy.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
agree x7
()
Date: October 06, 2012 08:12PM
.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
more barry more
()
Date: October 06, 2012 08:16PM
We do need four more years of Barry. After spending another five trillion we didnt have in the first place, unemployment should be at 7%. Cant wait to hear your response when into his seventh year he is still blaming Bush. Let the good times roll.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Michelle O
()
Date: October 06, 2012 08:19PM
If Obama doesnt win it will be because this nation is still full of racists. Thats it.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
yomommaisaho
()
Date: October 06, 2012 08:23PM
that's mostly misleading BS i and 5 coworker just got laid off i also know a few others that are in the same situation.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
barry math
()
Date: October 06, 2012 08:45PM
The BLS was caught cherry picking which industry they were collecting data on. They used restaurants, hardly a place to land a job with a secure high paying future but the manufacturing jobs were showing horrible numbers so guess which ones they used.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
native 1963
()
Date: October 06, 2012 08:45PM
The unemployment rate is 14.6% don't believe this crap. The only choice is to give Romney a chance. Obama is not the man for the job. plan and simple
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
4 more years, II
()
Date: October 06, 2012 08:51PM
> The unemployment rate is 14.6%...
Cool number!
Uh...it come from anyplace?
> ...don't believe this crap.
I won't.
Cool number!
Uh...it come from anyplace?
> ...don't believe this crap.
I won't.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
native 1963
()
Date: October 06, 2012 09:05PM
4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The unemployment rate is 14.6%...
>
> Cool number!
>
> Uh...it come from anyplace?
>
> > ...don't believe this crap.
>
> I won't.
Yea it;s 14.6% take your head out of your ass and wake up. Why do you believe the government reports?
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The unemployment rate is 14.6%...
>
> Cool number!
>
> Uh...it come from anyplace?
>
> > ...don't believe this crap.
>
> I won't.
Yea it;s 14.6% take your head out of your ass and wake up. Why do you believe the government reports?
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Reality
()
Date: October 06, 2012 09:30PM
4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The unemployment rate is 14.6%...
>
> Cool number!
>
> Uh...it come from anyplace?
>
> > ...don't believe this crap.
>
> I won't.
Actually, it's 14.7%. That's by the more complete U6 number:
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The unemployment rate is 14.6%...
>
> Cool number!
>
> Uh...it come from anyplace?
>
> > ...don't believe this crap.
>
> I won't.
Actually, it's 14.7%. That's by the more complete U6 number:
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
King of Pain
()
Date: October 06, 2012 11:57PM
Looks good to me.
The president is headed for re-election
It's all good.
The president is headed for re-election
It's all good.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
bubble baths
()
Date: October 07, 2012 12:00AM
torso Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The U.S. created 114,000 jobs in September, close
> to the Wall Street consensus of 115,000 jobs. The
> unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 8.1%. It's not
> a great number, but not an awful number, and
> reflects a stubbornly slow economy growing at
> about 1.7% a year, according to Wells Fargo. "
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinanc
> e/2012/10/05/sept-jobs-perfi/1613569/
people think bubbles are normal. 7 trillion dollars of residential real estate debt added in just 5 years, and we've treading water since. it takes about 1.5 trillion dollars in federal debt to just equal the same stimulus.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The U.S. created 114,000 jobs in September, close
> to the Wall Street consensus of 115,000 jobs. The
> unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 8.1%. It's not
> a great number, but not an awful number, and
> reflects a stubbornly slow economy growing at
> about 1.7% a year, according to Wells Fargo. "
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinanc
> e/2012/10/05/sept-jobs-perfi/1613569/
people think bubbles are normal. 7 trillion dollars of residential real estate debt added in just 5 years, and we've treading water since. it takes about 1.5 trillion dollars in federal debt to just equal the same stimulus.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Black robe
()
Date: October 07, 2012 08:16AM
I don't think we would be having this discussion at all if George Bush hadn't tanked the economy, gotten us into two long wars, spent trillions we didn't have, and reduced tax revenues.
Look what the moron from Texas did with his tax cuts. Unbelievable.
What is Romney's solution - more tax cuts.
No thanks! We're not stupid.
Attachments:
Look what the moron from Texas did with his tax cuts. Unbelievable.
What is Romney's solution - more tax cuts.
No thanks! We're not stupid.
Attachments:
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Education is key
()
Date: October 07, 2012 12:55PM
Reality Wrote:
> Actually, it's 14.7%. That's by the more complete
> U6 number:
>
> U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally
> attached to the labor force, plus total employed
> part time for economic reasons, as a percent of
> the civilian labor force plus all persons
> marginally attached to the labor force.
>
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
The table you are referring to is called the "ALTERNATIVE measures of labor underutilization" for a reason, and the figure you cite has as much meaningful value as the one listed in the CIA's World Factbook for "Manpower available for military service: males age 16-49: 73,270,043". It's the kitchen sink of employment numbers.
Just look at the definition given for the category "all persons marginally attached to the labor force: those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months." Essentially, these are people that would take a job if offered one, but aren't even looking otherwise. Fine rock-ribbed conservative that you doubtlessly are, you would have to agree that this doesn't quite compare with "unemployed, but actively seeking work" which is reflected in "official unemployment rate" of 7.8%.
Now, for what it's worth, what's being overlooked in this discussion but nevertheless is crucial to our future short and long term is the data of BLS's Table A-4, "Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment", http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm.
The current unemployment rate for persons without a high school diploma is 11.3%; for high school graduates, 8.7%; "some college" is 6.5%; and for college graduates, 4.1%. Clearly, those with an education are less impacted and rebound more quickly than those unprepared for the 21st economy. Apple used to manufacture its devices in Silicon Valley. Now they're made in Zhengzhou, which ain't exactly a suburb of San Jose. The engineering and programming position, however, have stayed in Cupertino, CA.
What are each candidate's plan for higher education? Mr. Obama's is in place. He eliminated the old student loan system in 2010, in which the government subsidized banks and other institutions so that they would provide government guaranteed student loans to college students. Removing the middleman and directly loaning the money to students will save $61 billion over 10 years, and this savings has been used to vastly ramp up the Pell grant program for needy students.
Mr. Romney has stated that he feels the private sector would do a better job of managing student loans and wants to return to the system wherein banks are paid by the government to make loans that the government backs. How hard is it to loan out government money to students at a profit without any risk in the event of a default? Mr. Obama, the obvious "socialist", wants to use taxpayer money to directly ensure college is accessible for every capable student. Mr. Romney's plan is to (re-) privatize profit and socialize risk, giving the $61 billion back to the bankers who have done so much for the country in the last 10 years.
Education is about a lot more than funding and tuition. But providing a means for every capable student to attend college and be in the group prepared for the 21st century should be axiomatic. You know, we've actually done this before. It was called the GI bill, and it educated the engineers, technicians, and managers who put man on the moon and built the computer industry. Lose that innovative edge, and we'll be 50th in the world in everything but debt by 2050.
> Actually, it's 14.7%. That's by the more complete
> U6 number:
>
> U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally
> attached to the labor force, plus total employed
> part time for economic reasons, as a percent of
> the civilian labor force plus all persons
> marginally attached to the labor force.
>
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
The table you are referring to is called the "ALTERNATIVE measures of labor underutilization" for a reason, and the figure you cite has as much meaningful value as the one listed in the CIA's World Factbook for "Manpower available for military service: males age 16-49: 73,270,043". It's the kitchen sink of employment numbers.
Just look at the definition given for the category "all persons marginally attached to the labor force: those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months." Essentially, these are people that would take a job if offered one, but aren't even looking otherwise. Fine rock-ribbed conservative that you doubtlessly are, you would have to agree that this doesn't quite compare with "unemployed, but actively seeking work" which is reflected in "official unemployment rate" of 7.8%.
Now, for what it's worth, what's being overlooked in this discussion but nevertheless is crucial to our future short and long term is the data of BLS's Table A-4, "Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment", http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm.
The current unemployment rate for persons without a high school diploma is 11.3%; for high school graduates, 8.7%; "some college" is 6.5%; and for college graduates, 4.1%. Clearly, those with an education are less impacted and rebound more quickly than those unprepared for the 21st economy. Apple used to manufacture its devices in Silicon Valley. Now they're made in Zhengzhou, which ain't exactly a suburb of San Jose. The engineering and programming position, however, have stayed in Cupertino, CA.
What are each candidate's plan for higher education? Mr. Obama's is in place. He eliminated the old student loan system in 2010, in which the government subsidized banks and other institutions so that they would provide government guaranteed student loans to college students. Removing the middleman and directly loaning the money to students will save $61 billion over 10 years, and this savings has been used to vastly ramp up the Pell grant program for needy students.
Mr. Romney has stated that he feels the private sector would do a better job of managing student loans and wants to return to the system wherein banks are paid by the government to make loans that the government backs. How hard is it to loan out government money to students at a profit without any risk in the event of a default? Mr. Obama, the obvious "socialist", wants to use taxpayer money to directly ensure college is accessible for every capable student. Mr. Romney's plan is to (re-) privatize profit and socialize risk, giving the $61 billion back to the bankers who have done so much for the country in the last 10 years.
Education is about a lot more than funding and tuition. But providing a means for every capable student to attend college and be in the group prepared for the 21st century should be axiomatic. You know, we've actually done this before. It was called the GI bill, and it educated the engineers, technicians, and managers who put man on the moon and built the computer industry. Lose that innovative edge, and we'll be 50th in the world in everything but debt by 2050.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Reality
()
Date: October 07, 2012 02:28PM
Education is key Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's 14.7%. That's by the more
> complete
> > U6 number:
> >
> > U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons
> marginally
> > attached to the labor force, plus total
> employed
> > part time for economic reasons, as a percent of
> > the civilian labor force plus all persons
> > marginally attached to the labor force.
> >
> > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
>
> The table you are referring to is called the
> "ALTERNATIVE measures of labor underutilization"
> for a reason, and the figure you cite has as much
> meaningful value as the one listed in the CIA's
> World Factbook for "Manpower available for
> military service: males age 16-49: 73,270,043".
> It's the kitchen sink of employment numbers.
>
> Just look at the definition given for the category
> "all persons marginally attached to the labor
> force: those who currently are neither working
> nor looking for work but indicate that they want
> and are available for a job and have looked for
> work sometime in the past 12 months." Essentially,
> these are people that would take a job if offered
> one, but aren't even looking otherwise. Fine
> rock-ribbed conservative that you doubtlessly are,
> you would have to agree that this doesn't quite
> compare with "unemployed, but actively seeking
> work" which is reflected in "official unemployment
> rate" of 7.8%.
I'm well aware what the U-6 number is. I was simply providing the basis for the 14.7% number that people posted. The number itself is no more "skewed" than the head-line U-3 number. You just need to understand what's being counted - which is why I posted the definition. It's just a more comprehensive view of the total workforce and it's become more in view during this particular recession given the extended duration and many falling off or giving up who are no longer counted in U-3. It is what it is.
I'm not a Republican or Democrat so I'll leave the arguments about the rest of your post to someone else.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's 14.7%. That's by the more
> complete
> > U6 number:
> >
> > U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons
> marginally
> > attached to the labor force, plus total
> employed
> > part time for economic reasons, as a percent of
> > the civilian labor force plus all persons
> > marginally attached to the labor force.
> >
> > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
>
> The table you are referring to is called the
> "ALTERNATIVE measures of labor underutilization"
> for a reason, and the figure you cite has as much
> meaningful value as the one listed in the CIA's
> World Factbook for "Manpower available for
> military service: males age 16-49: 73,270,043".
> It's the kitchen sink of employment numbers.
>
> Just look at the definition given for the category
> "all persons marginally attached to the labor
> force: those who currently are neither working
> nor looking for work but indicate that they want
> and are available for a job and have looked for
> work sometime in the past 12 months." Essentially,
> these are people that would take a job if offered
> one, but aren't even looking otherwise. Fine
> rock-ribbed conservative that you doubtlessly are,
> you would have to agree that this doesn't quite
> compare with "unemployed, but actively seeking
> work" which is reflected in "official unemployment
> rate" of 7.8%.
I'm well aware what the U-6 number is. I was simply providing the basis for the 14.7% number that people posted. The number itself is no more "skewed" than the head-line U-3 number. You just need to understand what's being counted - which is why I posted the definition. It's just a more comprehensive view of the total workforce and it's become more in view during this particular recession given the extended duration and many falling off or giving up who are no longer counted in U-3. It is what it is.
I'm not a Republican or Democrat so I'll leave the arguments about the rest of your post to someone else.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
4 more years, II
()
Date: October 07, 2012 02:41PM
SO...during the prior administrations they quoted the U-6 number when talking about jobs, huh?
Okay, I can live with that.
(...)
Okay, I can live with that.
(...)
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Reality
()
Date: October 07, 2012 03:01PM
4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SO...during the prior administrations they quoted
> the U-6 number when talking about jobs, huh?
>
> Okay, I can live with that.
>
> (...)
At times, yes, absolutely they have. When it went over 10% in 2003/2003 the Dems were crying about "double-digit unemployment" under Bush.
It's always reported along with all of the rest. As above, the reason that it's gotten more attention now, beyond the partisan bs, is because of the duration (i.e., the longest time to recovery ever by a large margin).
-------------------------------------------------------
> SO...during the prior administrations they quoted
> the U-6 number when talking about jobs, huh?
>
> Okay, I can live with that.
>
> (...)
At times, yes, absolutely they have. When it went over 10% in 2003/2003 the Dems were crying about "double-digit unemployment" under Bush.
It's always reported along with all of the rest. As above, the reason that it's gotten more attention now, beyond the partisan bs, is because of the duration (i.e., the longest time to recovery ever by a large margin).
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
American't
()
Date: October 08, 2012 07:35AM
Ha, I like this quote...
Mr. Romney's plan is to (re-) privatize profit and socialize risk, giving the $61 billion back to the bankers who have done so much for the country in the last 10 years.
Mr. Romney's plan is to (re-) privatize profit and socialize risk, giving the $61 billion back to the bankers who have done so much for the country in the last 10 years.
Re: 7.8% looking good or not?
Posted by:
Guaranteed Student Debt
()
Date: October 08, 2012 08:07AM
American't Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha, I like this quote...
>
> Mr. Romney's plan is to (re-) privatize profit and
> socialize risk, giving the $61 billion back to the
> bankers who have done so much for the country in
> the last 10 years.
Notice how no matter who wins, average citizens lose? Either way, if you get a student loan, you're screwed. The only difference is whether the private bankers get to make some money off of you, or if the taxpayers get to make money off of you.
Under Obama, the government lends the money. Under Romney, some bank lends you money.
You still cannot discharge that debt if you go bankrupt. No matter who lends the money, the government is never on the hook for defaults, because YOU CANNOT DEFAULT on student loans.
This is a perfect example of how this whole two-party scam is really controlled by the people that have already won the economic game, and how they rig the game so it's hard for anyone else to join them.
You might as well just paint your face in your team colors, get drunk and whoop and holler for your favorite party. Anyone who believes one party is going to look out for their best interests and the other one is the cause of their problems is just an gullible team fanboy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha, I like this quote...
>
> Mr. Romney's plan is to (re-) privatize profit and
> socialize risk, giving the $61 billion back to the
> bankers who have done so much for the country in
> the last 10 years.
Notice how no matter who wins, average citizens lose? Either way, if you get a student loan, you're screwed. The only difference is whether the private bankers get to make some money off of you, or if the taxpayers get to make money off of you.
Under Obama, the government lends the money. Under Romney, some bank lends you money.
You still cannot discharge that debt if you go bankrupt. No matter who lends the money, the government is never on the hook for defaults, because YOU CANNOT DEFAULT on student loans.
This is a perfect example of how this whole two-party scam is really controlled by the people that have already won the economic game, and how they rig the game so it's hard for anyone else to join them.
You might as well just paint your face in your team colors, get drunk and whoop and holler for your favorite party. Anyone who believes one party is going to look out for their best interests and the other one is the cause of their problems is just an gullible team fanboy.