Author Topic: December jobs report: now with short term mortgage rate analysis from steve dave  (Read 15675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The1BigWillie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3172
  • Known to be a horrible person... (BORN 7/4/75)
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2014, 02:20:31 PM »
Wait a minute...  I'm starting to think there are people on this board who actually think Obama is HELPING!?!?!?! 
"That's what you get when you let some dude from Los Angles/Texas with the alias Mookfu raw dog it.  Willesgirl can back me up here.  There's a lesson in this.  You only get HIV once; make it count." - Mr. Bread

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2014, 02:26:01 PM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.



Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2014, 02:39:07 PM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.

Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2014, 03:02:49 PM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.

Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.

It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading.  With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2014, 04:11:39 PM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.

Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.

It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading.  With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.

It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.

It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2014, 05:43:18 PM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.

Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.

It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading.  With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.

It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.

It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.

Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading.  The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands). 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

Year

2000   2,639    1,426    63    4,129
2001   2,640    1,428    64    4,132
2002     2,630    1,456    66    4,152
2003     2,666    1,478    65    4,210
2004     2,650    1,473    64    4,187
2005     2,636    1,436    65    4,138
2006    2,637    1,432    63    4,133
2007    2,636    1,427    63    4,127
2008    2,692    1,450    64    4,206
2009    2,774    1,591    66    4,430
2010  2,776    1,602    64    4,443
2011    2,756    1,583    64    4,403
2012    2,697    1,551    64    4,312

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52962
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2014, 05:48:34 PM »
Labor participation has been at or lower than 63% for the last 3 months, currently at all time lows.


Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2014, 08:37:11 PM »
Does BMW know he's posting evidence of how terrible B.O. is?  Like the worst ever based on even his own skewed metrics?

What a dolt.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2014, 11:00:31 AM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.

Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.

It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading.  With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.

It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.

It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.

Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading.  The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands). 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

Year

2000   2,639    1,426    63    4,129
2001   2,640    1,428    64    4,132
2002     2,630    1,456    66    4,152
2003     2,666    1,478    65    4,210
2004     2,650    1,473    64    4,187
2005     2,636    1,436    65    4,138
2006    2,637    1,432    63    4,133
2007    2,636    1,427    63    4,127
2008    2,692    1,450    64    4,206
2009    2,774    1,591    66    4,430
2010  2,776    1,602    64    4,443
2011    2,756    1,583    64    4,403
2012    2,697    1,551    64    4,312


The public sector includes more than just federal employees.  The public sector includes state and local government workers as well.  Your inability to comprehend a simple chart is both sad and hilarious.


 :rolleyes: :lol:

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2014, 11:16:04 AM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.

Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.

It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading.  With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.

It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.

It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.

Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading.  The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands). 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

Year

2000   2,639    1,426    63    4,129
2001   2,640    1,428    64    4,132
2002     2,630    1,456    66    4,152
2003     2,666    1,478    65    4,210
2004     2,650    1,473    64    4,187
2005     2,636    1,436    65    4,138
2006    2,637    1,432    63    4,133
2007    2,636    1,427    63    4,127
2008    2,692    1,450    64    4,206
2009    2,774    1,591    66    4,430
2010  2,776    1,602    64    4,443
2011    2,756    1,583    64    4,403
2012    2,697    1,551    64    4,312


The public sector includes more than just federal employees.  The public sector includes state and local government workers as well.  Your inability to comprehend a simple chart is both sad and hilarious.


 :rolleyes: :lol:

Your charts don't have any context so we are all left guessing what they represent. You are terrible at this.

If your charts include local and state employees, the only conclusion that can be made is the economy is so bad that local and state government have had to lay off hundreds of thousands of employees. Good work libtard.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: December jobs report
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2014, 11:28:56 AM »


Not sure what you're trying to show here. Maybe that this is a jobless recovery, or that there hasn't been a recovery yet? Whatever it is it's not good.

Those are just public sector jobs. It's showing that the government hired more people during previous recessions, while it layed them off during the 2007 recession.

It does say "share of total jobs" which I believe is misleading.  With the huge number of full time jobs going to part time, there may be more jobs, making the increased in government jobs a smaller percentage of total jobs. The sequester has definitely decreased the number of contract gov jobs, so that probably plays into it, but to say there are fewer people working for the government is probably not true.

It says "share of total jobs", but it only is talking about government jobs. The dashed line is where each of those recessions ended, and the chart is displaying the total percentage of government jobs in relation to the number of government jobs at the end of the recession. That is why every line is at 100% at the dashed line.

It looks like Reagan cut jobs, then started hiring workers back to get out of his recession. Bush Sr. just kept hiring workers, sort of a "business as usual" approach. It looks like we hired a bunch of government workers for W's 2001 recession, and chose to freeze hiring for the 2007 recession. Obama has made massive cuts, but that probably has more to do with his inability to work with Congress on getting a budget passed than it does his strategy to revive the economy.

Ok, you're right. But, the graph is still a bit misleading.  The last column below is the total number of federal employees (thousands). 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

Year

2000   2,639    1,426    63    4,129
2001   2,640    1,428    64    4,132
2002     2,630    1,456    66    4,152
2003     2,666    1,478    65    4,210
2004     2,650    1,473    64    4,187
2005     2,636    1,436    65    4,138
2006    2,637    1,432    63    4,133
2007    2,636    1,427    63    4,127
2008    2,692    1,450    64    4,206
2009    2,774    1,591    66    4,430
2010  2,776    1,602    64    4,443
2011    2,756    1,583    64    4,403
2012    2,697    1,551    64    4,312


The public sector includes more than just federal employees.  The public sector includes state and local government workers as well.  Your inability to comprehend a simple chart is both sad and hilarious.


 :rolleyes: :lol:

Your charts don't have any context so we are all left guessing what they represent. You are terrible at this.

If your charts include local and state employees, the only conclusion that can be made is the economy is so bad that local and state government have had to lay off hundreds of thousands of employees. Good work libtard.


The top of the graph says "public sector employment since the start of last four recoveries."  Public sector employment covers federal, state, and local municipalities.  I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand simple concepts.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.


Okay, now you're starting to get it.  Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector. 

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.


Okay, now you're starting to get it.  Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector.

Actually, neither. Just a product of a poor economy on the local level. The federal level jobs are still at a positive growth since 2008.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
BMW is such a useful drone for the thinkprogress.com, et al., propaganda machines.

What a cute little lemming.  Hey lemming, watch out for that canyon!!!  Oh, too late.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.


Okay, now you're starting to get it.  Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector.

Actually, neither. Just a product of a poor economy on the local level. The federal level jobs are still at a positive growth since 2008.


Nope.  The private sector has added millions of jobs over the past four or five years.  Conservative states are lowering taxes and cutting funding for things like education, which is why the public sector has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since '09.  The slashing of state and local government funding is hurting the overall health of the economy and keeping the unemployment rate artificially high.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52962
    • View Profile
What kind of jobs Beems?   Good paying, full time jobs, or part time jobs with no benefits?

What percentage of these "millions of jobs created" were full time jobs with benefits such as healthcare etc. etc??




Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Where's my short term mortgage rate analysis? This is seriously relevant to me RIGHT NOW.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Your chart shows how bad the economy is (still) and that we came out of all other recessions much faster and stronger than this one. Your hero has failed and his policies are lining the pockets of his rich campaign contributors.


Okay, now you're starting to get it.  Now let's see if you can figure out which party is responsible for those cuts to the public sector.

Actually, neither. Just a product of a poor economy on the local level. The federal level jobs are still at a positive growth since 2008.


Nope.  The private sector has added millions of jobs over the past four or five years.  Conservative states are lowering taxes and cutting funding for things like education, which is why the public sector has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since '09.  The slashing of state and local government funding is hurting the overall health of the economy and keeping the unemployment rate artificially high.

Healthy private sector job growth is a lie.

state and local funding is cut because tax revenue is way down and they can't print money to make up the difference, so they MUST cut jobs or claim bankruptcy.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
What kind of jobs Beems?   Good paying, full time jobs, or part time jobs with no benefits?

What percentage of these "millions of jobs created" were full time jobs with benefits such as healthcare etc. etc??








http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php



Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52962
    • View Profile
That's interesting, still doesn't really answer the question, and it still doesn't make up for the current universal consensus on job creation which currently says, ". . . far short of where it needs to be".

The only reason the unemployment rate is "falling" is because the DoL keeps removing people from the workforce.




Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Where's my short term mortgage rate analysis? This is seriously relevant to me RIGHT NOW.

NM, I read some articles and am good now I guess.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Where's my short term mortgage rate analysis? This is seriously relevant to me RIGHT NOW.

NM, I read some articles and am good now I guess.
[/quote

what did you decide to do?
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."