THE Unemployment Thread pt 2 (merged)

by **gollum** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 18:48:03

I'm no fan of Obama or Bush (especially bush) but I don't think either of them can be soley blamed for our current collapes. The decisions that are causing this to happen were made over a matter of decades.

by **deMolay** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 19:08:28

The question was are you better off under Hope and Change.

by **Schweinshaxe** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 19:12:09

Didn't you know, deMoron, that every time you bash the Libruls, God kills a kitten?

Barry has been good to us Europeans. Thanks to him, we protestants have been able to escape the satanic claws of the Catholic Church. We are now allowed to worship in our own way (and masturbate and wear a condom) without being persecuted.

Thank you President Barry Obama and King Gustavus Adolphus for fighting back the oppressive Catholics!

And thank you Barry for inventing Dolby noise reduction!

by **gollum** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 19:37:52

I'm no worse off then I was 3 years ago under Bush.

by **Lore** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 19:45:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gollum', 'I')'m no worse off then I was 3 years ago under Bush.

by **deMolay** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 20:26:54

Your welcome Swineaxe, I mean PigKnuckle. Now carry on with your masturbations, try not to injure yourself.

by **Sixstrings** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 20:32:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', 'T')he question was are you better off under Hope and Change.

by **dukey** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 20:48:37

The jobs have moved to china. And they are never coming back.

by **deMolay** » Fri 03 Dec 2010, 21:16:38

Dukey so you don't see any great improvement coming in the unemployment prospects or standard of living? I think it is going to be a long slow recovery as well. Kinda has the same feeling as in the 70's when we had Stagflation. A lot of unemployed, we just don't seem to have the high inflation yet. Hope we don't.

by **Plantagenet** » Sat 04 Dec 2010, 00:58:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gollum', 'I')'m no worse off then I was 3 years ago under Bush.

by **Cog** » Sat 04 Dec 2010, 05:55:06

I would have to say that personally I am better off now then I was three years ago. That is because I've managed to hold onto a job and pay down a lot of debt. I don't see recovery as possible with the arrival of Peak Oil. BAU will not continue regardless of who gets elected next time.

by **timmac** » Sun 06 Mar 2011, 23:53:46

http://www.examiner.com/jobs-in-washington-dc/february-2011-unemployment-rate-a-false-sense-of-security

I truly beleave the Fed is really gone deep in lies about the new lower unemployment rate of 8.9%, the local news in both Nevada and California paints a much worse situation about unemployment and all I here from other family members and friends is that it's getting worse but our Fed says its getting better ??

Absolute BS and why do they keep lieing..

by **kiwichick** » Mon 07 Mar 2011, 00:07:11

cause if they told the truth wall street would crash

and that would give the rest of us a bad case of the flu

by **Plantagenet** » Mon 07 Mar 2011, 00:13:25

Its truly stupid for the Obama administrant to cook the books so blatantly. If you want businesses to invest and create jobs, undermining the integrity of the economic numbers is not a good thing to do. :roll:

by **Daniel_Plainview** » Mon 07 Mar 2011, 00:28:54

Obama is desperate and doesn't want to go down in history as the worst US President of all-time.

by **TonyPrep** » Mon 07 Mar 2011, 05:02:44

Check out the BLS site for historical employment data (select the "Total" "Employed" data, in Table A-1). There were slightly more people employed, in June of 2003, than there were in February this year. That doesn't seem too bad except that there are 13 million more people (around 8 million extra workers) now and the level of the economy (supposedly) is much higher.

So maybe some official data is OK but it is spun to make it seem far, far, better than in is.

I'm not sure how to find out (if it's possible, at all) how many jobs are part time and how many jobs would classify as low paid but it would be interesting to see the historical data on that. I suspect that this grim BLS statistic is even worse when those factors are taken into account.

by **Pops** » Mon 07 Mar 2011, 09:21:46

It's just a poll, they use "seasonal adjustment" on top of whatever error inherent in the poll to avoid the headlines, here is Gallops unadjusted poll, which looks not much different than last year:

I think the seasonal adjustment is because the news media can only spend a tiny amount of time on stuff like this (they have an important interview with Charlie Sheen after all) and the adjustment avoids the seasonal "Jobs Are Up...Jobs Are Down" headlines...

That's OK in "normal times" but I don't think these are normal times. I hate to sound like a doomer but I think people should be hanging on to cash if they can and certainly not go more in debt because they read the headlines and think Good Times Are Here Again.

by **dinopello** » Mon 07 Mar 2011, 11:18:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') hate to sound like a doomer but I think people should be hanging on to cash if they can and certainly not go more in debt because they read the headlines and think Good Times Are Here Again.