Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Unemployment lowest since 2008 (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Remember when the Bush numbers were in the 5's and the lefties called them all McJobs
jamny
Footballguy
I think it'll be like 20 years, after the baby-boomers die off (I'm on the tail end of that)before we come close to getting back to good times. But that's not what I'm asking. You, and many others, criticise people who aren't happy with the way things are going. We want it now, now, now! Are you saying you are 100% fine with the way things are going with the economy, there should be no criticism, let's just let things work out. I think if Obama is re-elected, we are headed into a lost decade. I have no confidence that he can turn this around.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
I don't criticize people who aren't happy with the way things are going. I just point out what I think are unreasonable expectations given the circumstances. I'm fortunate to still have a job, so I guess that "skews" my thinking somewhat. I'm more concerned about the rest of the platform.
lod01
Footballguy
Senile old coot using twitter while shopping for his casket:
Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE), caused a stir after the numbers were released, tweeting "Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can't debate so change numbers."
Just die already.
Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE), caused a stir after the numbers were released, tweeting "Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can't debate so change numbers."
Just die already.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
Regardless of what people think of the numbers (i.e. legit, not legit, etc.), that number can't do anything but help Obama.
To be fair, a big part of the reason people may have unreasonable expectations is because we were given unreasonable expectations by this administration. I know, the standard response is "but things were much worse than we thought", however that doesn't change what was said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Go DC Yourself
Footballguy
Make up your mind, too high, or too precise? Only so many shooters can fit on a grassy knoll.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
What was also said referred to different directions on social issues as well. See "rest of platform" above.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Still on pace to add less jobs than last year.
See title of thread and pretty much every post in it, including yours. Weren't you just talking about unreasonable expectations with jobs and the economy?
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Not sure what you are suggesting here.Every 1 increase in part time jobs equates precisely to a 1.5 increase in household survey jobs.
It doesn't take a lot of shooters on a grassy knoll to make those numbers too high.
It just takes one person changing one cell value in a spread sheet, and the numbers in other cells increase as well.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Any article that begins "Our lawless president" is certainly one that I'll take as serious, unbiased and completely factual.Our tax dollars hard at work..I can't believe people still think either party gives a bleep about the average Joe.
You're correct, and as with pretty much all of these reports they contain both positives and negatives, but he's also correct. Most people have no interest in digging behind the headline number, nor would they understand it if they did, so this pretty much has to be a positive for Obama politically.Still on pace to add less jobs than last year.
Last edited by a moderator:
E Street Brat
Footballguy
So Obama has worked his way back up to Bush at his worst?
America #### YEAH
America #### YEAH
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
Yes. I meant that I'm not willing to change horses mid stream/recovery when I take into account what comes with each candidate.
No. From twitter: The scorecard: Private sector job growth under Bush: -646k. Under Obama: +967k.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's an editorial from Investors.com, a non-partisan site. Feel free to debunk any of its claims as non-factual if you can.Any article that begins "Our lawless president" is certainly one that I'll take as serious, unbiased and completely factual.Our tax dollars hard at work..
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Only if the media spins it as a positive. Which they will, of course.You're correct, and as with pretty much all of these reports they contain both positives and negatives, but he's also correct. Most people have no interest in digging behind the headline number, nor would they understand it if they did, so this pretty much has to be a positive for Obama politically.Still on pace to add less jobs than last year.
Go DC Yourself
Footballguy
But St. Rand Paul says that government jobs have skyrocketed under Obama, so this can't be true.
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
The real number will go up once they adjust it next Thursday, as they always do.
Okay, but again, we were talking about unreasonable expectations for jobs and the economy, not who you're voting for. Nevermind I guess.
Go DC Yourself
Footballguy
It's an IBD editorial. If you reprint something here, does that make it from the FFA?It's an editorial from Investors.com, a non-partisan site. Feel free to debunk any of its claims as non-factual if you can.Any article that begins "Our lawless president" is certainly one that I'll take as serious, unbiased and completely factual.Our tax dollars hard at work..
That would help him as well, but most people will just see the 7.8% number without any spin one way or the other and view it as a positive.Only if the media spins it as a positive. Which they will, of course.You're correct, and as with pretty much all of these reports they contain both positives and negatives, but he's also correct. Most people have no interest in digging behind the headline number, nor would they understand it if they did, so this pretty much has to be a positive for Obama politically.Still on pace to add less jobs than last year.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
It's good, but we'll have too see how they reconcile the 114K number with the 800+k nimber
NYG Endzone
Footballguy
I think you're forgetting GW Bush was in fact dumb as a rock but he was handed the aftermath following the dot com crash and the fall after the climax of the housing bubble his predecessor put in motion. Assuming your quoted numbers are accurate.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Huh?It's an IBD editorial. If you reprint something here, does that make it from the FFA?It's an editorial from Investors.com, a non-partisan site. Feel free to debunk any of its claims as non-factual if you can.Any article that begins "Our lawless president" is certainly one that I'll take as serious, unbiased and completely factual.Our tax dollars hard at work..
2. For all the liberals who refuse to accept information outside of government approved sources, "At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices."
He must have access to those unskewed numbers.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
So Bush should blame Clinton for his predicament....but Obama shouldn't blame Bush for his?
NYG Endzone
Footballguy
They all made mistakes. It seems everyone blames Bush, but all three played a role.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Gotcha....I don't disagree with that. Every President leaves the next one a gold platter covered with crap. But....the general consensus amongst Republicans seems to be that Obama(and his supporters) shouldn't blame Bush for ANYTHING that has influenced Obamas first term. If Romney wins....It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans back off their "You can't blame the former President" memo if Romney's America struggles.
snogger
Footballguy
1. Huh?It's an IBD editorial. If you reprint something here, does that make it from the FFA?It's an editorial from Investors.com, a non-partisan site. Feel free to debunk any of its claims as non-factual if you can.Any article that begins "Our lawless president" is certainly one that I'll take as serious, unbiased and completely factual.Our tax dollars hard at work..
2. For all the liberals who refuse to accept information outside of government approved sources, "At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices."
Nothing to see here.. Move along
Jim Cramer was hilarious this morning.Romney would be getting an economy on a better path than either Bush or Obama, IMO.
The Commish
Footballguy
You guys understand that THESE types of jobs, the ones you are scoffing at right now, are the exact kind of jobs Romney's talking about creating with his trickle down approach right? I swear the partisan hackery knows no bounds.Only if you get excited about part time work paying less than $8 per hour in place of full time work paying over $12 per hour with benefits. Yeah, great.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
two serious questions:
1. What is the reconciliation between the two two numbers - the big one and the 114K?
2. What does this mean for QE3? Is it relevant?
1. What is the reconciliation between the two two numbers - the big one and the 114K?
2. What does this mean for QE3? Is it relevant?
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Then you'll probably have a lot of Obama supporters claiming that he did all the heavy lifting and Romney just reaped the benefits.
lod01
Footballguy
Bush was the biggest turd ever. Even Jimmy Carter produced a 27% return in the stock market over his 4 year debacle. Bush? The market mirrored him: LOSER.
timschochet
Footballguy
Here is a very specific reason why the re-election of Barack Obama will lead to an almost immediate increase in job losses: under the agreement reached last summer, if no further bipartisan agreement is reached, there will be, for the first time, significant cuts to defense spending. This means existing projects will be closed down or reduced, and base closures as well. Keep in mind that, in many communities, these projects and bases not only provide jobs directly, but also help to support the private economy.
I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect. That's not entirely his fault: IMO, it is much more the fault of Republican intransigence. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It also doesn't mean for sure that a Romney presidency will be able to avoid the coming impasse. But I believe his chances of doing so are higher.
I can pretty much guarantee that if Obama wins, there will be no bipartisan agreement, and these cuts will go into effect. That's not entirely his fault: IMO, it is much more the fault of Republican intransigence. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation. It also doesn't mean for sure that a Romney presidency will be able to avoid the coming impasse. But I believe his chances of doing so are higher.
squistion
Footballguy
1. There are two completely seperate surveys that the BLS conducts to derive these figures. The unemployment rate is derived from the household survey and attempts to sample the amount of people entering/leaving jobs and the labor force. The establishment survey is where you get the payroll figures and it is a sample of the people being added to or taken away from the payrolls of businesses. These surveys have very different ways and methods of measuring the labor markets and can often diverge. One example would be that employment at start-ups would typically be picked up in the household survey before the establishment survey. You can find out more here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm1b. Alternate private sector surveys are conducted by Gallup and ADP, among others, that can provide a reasonable check to the data published by the BLS.
2. A falling unemployment rate will (all else equal) lessen the duration of QE3 and Zero Interest Rate Policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
To be fair, if you were to list every problem we face followed by the commnet "the President doesn't have anything to do with that" you'd be right more often than if you followed every problem with "it's all the President's fault"You never believe Obama has anything to do with anything.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
No you can't.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hence the words "pretty much." Since I still expect Obama to win, I hope I'm wrong about this.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
There's too many members of Congress getting too many contributions from defense contractors for them to let this actually happen.
igbomb
Footballguy
I think you're wrong here. If Obama wins, it will send a crystal clear message to the Repubs that this strategy of refusal to play doesn't work with the voters.Plus, these deadline issues always get resolved, no matter how poorly, before the catastrophic deadline is reached. No one wins if we go off the fiscal cliff, and they will undoubtedly find a way to just kick the can down the road a bit further.
Similar threads
