Unemployment falls below 8

[Predicto]

Predicto!! knew u would show up!

Your graph is really pretty and im glad you posted it! It shows what would be expected after a recession and further proves my point regarding the Messiah. It represents the single worst recovery from a recession in recorded history!!!!!!!!

Heres some numbers that matter: 23 million, 75, and 41....

U like numbers......im sure u will determine what they represent

"Dont piss on my shoes and tell me its raining"

Thanks again!

Please don't call Obama a Messiah. It's disrespectful to those of Christian belief.

And you are otherwise correct. It has been a slow recovery. The fact the the entire world is mired in a deep financial hole makes it very difficult to have an easy recovery.

But the trends are certainly positive.

[Jumbo]

Without addressing any other issues in this thread....yet....u need to quit using u here if u wish to keep posting. I'm completely serious.

Spell the ****ing word out.

[twa]

Excellent.

Now show us where you got the claim of "less private sector jobs than last year".

You know, the claim you made.
.

You are correct I should have put added (though I thought pace was enough, obviously not)

I also assumed you would understand I was referring to rates and averages .

.btw what is the growth rate that economists expect in a healthy recovery?
http://www.wilmingtonbiz.com/industr...ls.php?id=4518

how did wages and hrs fare?

I am more concerned over our economy than ever(regardless of who wins the election)

[Larry]

You are correct I should have put added (though I thought pace was enough, obviously not)

I also assumed you would understand I was referring to rates and averages .

No you didn't.

You assumed that if you had said "The economy isn't getting better as fast as it got better last year" that wouldn't sound as scary as "less private sector jobs than last year, lower GDP, the long tern unemployment continues to rise,earning are down,as are hours".

What a coincidence.

Four claims.

All four of them untrue.

All four of them, you want us to believe that well, you accidentally left out a few words from each of them. And in four out of four cases, the words you accidentally left out just happened to make the claim much more scary looking.

.btw what is the growth rate that economists expect in a healthy recovery?
http://www.wilmingtonbiz.com/industr...ls.php?id=4518

No clue.

I would assume that no two economists agree. (And that's if you could get any of them to actually answer the question at all, as opposed to "different recoveries are different".)

how did wages and hrs fare?

Well, I hear that average wages and hours are down. (And I haven't seen those claims disputed, so I assume they're true".

"Wages and hours"? It would seem to me like they'd both have to be up, since employment is up. Hard to have more employment and not have more wages and hours.

After all, every job added also represents wages and hours added. Since the job added was receiving zero wages and hours, before.

Only way wages and hours could go down, while employment goes up, is a scenario like:

Company hires a new person, working 10 hours, and cuts the schedule of an existing worker by 12 hours

Actually, I think I can calculate earnings and hours, by getting numbers from the BLS web site.

This link only gives me data that goes back a year. And only for "total private" workers

What it tells me was that:

In Oct 11, the average worker worked 34.4 hours, and was paid $798.77.
In Oct 12, the average worker worked 34.4 hours, and was paid $811.15.

(Funny. I thought that average hours and wages were down. But let's skip that.)

Whereas, going to:

• BLS Data
• Seasonally Adjusted.
• Total Private
• All Employees, Thousands
• Total Private
• Retrieve Data

Tells me that:

In Oct of 11, there were 109,781,000 workers
In Oct of 12, there were 111,744,000 workers.

Multiplying "October '11 hours per average employee" by "October 11 number of employees" (and similar multiplications for the other averages) tells me that:

In Oct '11, hours were 3.77B, and wages were $87.7B.
In Oct '12, hours were 3.84B, and wages were $90.6B.

Hours went up by 70 million hours, or 1.9%.
Wages went up by $2.9B, or 3.3%.

But, that's private sector hours and wages. As I understand it, government employment has been moving in the other direction.

[aREDSKIN]

Spell the ****ing word out.

LOL

[twa]

No you didn't.

You assumed that if you had said "The economy isn't getting better as fast as it got better last year" that wouldn't sound as scary as "less private sector jobs than last year, lower GDP, the long tern unemployment continues to rise,earning are down,as are hours".

Nice cutting of

which trends?

We are on pace for

we have different metrics of up, kinda like that deficit spending issue....but I certainly exist within my own perceptions

If ya'll are happy with the results we are getting,then keep on supporting the present crew

add
how will the numbers change when the BLS does it's end of year adjustment for pop increase of .9%?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

[Larry]

Nice cutting of

which trends?

We are on pace for

Yes, you used the word "pace".

When you said that we were going to have lower GDP next year.
When you said that we were going to have fewer jobs next year.
When you said earnings were down.

we have different metrics of up

We have different metrics of honesty.
We have different metrics of reality.

how will the numbers change when the BLS does it's end of year adjustment for pop increase of .9%?

Well, somebody posted a quote on here, saying that when the BLS makes their annual adjustment, that the employment numbers will get better.

I don't remember, but I think it was you.

But please. Feel free to keep spasming around, searching for some "different metric of up", in which "1.96 million more people employed, (in the private sector), than a year ago" is "less private sector jobs than last year".

[Redskins Diehard]

Without addressing any other issues in this thread....yet....u need to quit using u here if u wish to keep posting. I'm completely serious.

Spell the ****ing word out.

Can you apply those rules to the world at large?

[skinsfan_1215]

Can you apply those rules to the world at large?

Jumbo's powers are limited to ES. For now...

[twa]

wouldn't that be this year?
That is the one that usually follows last year

[AsburySkinsFan]

wouldn't that be this year?
That is the one that usually follows last year

The quote feature works wonders for helping people understand what you're talking about. I know you know it's there, just can't quite figure out why you don't use it.

[twa]

sorry...nice color scheme though

Purty

[Thiebear]

Granted the President had a lower dip in jobs than most for the last 80+ years so it should be slower coming back.
I wish he took that Jobs council more seriously. It should be front and Center with Sunday shows and loud political backing.
http://www.jobs-council.com/

[mikered30]

Granted the President had a lower dip in jobs than most for the last 80+ years so it should be slower coming back.
I wish he took that Jobs council more seriously. It should be front and Center with Sunday shows and loud political backing.
http://www.jobs-council.com/

Obama will let the Jobs Council expire.
http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-jobs-co...-politics.html