[onlooker]

Yes, Bush the First planned it, Clinton implemented it, then Bush the Second and O continued it.

Of those four, I suppose if you want to cherry pick one to be particularly blame worthy, I suppose that's your prerogative.

It would be nice if we could go back in time and convince Clinton not to change in BLS unemployment stats and please please please don't end Glass-Steagal, but that isn't possible.

The only possible way to get it fixed now is for either Obama now or Clinton after Jan. 2016 to reform the BLS counting system so the unemployment numbers more accurate reflect the number of people who are unemployed.

Its pretty ridiculous to have NPR reporters telling unemployed people in New Hampshire that we're at full employment---but the current BLS unemployment number distorts reality for people who don't dive into the numbers.

We might as well have Baghdad Bob doing our economic reporting under the current system.


Our lead story tonight is from the Obama administration---the US has achieved full employment. Anyone still saying they need a job will be harassed by the nearest NPR reporter..

The BS meter is really spiking now that this year is the political campaign and election one

[onlooker]

Keeping in line with what I am saying, the US jobless rate is being interpreted by the pundits as a sign of renewed confidence luring people back to searching for work. How about a simpler explanation, their unemployment benefits have run out.
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-unemp ... 64513.html

[Plantagenet]

Jobs surge reflects move to labor force dominated by part-time low-paying jobs

part-timers-might-account-for-labor-force-surge

Gosh this is great. Obama is running around saying how great the US economy is doing because we're at 5% unemployment, but if you drill deeper most new jobs are part time and pay crappy wages.

Thanks Obama! But a shift in the US workforce from mostly full-time jobs to mostly poorly paid part-time jobs isn't the kind of change we were hoping for!

[copious.abundance]

Keeping in line with what I am saying, the US jobless rate is being interpreted by the pundits as a sign of renewed confidence luring people back to searching for work. How about a simpler explanation, their unemployment benefits have run out.
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-unemp ... 64513.html

If that were the case, you would see a big drop-off in continued unemployment claims recently (these are people who are still on unemployment and still collecting claims). Unfortunately for your theory, that's not the case.



In fact, there aren't all that many people who are still on unemployment anymore for that to even potentially make a difference. Looking at a longer-term chart, continued claims are now approaching levels last seen in 1999/2000. But when you adjust for population growth and size of the labor force, the number is even lower.

[copious.abundance]

Gosh this is great. Obama is running around saying how great the US economy is doing because we're at 5% unemployment, but if you drill deeper most new jobs are part time and pay crappy wages.

Thanks Obama! But a shift in the US workforce from mostly full-time jobs to mostly poorly paid part-time jobs isn't the kind of change we were hoping for!

Wrong-O! The number people working part-time has basically been flat for 6 years:



While the number of people working full-time, after bottoming out in early 2010, has risen by 13 million since then and is now at record levels:

[Plantagenet]

Wrong-O! The number people working part-time has basically been flat for 6 years:

Why do you think thats a good thing?

If you were even slightly honest you would see that your own graph shows that the number of people in part-time jobs jumped dramatically during the 2008-9 level and has stayed elevated ever since that time. If you actually knew anything about economic numbers you'd know that part-time employment typically jumps up during a recession at the same time that full time job numbers drop----but then the part-time employment level usually comes down as the recovery takes hold and more full time jobs open up. The fact the number of part time jobs has stayed at recession levels, i.e. at all-time record levels is just another indication that this recovery is unusually weak.

This means, as I said in my post above, the US economy now has a record number of people in part time jobs. Since I'm sure you have no clue what that means let me spell it out for you. A record number of people in part time jobs means record numbers of people stuck in dead-end jobs with half-time salaries, and a record number of people stuck in jobs that usually have no company health care or retirement plans.

Only in your odd and slanted worldview is having record numbers of people stuck in part time jobs a good thing.

Cheers!

[onlooker]

Things are so rosy in the US that is why "Food Stamps Rising
Nationwide, food stamp usage has started to drop slightly from the 2012 historic high of about 48 million people. It is currently down to about 46 million, in part because some states have reinstated work requirements. But total enrollment remains nearly triple the 17 million food stamp users in 2000. In 2009 nearly 39 million people were on food stamps, and the number rose to 44 million in 2010."
Wonder why food stamp usage increased so much, I do not think that US overall population tripled from 2000 to 2012.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I can see why Bernie is complaining about low wages and Wall Street and stuff like that, but why isn't Hillary spending her time saying how great the economy is and giving Obama the credit he deserves for bringing the US to full employment, rather then wailing about the evils of Wall Street right along with Bernie??.

Give Bernie's screwed up policies and math 4 years or so, and he'll have PLENTY to complain about re a poor economy, right along with everyone else. I wonder who the socialist will blame then? Oh, rich people, of course.

[copious.abundance]

Why do you think thats a good thing?

You just said that most of the new jobs have been part-time, which clearly you thought was a bad thing. So I proved you wrong. Since you thought it was a bad thing, you should be happy to have been proven wrong. Now suddenly you're telling me that the lack of rise in part-time jobs isn't a good thing?

If you were even slightly honest you would see that your own graph shows that the number of people in part-time jobs jumped dramatically during the 2008-9 level and has stayed elevated ever since that time. If you actually knew anything about economic numbers you'd know that part-time employment typically jumps up during a recession at the same time that full time job numbers drop----but then the part-time employment level usually comes down as the recovery takes hold and more full time jobs open up. The fact the number of part time jobs has stayed at recession levels, i.e. at all-time record levels is just another indication that this recovery is unusually weak.

No, once again you are wrong, and you only needed to look at the chart I posted to see so. You will notice that the # of part-time jobs basically never falls (as you just claimed they did). They gradually rise with the increase in population. If you follow the chart, and take into account the big jump upward in 1994 (which was caused by a re-definition of "part-time") and the jump up in the recession, you'll notice that the current level is pretty much right on the long-term trend.

This means, as I said in my post above, the US economy now has a record number of people in part time jobs. Since I'm sure you have no clue what that means let me spell it out for you. A record number of people in part time jobs means record numbers of people stuck in dead-end jobs with half-time salaries, and a record number of people stuck in jobs that usually have no company health care or retirement plans.

As I just noted above, the only reason there are a "record" number of people in part-time jobs, is because the population is rising. There are pretty much always a "record" number of people in part-time jobs, as you can see from the chart above.

Your arguments are disingenuous.

Only in your odd and slanted worldview is having record numbers of people stuck in part time jobs a good thing.

Cheers!

You are severely statistically-challenged.

[marmico]

Involuntary (part time due to economic reasons) (under)employment relative to total payrolls is still somewhat elevated.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=42eI

The employment population ratio of the prime age labor force is still below full employment.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=41bQ

[copious.abundance]

Involuntary (part time due to economic reasons) (under)employment relative to total payrolls is still somewhat elevated.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=42eI

That is true, but it's gotten a lot better over the past several years.

The employment population ratio of the prime age labor force is still below full employment.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=41bQ

A ratio does not indicate whether something is below "full" employment, it is just a ratio. And that ratio, too, has gotten significantly better over the past few years.

[Plantagenet]

You just said that most of the new jobs have been part-time, which clearly you thought was a bad thing. So I proved you wrong.

YOU did not "prove me wrong." Look at your own charts. During the 2009 recession the number of new part-time jobs jumped by 3 million to a new record high. Meanwhile full-time jobs dropped by about 11 million jobs.

Here we are 7 years later and part time jobs are still +3 million jobs above the 2008 level, while full time jobs are only about 2 million above the 2008 peak.

Do the math, you mathematical illiterate you. 3 million new part time jobs since 2008 is more than 2 million new full time jobs since 2008.

The facts are clear----Most of the new jobs over the last 7 years have been part time jobs---and that is STILL true now 7 years into a very very weak recovery.

Cheers!

[Tanada]

You just said that most of the new jobs have been part-time, which clearly you thought was a bad thing. So I proved you wrong.

YOU did not "prove me wrong." Look at your own charts. During the 2009 recession the number of new part-time jobs jumped by 3 million to a new record high. Meanwhile full-time jobs dropped by about 11 million jobs.

Here we are 7 years later and part time jobs are still +3 million jobs above the 2008 level, while full time jobs are only about 2 million above the 2008 peak.

Do the math, you mathematical illiterate you. 3 million new part time jobs since 2008 is more than 2 million new full time jobs since 2008.

The facts are clear----Most of the new jobs over the last 7 years have been part time jobs---and that is STILL true now 7 years into a very very weak recovery.

Cheers!

In essence this is the biggest factor driving a candidate like Donald Trump forward. He claims he can fix it and he has not spectacularly failed as a politician so people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. All the politicians who have been claiming if you elect them things will get better are proven to be liars, whether they could have done what they claimed or not.

[copious.abundance]

YOU did not "prove me wrong."

You said:

Gosh this is great. Obama is running around saying how great the US economy is doing because we're at 5% unemployment, but if you drill deeper most new jobs are part time and pay crappy wages.

Yes, I indeed proved you wrong about most new jobs being part time. I repeat that which I proved factually with charts: Part-time employment has been flat for six years while full-time employment has risen by 13 million. That, my friend, contradicts your claim, at least about part-time employment. Wages are a more complicated matter and depend on how you define "crappy," but that's another debate.

Look at your own charts. During the 2009 recession the number of new part-time jobs jumped by 3 million to a new record high. Meanwhile full-time jobs dropped by about 11 million jobs.

And since then, part-time jobs have been flat while full-time jobs have risen by 13 million, reaching a new high. You're trying to win the argument by citing something that happened 7-8 years ago, completely ignoring everything that's happened since then.

Here we are 7 years later and part time jobs are still +3 million jobs above the 2008 level...

Another disingenuous argument because part-time jobs NEVER decrease after a recession is over, even long after a recession is over.
-- 7 years after the start of the 1982 recession part-time jobs were higher than they were before that recession.
-- 7 years after the start of the 1990 recession part-time jobs were higher than they were before that recession.
-- 7 years after the start of the 2001 recession part-time jobs were higher than they were before that recession.

while full time jobs are only about 2 million above the 2008 peak.

Notice here he is suddenly jumping from his previous claim of "7 years" (which would start in 2009) to "2008" - which would put it at 8 years. That way he doesn't have to deal with the fact that, since 7 years ago, or 2009 (his original claims), full-time jobs have risen by some 13 million. So basically he's picking whatever time frame best suits his argument, even if he has to continually move that time frame around from sentence to sentence.

3 million new part time jobs since 2008 is more than 2 million new full time jobs since 2008.

To prove my claim above about part-time after other recessions ... Data

July 1981: 17.001 million working part-time
July 1988: 19.839 million working part-time
-----------------------------------------------------------
Growth of 2.838 million part-time workers

Aug 1990: 19.982 million working part-time
Aug 1997: 23.098 million working part-time
-----------------------------------------------------------
Growth of 3.116 million part-time workers. Unfortunately this was complicated by the 1994 re-definition.

April 2001: 23.115 million working part-time
April 2008: 25.352 million working part-time
-----------------------------------------------------
Growth of 2.237 million part-time workers.

As I said, 7 years after the start of a recession, part-time jobs are always higher than they were at the start of the recession.

The facts are clear----Most of the new jobs over the last 7 years have been part time jobs---and that is STILL true now 7 years into a very very weak recovery.

Notice, once again, he has now been careful to frame his time period into the "last 7 years." Let us remind him of his original complaint:

Gosh this is great. Obama is running around saying how great the US economy is doing because we're at 5% unemployment, but if you drill deeper most new jobs are part time and pay crappy wages.

Thanks Obama! But a shift in the US workforce from mostly full-time jobs to mostly poorly paid part-time jobs isn't the kind of change we were hoping for!

Clearly his gripe is with Obama, so let us focus entirely on the time period since Obama took office. Obama took office in January 2009, so we'll start all our statistics then:

Full-time data
Part-time data

Jan 2009 work part-time: 26.377 milllion
Mar 2016 work part-time: 27.818 million
----------------------------------------------------
Growth of 1.441 million new part-time workers

Jan 2009 work full-time: 115.818 million
Mar 2016 work full-time: 123.447 million
----------------------------------------------------
Growth of 7.629 million new full-time workers

Thus I have clearly, factually and unambiguously proven Planty wrong. There are more than 5 times more new workers working full-time since Obama took office than there are the same working part-time. It'll be amusing seeing how he weasels his way out of this one!

[Plantagenet]

full-time employment has risen by 13 million.

Yes, but you forget that the US lost 11 million jobs in 2008-9. Yes, we recovered the 11 million lost jobs---but the net creation of new full time jobs comes to only 2 million in the last 7 years----not enough to keep up with immigration and births in the USA over the last 7 years.

Cheers!

----------------------

Don't get it cobun? Here....consider this example: Lets say you go golfing. You start with 10 balls. You lose five balls. Then you play another round and you find the five lost balls. Do you imagine you just got five new golf balls?

No---of course not. Then you go to the golf pro and buy 2 new golf balls to make your total 12. Now you've got 2 new balls.

Get it now?

[ennui2]

Planty's bending of the facts is obvious. Disingenuous is pretty much his middle-name. He's not interested in objectivity, only in how he can malign Obama.

[Plantagenet]

... Obama.

This thread isn't about Obama---he hasn't even been mentioned here.

Would you please take your Obama obsession elsewhere? Thanks.


Ennui is getting so weird

[copious.abundance]

^Now that was a funny statement to make! Sorry but it's well past April fools.

Gosh this is great. Obama is running around saying how great the US economy is doing because we're at 5% unemployment, but if you drill deeper most new jobs are part time and pay crappy wages.

Thanks Obama! But a shift in the US workforce from mostly full-time jobs to mostly poorly paid part-time jobs isn't the kind of change we were hoping for!

Clearly his gripe is with Obama, so let us focus entirely on the time period since Obama took office. Obama took office in January 2009, so we'll start all our statistics then:

Full-time data
Part-time data

Jan 2009 work part-time: 26.377 milllion
Mar 2016 work part-time: 27.818 million
----------------------------------------------------
Growth of 1.441 million new part-time workers

Jan 2009 work full-time: 115.818 million
Mar 2016 work full-time: 123.447 million
----------------------------------------------------
Growth of 7.629 million new full-time workers

Thus I have clearly, factually and unambiguously proven Planty wrong. There are more than 5 times more new workers working full-time since Obama took office than there are the same working part-time. It'll be amusing seeing how he weasels his way out of this one!

[Plantagenet]

Thus I have clearly, factually and unambiguously proven Planty wrong. There are more than 5 times more new workers working full-time since Obama took office than there are the same working part-time.

Again, you are making the same mistake in basic math.

When you recover something that was lost---it isn't new. It is RECOVERED. For instance if you lost $10,000 in the stock market one year, and then your stocks go back up $12,000 the next year, you haven't made a $12,000 profit. You've RECOVERED the $10,000 you lost and made a $2000 profit.

The math for US jobs works the same way.

The US economy lost 11 million full time jobs in the 2008-9 recession. Since that time it has recovered the 11 million lost jobs and added 2 million new full-time jobs.

Get it now?

Cheers!

OK-----since you are so math challenged, let me give you another example that might make this clear to you. Lets imagine an economy that does into recession and loses 11 million jobs. Then it recovers and gains 13 million jobs. Then it goes into recession again and loses 20 million jobs. Then it recovers and gains 18 million jobs. How many jobs have been created through the two recession cycles? A mathematical illiterate like you might claim that 13 million jobs were created during the first recovery and 18 during the second recovery for a total of 31 million jobs created. But if think about it and you do the math properly, the number of jobs created through the two cycles of recession and recovery is actually zero, i.e. the number of people employed at the end of the two cycles is the same as it was before the first recession.

Which number do you think is right in this example? 31 million new jobs created or 0 new jobs created? If you claim 31 million new jobs were created, then explain why the total number of jobs is the same at the end as it was before the first recession?

Get it now?

Cheers!


Its OK---you are not alone in being mathematically illiterate!

[copious.abundance]

Since Planty's obsession was clearly and originally with Obama, and not some supposed mathematical concept, at this point I can just keep quoting this excerpt here to demonstrate how desperate he must be to try to divert attention away from his original claim about Obama.

Gosh this is great. Obama is running around saying how great the US economy is doing because we're at 5% unemployment, but if you drill deeper most new jobs are part time and pay crappy wages.

Thanks Obama! But a shift in the US workforce from mostly full-time jobs to mostly poorly paid part-time jobs isn't the kind of change we were hoping for!

Clearly his gripe is with Obama, so let us focus entirely on the time period since Obama took office. Obama took office in January 2009, so we'll start all our statistics then:

Full-time data
Part-time data

Jan 2009 work part-time: 26.377 milllion
Mar 2016 work part-time: 27.818 million
----------------------------------------------------
Growth of 1.441 million new part-time workers

Jan 2009 work full-time: 115.818 million
Mar 2016 work full-time: 123.447 million
----------------------------------------------------
Growth of 7.629 million new full-time workers

Thus I have clearly, factually and unambiguously proven Planty wrong. There are more than 5 times more new workers working full-time since Obama took office than there are the same working part-time. It'll be amusing seeing how he weasels his way out of this one!