There is so much uncertainty that it's no wonder many businesses won't hire permanent full-time employees. It takes a lot of time and money to hire a permanent full-time employ and a lot of money to terminate them if necessary...so why go there unless they see demand growth for the longer-term? What about all the confusion from Obamacare? Is it true any business with 50+ full-time employees must either provide private health care insurance or be fined? This will encourage companies to stay under 50 employees or convert many of them to part-time. For most business tasks a company can also use outside contractors/vendors. 50 full-time employees equals 2000 hours per week. Divide 2000 by 30 hour work weeks requires 67 part-time employees. So I guess the question is; is it better to have 67 people working 30 hours or 50 people working 40 hours per week?
Reference; ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt Please explain why your charts indicate TOTAL NON-FARM PAYROLL around 110 million when the BLS site referenced above says the number is 130+ million??
You continue to politicize this while ignoring data???? Reference; http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth I've given you this before and you just ignore it. Go to the chart, start in Jan. 2009, and go through Oct. 2012, and YOU add the positive job creation and subtract the job losses and YOU will find during this time frame there are 624,000 LESS jobs! Maybe you don't believe the BLS numbers?
So this indicates government employees equals about 133M - 110M = 23 million? With ~155 million in the workforce, 23 million means 15% of the workforce is working for government...wow! I wonder how this percentage compares to the past 20 years?
No, there's just a much easier way to do it. Follow this link, click on total nonfarm, and you can see that the total nonfarm payroll jobs are more than they were in Jan 2009. http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
A few more facts that challenge the rightwing myths and lies. Strong Job Figures Belie Romneys Attacks The New Yorker Posted by John Cassidy November 2, 2012 (excerpts) According to the Labor Departments October employment report, 171,000 new jobs were added last monththe highest figure since February. The new positions were spread throughout the economy, with retailing (plus 36,000), health care (plus 31,000), and business services (plus 51,000) showing particular strength. The only big group of employers that shed workers were state and local governments (minus 13,000) which are still being hit by budget cuts. Over the past year, the total number of people employed has risen from 140.3 million to 143.4 million, according to the household survey. After allowing for population growth, the number of people unemployed has fallen by a million, and the number working part-time or no longer actively looking for work has dropped by about half a million. The number of people who have been out of work for more than six monthsthe hard-core unemployedhas fallen by more than eight hundred thousand, and it now stands at five million.
If you look at the number in your chart for Oct. 2008 which is 136,972,000 and compare this with Oct. 2012 which is 134,792,000, you find there are 2,180,000 fewer people working. Now if you look at Dec. 2008 which is 135,253,000 and compare this with Dec. 2012 (Oct. 134,792K + 171K Nov and 171K Dec) which would be 135,134,000, you find there are 119,000 fewer people working today. No matter which charts you want to use, the employment situation today is not better than it was four years ago. You do know we need to create about 1 million jobs per year just to keep up with population growth? In four years this would be 4 million jobs needed yet we lost 119,000 or more jobs...how can this be positive?
Your figures are a bit twisted and your conclusions are bogus. Bush's idiotic policies and wars crashed the economy and almost put the country into something worse than the Great Depression. President Obama, working against a Republican Congressional policy of non-cooperation on anything and obstructionism over everything, managed to pull the country's economy out of the nosedive Bush had put it in, and he has overseen a recovery that is still happening and in which there are more people employed today than there were when Obama took office and over four million more than when Bush's legacy recession hit bottom at the end of 2009. U.S. Job Creation Index Highest Since September 2008 Job conditions similar across all regions of the U.S. Gallup Economy by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist July 5, 2011 US October Job Growth Accelerates The Wall Street Journal By JEFFREY SPARSHOTT AND ERIC MORATH November 2, 2012
Obama wasn't president in October 2008. Check the number of jobs today with January 2009 and let us know whether more or fewer people are working compared to when he took office. We've created 4.7 million jobs in the last 3 1/2 years, so we're well above that level. How can this be negative?
It's too bad you never seem to bother to actually read the information and facts that other people post. Like this tidbit from the recent New Yorker article that I quoted in post #132: "Over the past year, the total number of people employed has risen from 140.3 million to 143.4 million, according to the household survey. After allowing for population growth, the number of people unemployed has fallen by a million, and the number working part-time or no longer actively looking for work has dropped by about half a million. The number of people who have been out of work for more than six months—the hard-core unemployed—has fallen by more than eight hundred thousand, and it now stands at five million."
Not good enough. I want to see 1-2 million jobs created a month, every month and 3-4% growth every quarter for at least 4 years. Obama can't give me that. Romney can.
You need to compare year-to-year not just what you wish to support your incorrect opinion. I never said anything was negative?? It's just that you cherry-pick your numbers. I provided BLS data to support no job gains then pointed out in YOUR BLS data the same conclusion. There's no 'we've' created jobs...the economy creates jobs as needed. Government stimulus only creates temporary jobs.
LOL, Oh sure he can. Romney's going to creat 12-24 million jobs a year! Never mind that it took Clinton with the best record ever 8 years to create 23 million jobs. Shoot, after just 4 years in office, we should have another 75 million jobs or so! We'll be begging the Mexicans to come back to work them! So just how is Romney the miracle worker going to do that? More tax cuts? Cutting back regulation and enforcement? B ecause that worked soooooo well when Bush did it, right? You guys are such a hoot.
What's the problem with comparing from when he took office if your showing what's happened since he took office? Smart! Starting from when he took office is "cherry picking" when you are showing what has happened since he took office how, exactly? Your BLS data was from when Bush was president. Using data from when Bush was president when you're supposedly showing what's happened since Obama took office is cherry picking. Actually, its not even that. It's just false.
He understands it just fine. Putting aside the opinionated part, it is absolutely true that there are more people employed today than there were when Obama took office and over four million more than whne the Great Recession hit bottom at the end of 2009.
As usual, you again demonstrate that all you do is barf up talking points, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Part time employed for economic reasons Sep 2012 8.482 million Oct 2012 8.225 million http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab8.htm
90,000 fewer people working in Pennsylvania than when Obama took office. Wonder how that will play out.
There are ONLY legitimate numbers through Aug. 2012! There are preliminary numbers for Sept and Oct. All you can do is look at the jobs created/lost and since Jan. 2009 624,000 jobs have been lost...meaning zero job gains. You didn't even bother to do the math on the BLS numbers? Their chart clearly shows how many jobs lost and how many jobs gained each month...why won't you do the math? Add up jobs gained and subtract jobs lost = (-) 624,000.
