Job Growth

[Rebound]

Since the end of the Cold War, 51 million jobs have been created in America.  
 

What’s the score?

Democrats 50

Republicans 1

How about jobs created since WWII?

Democrats 88

Republicans 32

The US economy performs better when democrats are in the White House. 

Edited August 22, 2024 by Rebound

[Legato]

You mean like all those people who need a second or third jobs cos the Dems screwed up the economy badly.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-employment-falls-by-818000-in-latest-government-revision-144414848.html

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

You mean like all those people who need a second or third jobs cos the Dems screwed up the economy badly.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-employment-falls-by-818000-in-latest-government-revision-144414848.html

Do you have economic data showing how that is different between Republican and Democratic Presidents?

[Deluge]

23 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Since the end of the Cold War, 51 million jobs have been created in America.  
 

What’s the score?

Democrats 50

Republicans 1

How about jobs created since WWII?

Democrats 88

Republicans 32

The US economy performs better when democrats are in the White House. 

How about you a$$holes work on retention instead?

Oh, and no more government jobs, please. You woketards have enough staff as it is. 

[Legato]

9 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Do you have economic data showing how that is different between Republican and Democratic Presidents?

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/more-americans-are-working-two-jobs-to-make-ends-meet/

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/more-americans-are-working-two-jobs-to-make-ends-meet/

“That’s the highest rate since the start of the pandemic.”

Translation: The two-job holder rate was HIGHER when Trump was President. 

[impartialobserver]

The jobs number, CES, is a pure job count. Not a people count. So a person can appear in the sample more than once if they have a second or third job. The criticism that the unemployment rate is low because of part time jobs... just shows a lack of knowledge about how the two completely independent data products are produced.

[Rebound]

56 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The jobs number, CES, is a pure job count. Not a people count. So a person can appear in the sample more than once if they have a second or third job. The criticism that the unemployment rate is low because of part time jobs... just shows a lack of knowledge about how the two completely independent data products are produced.

Allow to explain this in simple language. 
 

The job growth ratio is 50:1.  Your retort is that some people have two jobs.  However, that has been true forever; it’s not a new thing. And it’s not a Democrat-only thing.  The two-job rate just now reached the pre-pandemic (Trump) two-job rate. Thus, Democrats still hold this 50:1 ratio. It’s not 50:1 because people only get two jobs when Democrats are in the White House.  

[impartialobserver]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Allow to explain this in simple language. 
 

The job growth ratio is 50:1.  Your retort is that some people have two jobs.  However, that has been true forever; it’s not a new thing. And it’s not a Democrat-only thing.  The two-job rate just now reached the pre-pandemic (Trump) two-job rate. Thus, Democrats still hold this 50:1 ratio. It’s not 50:1 because people only get two jobs when Democrats are in the White House.  

Your retort has nothing to do with mine. I am simply giving some boots on the ground perspective. I work 3 cubicles from the person that formulates  the CES number for nevada. Every state has a person like this. I know intimately how CES, LAUS, QCEW, OES, CPI, and LEHD are formulated. No need for links or articles on my end. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Your retort has nothing to do with mine. I am simply giving some boots on the ground perspective. I work 3 cubicles from the person that formulates  the CES number for nevada. Every state has a person like this. I know intimately how CES, LAUS, QCEW, OES, CPI, and LEHD are formulated. No need for links or articles on my end. 

So what is your point? That a 50:1 ratio isn’t big enough?

[impartialobserver]

14 hours ago, Rebound said:

So what is your point? That a 50:1 ratio isn’t big enough?

are you sourcing this 50:1 from articles written by someone else or are you doing your own data analysis?

[CdnFox]

22 hours ago, Rebound said:

“That’s the highest rate since the start of the pandemic.”

Translation: The two-job holder rate was HIGHER when Trump was President. 

New data shows US job growth has been far weaker than initially reported

New data shows US job growth has been far weaker than initially reported | CNN Business

 

Wah wah waaaaaaaaaahhh    

Sorry kiddo, Anybody's job numbers can look great if they lie about it. 

Hey - trump created 100 billion trillion jobs.  He wins.  I'll revise that down later if necessary. 

[impartialobserver]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

New data shows US job growth has been far weaker than initially reported

New data shows US job growth has been far weaker than initially reported | CNN Business

 

Wah wah waaaaaaaaaahhh    

Sorry kiddo, Anybody's job numbers can look great if they lie about it. 

Hey - trump created 100 billion trillion jobs.  He wins.  I'll revise that down later if necessary. 

bilion trillion.. its a bit early to hit the bottle?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

bilion trillion.. its a bit early to hit the bottle?

Like I said, I can always revise it down later just like the democrats if it turns out that's not true  

Lots of people said the economy wasn't doing as well as they claimed and that job numbers weren't as strong as they claimed and at the time everybody on the left said that was bullshit and completely wrong and how dare you and what were you drinking etc etc. 

Only it's true. That is a MASSIVE adjustment to what the biden gov't reported initially. 

So now we've got someone useing the initial numbers to "brag" about how "good' biden did.  But it's a lie. Hey  if we're going to just lie anyway instead of using facts then why not go big?

[impartialobserver]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Like I said, I can always revise it down later just like the democrats if it turns out that's not true  

Lots of people said the economy wasn't doing as well as they claimed and that job numbers weren't as strong as they claimed and at the time everybody on the left said that was bullshit and completely wrong and how dare you and what were you drinking etc etc. 

Only it's true. That is a MASSIVE adjustment to what the biden gov't reported initially. 

So now we've got someone useing the initial numbers to "brag" about how "good' biden did.  But it's a lie. Hey  if we're going to just lie anyway instead of using facts then why not go big?

Do you know why we revise a data set? Please, no conspiratorial garbage. 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Do you know why we revise a data set? Please, no conspiratorial garbage. 

Riiiigghhhtttt - it just HAPPENED that the gov't provided data was MASSIVELY  wrong to a historic level in favour of the gov't, and not the other way around.  Almost DOUBLE what actually happened. Pure coincidence. 

In an election year. Nothing to see here. 

Give me a break. Slightly off sure.  Double?  The largest error by far since 2009? (when obama was in?) 

There's no 'conspiratorial' garbage necessary. Gov'ts lie about the books all the time.  This one very obviously did so. 

Spare me the whole "Democrats would never do that, we're the good guys!!!!" argument.  BTW - i've got a russian "dossier" to sell you if you're interested

 

Edited August 23, 2024 by CdnFox

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Riiiigghhhtttt - it just HAPPENED that the gov't provided data was MASSIVELY  wrong to a historic level in favour of the gov't, and not the other way around.  Almost DOUBLE what actually happened. Pure coincidence.  Nothing to see here. 

Give me a break. Slightly off sure.  Double?  The largest error by far since 2009? (when obama was in?) 

There's no 'conspiratorial' garbage necessary. Gov'ts lie about the books all the time.  This one very obviously did so. 

Spare me the whole "Democrats would never do that, we're the good guys!!!!" argument.  BTW - i've got a russian "dossier" to sell you if you're interested

 

Hm.... so you have no idea why revisions are done. that's what I thought. Did not expect you to be rational. My bad. 

Keep in mind that the benchmarking process dates back to 1940... long before the liberals that you hate existed. The revisions to the LAUS and CES data are simple math. They are estimates and so new information changes the estimates. 

Edited August 23, 2024 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Hm.... so you have no idea why revisions are done.

Hmmm so i never said that or even suggested it but you're going to dishonestly claim i did beacuse you're willing to lie to protect your beloved democrats while still saying how much you don't care on a regular bases. 

That's what i thought 

And because you can't address the issue you'd like to change the subject entirely.  You'd like to skip over the part where i said modest corrections are reasonable but when you make a mistake that's historically high by THAT much during an election year where the incumbent is absolutely desperate and willing to go to extremes to look better, then you know that the gov't probably had it's thumb on the scale. 

Quit your bullshit. You know I'm right, if you didn't you wouldn't have tried to come up with some species of distraction like that. And you might as well give up your pretense that you're anything but a left-wing sympathizer who actually does care enough to lie to try and make his point. Impartial Observer my ass

[impartialobserver]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hmmm so i never said that or even suggested it but you're going to dishonestly claim i did beacuse you're willing to lie to protect your beloved democrats while still saying how much you don't care on a regular bases. 

That's what i thought 

And because you can't address the issue you'd like to change the subject entirely.  You'd like to skip over the part where i said modest corrections are reasonable but when you make a mistake that's historically high by THAT much during an election year where the incumbent is absolutely desperate and willing to go to extremes to look better, then you know that the gov't probably had it's thumb on the scale. 

Quit your bullshit. You know I'm right, if you didn't you wouldn't have tried to come up with some species of distraction like that. And you might as well give up your pretense that you're anything but a left-wing sympathizer who actually does care enough to lie to try and make his point. Impartial Observer my ass

And I thought you were reasonable and rational.. well, my bad. I know intimately how the numbers are produced.. you do not. Getting pretty worked up.. that says a lot about you. 

Edited August 24, 2024 by impartialobserver

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

And I thought you were reasonable and rational.. well, my bad. I know intimately how the numbers are produced.. you do not. 

🏆

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

🏆

It is interesting how some pretend to be rational and then their inner conspiracy theorist comes out when the results do not line up right. The benchmark process when it comes to CES and LAUS is decades old. I could supply all sorts of data to back this up. Every February and April, we revise the past year based on new information. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

And I thought you were reasonable and rational..

Sure  it's MY fault you chose to lie about what i said.  Typical lefty. 

Quote

well, my bad. I know intimately how the numbers are produced.. you do not. Getting pretty worked up.. that says a lot about you. 

Aww muffin, you got called out on your bullshit and now you're butthurt. 

You know as well as i do it's not that hard for a gov't to interfere with the inital estimate numbers.   

but the moment it gets suggested that your democrats may have done so (when there's pretty compelling evidence) you become angry and attack me personally. 

Like most dem supporters, including mike btw, you're dishonest whenever the facts are presented rather than addressing them. 

You're a liar, i'm not. So that says a lot about you. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It is interesting how some pretend to be rational and then their inner conspiracy theorist comes out when the results do not line up right. 

Talking to a mirror are you?

The numbers released are easily messed with.  

You can't even be honest about what i said, never mind the benchmark. And you're so butthurt and upset that you got called on your dishonesty that you literally have to go crying to others about me. 

WEll there you go.  

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure  it's MY fault you chose to lie about what i said.  Typical lefty. 

Aww muffin, you got called out on your bullshit and now you're butthurt. 

You know as well as i do it's not that hard for a gov't to interfere with the inital estimate numbers.   

but the moment it gets suggested that your democrats may have done so (when there's pretty compelling evidence) you become angry and attack me personally. 

Like most dem supporters, including mike btw, you're dishonest whenever the facts are presented rather than addressing them. 

You're a liar, i'm not. So that says a lot about you. 

Getting pretty worked up... hmm.. I am as calm as can be. You are the one name-calling.. "liar", "muffin". Only petulant types resort to this. 

its a simple matter of math.. like it or not. When the numbers looked great during Trump's time, I said the same. 

Besides I do not buy into conspiratorial logic or theories no matter who peddles them or the topic. 

Edited August 24, 2024 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Getting pretty worked up... hmm.. I am as calm as can be

Dude you are lying about what i said, you're crying to other people that i was mean to you, and you're ignoring the points raised with desperation and trying to distract. 

It's quite obvious you're not calm

And you lied. You knowingly claimed i said something i didn't. That is fact  it's right there to see. 

And it's not a simple matter of math, and we both know it.  Gov'ts can manipulate the math and do all the time. It's not hard. 

Like i said -  a modest correction is pretty normal. There was nothing 'normal' about this one and it happened to come at a time when the dems desperately needed 'positive' news, and you pretending that gov'ts never "influence" the numbers in estimates etc or about the economy just speaks of a fevered desperation.