Welcome to Gaia! ::

Solessia's avatar

8,200 Points
  • Olympian 200
  • Tycoon 200
  • Champion 300
YahuShalum
Solessia
Well, 700 teachers were just hired last month in my school district. That's an improvement.

Yes, there were layoffs int he years before, we even protested, but I can say the number of teachers (in my district) that were laid off was ~500.

700>500

Also, it's not that hard to find a job. Finding jobs has around the same difficulty as years before.

Where I live, I always see a ton of "hiring" posters and what not. If you can't find a job that requires high degrees and whatnot, you could at least try your hand at a lower-level job while you look for one of your standards.

Publix hires. Walgreens hires. Barnes and Noble hires.Mall stores hire.

If I'm 17 and I can find a job within 3 applications, people who are older with more experience can definitely do it.

Unless you're saying you live in bumf*ck, Africa.

Anyway, the economy isn't going to turn around over nightfall, and it isn't going to drastically do a 180 in a meager 3 or 4 years.

And, you have to spend money to make money, amirite?
So they laid off 500 government employees. And added 700. Here's what they did. They hired new people at lower wages without a retirement plan. Only 200 more people. I wonder how they did that.
And the jobs hiring you just described are for foreign product distribution centers they are not jobs that will HELP America in the long run. We need jobs in production we need to create new things in America, we need to import more then we export.


Which is why I said they're to help individuals in the mean time while better jobs ARE found and created. I'm not expecting anyone to work at publix their whole life and somehow become wealthy.

Making money is still possible, even if it's a bit meager, is all I'm saying. I wouldn't want to spend 12 years studying psychiatry and then ending up in walgreens trying to find a job, but if it happens then so be it.

And yes, we need this, we need that, I hear it from everyone. But my question is, how?
Vintor's avatar

Quotable Codger

5,800 Points
  • Tipsy 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
YahuShalum
Vintor
I could go on a text wall, but other thread have discussed those points thoroughly. This thread is for discussion about employment (or the lack of) through hard facts and evidence, which you have failed to provide. I have to go to class now anyways. I will be back in about 3 hours.
There is no hard facts or evidence! I can give you real personal evidence! You have a wife that got a job. I know 4 people that just got laid off working for the state of California (That was only one department in the state corrections only one person is working in that department now). They were WORKING for tax payer money. Now they're going on unemployment thus doing NOTHING for tax payer money.

And I "Fail" to provide "Proof" because there is none. Just like any site or statistics you show are not proof. You really think they're honest about things? I am not about to start quoting others on it or statistics. The over all situation is plain to comprehend just by looking at it without others telling you what to think.

Apparently you haven't taken any sort of English class, thus you don't know what research is. If every big news site (and non-media site) is saying the same statistics, they are obviously true. I believe you are stuck in a conspiracy of "omg the government is out to kill us all". and if that were the case, they would've already done so. This is childish.
Vintor
YahuShalum
Vintor
I could go on a text wall, but other thread have discussed those points thoroughly. This thread is for discussion about employment (or the lack of) through hard facts and evidence, which you have failed to provide. I have to go to class now anyways. I will be back in about 3 hours.
There is no hard facts or evidence! I can give you real personal evidence! You have a wife that got a job. I know 4 people that just got laid off working for the state of California (That was only one department in the state corrections only one person is working in that department now). They were WORKING for tax payer money. Now they're going on unemployment thus doing NOTHING for tax payer money.

And I "Fail" to provide "Proof" because there is none. Just like any site or statistics you show are not proof. You really think they're honest about things? I am not about to start quoting others on it or statistics. The over all situation is plain to comprehend just by looking at it without others telling you what to think.

Apparently you haven't taken any sort of English class, thus you don't know what research is. If every big news site (and non-media site) is saying the same statistics, they are obviously true. I believe you are stuck in a conspiracy of "omg the government is out to kill us all". and if that were the case, they would've already done so. This is childish.
English = research? I think science is far greater in research. A method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning; the Scientific method. I see no evidence Obama has created a single job nor do I see evidence of job growth. What you state are just things people say without any support. Ok, jobs grew? Where are the jobs; who created them? What kind of jobs are these? I can easily write articles of job growth using the state prison system. 20,000 new jobs were created! They're prisoners and they don't get paid but they work. So other then your wife and subjective articles what is your proof? I have more proof with 4 people being laid off in a single department of the state as "proof" jobs are not being created then you have of jobs being created. I guess the old term comes to mind, "If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you?" If you believe the majority in things are right well... I don't want this to get personal with insults as you attempted to insult me...
Vintor's avatar

Quotable Codger

5,800 Points
  • Tipsy 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Have you ever heard of a research paper? The scientific method is for experimentation, which is derived from your initial research. I posted evidence of job growth multiple times, and so have other posters in this thread. You are asking questions to drag on a discussion that ended a long time ago. If my facts are so false, then find facts of your own that prove them wrong. Your own observation is not substantial enough to prove entire professionally written articles wrong.
Tsukasa wave's avatar

Tipsy Trader

9,200 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Pie Hoarder by Proxy 150
YahuShalum
Sorry I can't ignore everyone on welfare and jobless that I know (Personally actually!). I'm sorry I won't ignore what's actually happening. And by the way The Scientific Method . There are other politicians out there far greater then Obama if one only looks for them and researches.

"Quoted from Yahushalum which whom you blocked from posting anything more in your thread"
Nyadriel's avatar

Dangerous Fairy

21,150 Points
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Fusion Apprentice 100
  • Summer Celebrant 150
I am sorry, but Yahushalum did have a point. Here in Connecticut, for quite some time under Bush my state was losing more jobs than gaining with not enough jobs for everybody. It's still a losing battle here most of the time. More job losses than job gains.


According to CBS reports this week, it is said that we are in need of 250,000 jobs being created every month in order for there to be considered any real recovery. This is not happening.
Also, right now (according to news reports) many of the jobs showing up right now are from a couple of businesses that are gearing up for the Holiday Season what with Christmas around the corner. These same jobs at Walmart, K-Mart etc, will be lost again after the Holidays. Which means all those people who are getting these jobs now will lose them again by the end of December if not by the end of January.
This has been the trend for a long time unfortunately.

It used to be that McD's and Walmart and Caldor and... and... were "entry" jobs that teens were taking up when they were either in High School or freshly graduated. Now it is difficult for them because so many adults of almost every age are taking them up because it's what is available to them. This means people out of collage won't be able to fill these jobs while looking for work that they want.

lastly, congrats to your wife. May this be long lasting.
Vintor's avatar

Quotable Codger

5,800 Points
  • Tipsy 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Nyadriel
I am sorry, but Yahushalum did have a point. Here in Connecticut, for quite some time under Bush my state was losing more jobs than gaining with not enough jobs for everybody. It's still a losing battle here most of the time. More job losses than job gains.


According to CBS reports this week, it is said that we are in need of 250,000 jobs being created every month in order for there to be considered any real recovery. This is not happening.
Also, right now (according to news reports) many of the jobs showing up right now are from a couple of businesses that are gearing up for the Holiday Season what with Christmas around the corner. These same jobs at Walmart, K-Mart etc, will be lost again after the Holidays. Which means all those people who are getting these jobs now will lose them again by the end of December if not by the end of January.
This has been the trend for a long time unfortunately.

It used to be that McD's and Walmart and Caldor and... and... were "entry" jobs that teens were taking up when they were either in High School or freshly graduated. Now it is difficult for them because so many adults of almost every age are taking them up because it's what is available to them. This means people out of collage won't be able to fill these jobs while looking for work that they want.

Well I thank you for providing information rather than roundabout questions....
And yes this is true that the holiday season hires more, then releases them afterwards. I do not believe these temporary jobs should be considered in the employment rate. Some parts of the country are better or worse than others, of course, but I believe the article was claiming an average of the whole country, that unemployment is at its lowest since Obama started. I'm not saying Obama DID this, it just happened under his term.
Nyadriel's avatar

Dangerous Fairy

21,150 Points
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Fusion Apprentice 100
  • Summer Celebrant 150
Vintor
Nyadriel
I am sorry, but Yahushalum did have a point. Here in Connecticut, for quite some time under Bush my state was losing more jobs than gaining with not enough jobs for everybody. It's still a losing battle here most of the time. More job losses than job gains.


According to CBS reports this week, it is said that we are in need of 250,000 jobs being created every month in order for there to be considered any real recovery. This is not happening.
Also, right now (according to news reports) many of the jobs showing up right now are from a couple of businesses that are gearing up for the Holiday Season what with Christmas around the corner. These same jobs at Walmart, K-Mart etc, will be lost again after the Holidays. Which means all those people who are getting these jobs now will lose them again by the end of December if not by the end of January.
This has been the trend for a long time unfortunately.

It used to be that McD's and Walmart and Caldor and... and... were "entry" jobs that teens were taking up when they were either in High School or freshly graduated. Now it is difficult for them because so many adults of almost every age are taking them up because it's what is available to them. This means people out of collage won't be able to fill these jobs while looking for work that they want.

Well I thank you for providing information rather than roundabout questions....
And yes this is true that the holiday season hires more, then releases them afterwards. I do not believe these temporary jobs should be considered in the employment rate. Some parts of the country are better or worse than others, of course, but I believe the article was claiming an average of the whole country, that unemployment is at its lowest since Obama started. I'm not saying Obama DID this, it just happened under his term.


The other thing he was trying to make a point of is the way the government decide to "play with the numbers". If you are looking for a job, for some reason they decided that "you are employed". wut?
Also, a lot of people did stop looking for work which is also fouling up the numbers - again because of the ridiculousness of the way the numbers are being played.

I have learned that many companies are taking applications and not calling anybody back. They are making excuses like they have to have a certain number of applications filed. Dunno why. I didn't catch.

Also to bring up a point not touched on for awhile (over-qualification was already covered) is that some companies were looking at your credit ratings to use that as an excuse not to hire you saying that if your credit rating was low ( does not matter as to why. Not even if it is because you got layed off and had medical bills up the wazoo) that you were undesirable because you were "unreliable". Several states passed laws (including the state of California if my memory serves) to make that illegal. But these are some of the reasons why so many people simply stopped looking.
I mean, just how long can a person spend so many hours every day for so many weeks/months and not getting anywhere?
So really, the unemployment rate IS much greater than the statistics and polls are showing. Obama is aware of it. The question is, how do you form a plan to bring jobs back to America and get American people working again? All efforts so far have been a bust for the most part.
I have no faith what-so-ever that Romney could/would do better.
Vintor's avatar

Quotable Codger

5,800 Points
  • Tipsy 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Nyadriel
Vintor

Well I thank you for providing information rather than roundabout questions....
And yes this is true that the holiday season hires more, then releases them afterwards. I do not believe these temporary jobs should be considered in the employment rate. Some parts of the country are better or worse than others, of course, but I believe the article was claiming an average of the whole country, that unemployment is at its lowest since Obama started. I'm not saying Obama DID this, it just happened under his term.


The other thing he was trying to make a point of is the way the government decide to "play with the numbers". If you are looking for a job, for some reason they decided that "you are employed". wut?
Also, a lot of people did stop looking for work which is also fouling up the numbers - again because of the ridiculousness of the way the numbers are being played.

I have learned that many companies are taking applications and not calling anybody back. They are making excuses like they have to have a certain number of applications filed. Dunno why. I didn't catch.

Also to bring up a point not touched on for awhile (over-qualification was already covered) is that some companies were looking at your credit ratings to use that as an excuse not to hire you saying that if your credit rating was low ( does not matter as to why. Not even if it is because you got layed off and had medical bills up the wazoo) that you were undesirable because you were "unreliable". Several states passed laws (including the state of California if my memory serves) to make that illegal. But these are some of the reasons why so many people simply stopped looking.
I mean, just how long can a person spend so many hours every day for so many weeks/months and not getting anywhere?
So really, the unemployment rate IS much greater than the statistics and polls are showing. Obama is aware of it. The question is, how do you form a plan to bring jobs back to America and get American people working again? All efforts so far have been a bust for the most part.
I have no faith what-so-ever that Romney could/would do better.

Yeah, when my wife and I were job hunting, we would score great interviews and think we had a job locked in. Weeks later and not even a rejection letter. Just nothing. And that's because we were applying to banks and other financial institutions that should have higher respect and standards. I know the unemployment still sucks, but yes I believe Obama will manage it better than Romney will. Giving more money to the wealthy does not necessarily mean they will act selflessly and open businesses and jobs for many Americans.
Nyadriel's avatar

Dangerous Fairy

21,150 Points
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Fusion Apprentice 100
  • Summer Celebrant 150
Vintor
Nyadriel
Vintor

Well I thank you for providing information rather than roundabout questions....
And yes this is true that the holiday season hires more, then releases them afterwards. I do not believe these temporary jobs should be considered in the employment rate. Some parts of the country are better or worse than others, of course, but I believe the article was claiming an average of the whole country, that unemployment is at its lowest since Obama started. I'm not saying Obama DID this, it just happened under his term.


The other thing he was trying to make a point of is the way the government decide to "play with the numbers". If you are looking for a job, for some reason they decided that "you are employed". wut?
Also, a lot of people did stop looking for work which is also fouling up the numbers - again because of the ridiculousness of the way the numbers are being played.

I have learned that many companies are taking applications and not calling anybody back. They are making excuses like they have to have a certain number of applications filed. Dunno why. I didn't catch.

Also to bring up a point not touched on for awhile (over-qualification was already covered) is that some companies were looking at your credit ratings to use that as an excuse not to hire you saying that if your credit rating was low ( does not matter as to why. Not even if it is because you got layed off and had medical bills up the wazoo) that you were undesirable because you were "unreliable". Several states passed laws (including the state of California if my memory serves) to make that illegal. But these are some of the reasons why so many people simply stopped looking.
I mean, just how long can a person spend so many hours every day for so many weeks/months and not getting anywhere?
So really, the unemployment rate IS much greater than the statistics and polls are showing. Obama is aware of it. The question is, how do you form a plan to bring jobs back to America and get American people working again? All efforts so far have been a bust for the most part.
I have no faith what-so-ever that Romney could/would do better.

Yeah, when my wife and I were job hunting, we would score great interviews and think we had a job locked in. Weeks later and not even a rejection letter. Just nothing. And that's because we were applying to banks and other financial institutions that should have higher respect and standards. I know the unemployment still sucks, but yes I believe Obama will manage it better than Romney will. Giving more money to the wealthy does not necessarily mean they will act selflessly and open businesses and jobs for many Americans.


Well that's already been proven!! Just wish more people would realize that! Trickle down economics does not work.

People need to have good paying jobs in order to have money to spend in order for our economy to recover, much less grow. As long as corporations are more willing to pay for slave labor and then stuff as much money into their pockets for those mansions and yachts and etc..., we are not gonna get anywhere.
Istoleyourtaco's avatar

Sparkly Warlord

12,800 Points
  • 20 Wins 100
  • 50 Wins 150
  • 1 Win 50
Vintor
Article


Over 100,000 new jobs, and expected to continue rising. Also my wife finally got a job after 8 months of searching! Good job Obama!
the real problem with these unemployment numbers is that it really only shows the people getting unemployment benefits everyone that doen't currently get benefits is getting count so in realty the unemploment rate is much higher then is really estimated , Obama himself has said that the recovery isn't going nearly as fast as he wants it to go. Congrats to your wife though it is still pretty tough to work.
Prince Ikari 's avatar

Conservative Ally

My guess is the reason unemployment decreased is because more and more people are just giving up. Heck it took me three years to secure my first job, and it would not have taken as long except I was getting very discouraged along the way and just wanted to give up because no places would hire. This is no news to celebrate. What would be worth celebrating would be if we were creating close to a million jobs a month because then people would be actually employed and not giving up and dropping out all together.
Prince Ikari
My guess is the reason unemployment decreased is because more and more people are just giving up. Heck it took me three years to secure my first job, and it would not have taken as long except I was getting very discouraged along the way and just wanted to give up because no places would hire. This is no news to celebrate. What would be worth celebrating would be if we were creating close to a million jobs a month because then people would be actually employed and not giving up and dropping out all together.


You're theory could be supported by the steady decline in the BLS Workforce Participation Rate, even though Sept. did see a .1 increase in it...

I've been crunching numbers until my head has exploded on this issue (I swear, I'm starting to see in binary code).

So lets break it down (simply first). 308,745,538 people in the United States (2010 Census figures). Unemployment currently sits at 7.8% as of Sept. That equates to roughly 24,082,151 people out of work (this is using the U-3 figure which is what is reported). Now according to the BLS, the economy added 114,000 jobs in Sept.

This doesn't make sense. Because in order do drop by just 0.1%, the economy would've needed to add 308,745 jobs. From Aug. to Sept. the rate dropped 0.3%, which should mean that 926,235 new jobs should've been created. Yet in Aug. only 96,000 jobs were created. Added to Sept. 114,000, we get a total of 210,000 jobs. By this logic, the rate shouldn't have even come close to dropping a single tenth of a point. So where did the other 716,235 people go?

This math can be applied to months past, but I figured a more recent example could help portray my thoughts a little better. I'm still crunching and trying to figure out exactly how our government calculates these numbers, so this is just simple logic.
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
YahuShalum
English = research?
Wait....

Question:
Do you seriously not know the fact that researching things in taught in English classes?
Prince Ikari 's avatar

Conservative Ally

--Sky Kid Tai--
Prince Ikari
My guess is the reason unemployment decreased is because more and more people are just giving up. Heck it took me three years to secure my first job, and it would not have taken as long except I was getting very discouraged along the way and just wanted to give up because no places would hire. This is no news to celebrate. What would be worth celebrating would be if we were creating close to a million jobs a month because then people would be actually employed and not giving up and dropping out all together.


You're theory could be supported by the steady decline in the BLS Workforce Participation Rate, even though Sept. did see a .1 increase in it...

I've been crunching numbers until my head has exploded on this issue (I swear, I'm starting to see in binary code).

So lets break it down (simply first). 308,745,538 people in the United States (2010 Census figures). Unemployment currently sits at 7.8% as of Sept. That equates to roughly 24,082,151 people out of work (this is using the U-3 figure which is what is reported). Now according to the BLS, the economy added 114,000 jobs in Sept.

This doesn't make sense. Because in order do drop by just 0.1%, the economy would've needed to add 308,745 jobs. From Aug. to Sept. the rate dropped 0.3%, which should mean that 926,235 new jobs should've been created. Yet in Aug. only 96,000 jobs were created. Added to Sept. 114,000, we get a total of 210,000 jobs. By this logic, the rate shouldn't have even come close to dropping a single tenth of a point. So where did the other 716,235 people go?

This math can be applied to months past, but I figured a more recent example could help portray my thoughts a little better. I'm still crunching and trying to figure out exactly how our government calculates these numbers, so this is just simple logic.

I agree with what you are saying. That math does not seem to add up when it comes to the unemployment figures. I've never sat down in done that math but if we needed to add 308,745 for a decrease of 0.1%, then:

0.1% - 308,745
0.2% - 617,490
0.3% - 926,235
0.4% - 1,234,980
0.5% - 1,543,725
0.6% - 1,852,470
0.7% - 2,161,215
0.8% - 2,469,960
0.9% - 2,778,705
1.0% - 3,087,450

We would need 3,087,450 jobs to lower the unemployment rate 1%. And if the total as you mentioned is 210,000 then we are still 32% short of achieving enough job growth for a 0.1% decrease. And we are still 93.2% short of creating enough jobs by those numbers for a decrease of 1%, which 210,00 jobs only equaling up to 6.8% out of what we would need. The BLS may want to recheck its math or else someone is covering up the truth from the American people.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games