PDA

View Full Version : Private sector jobs , heading in the right direction ?



Satanicus
08-16-2010, 06:44 AM
Are private sector jobs market heading in the right direction ?

http://theneweditor.com/uploads/PublicSectorvs.PrivateSector.png

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/6/29/632734-127782733504491-Andrei-Tratseuski_origin.jpg

djones520
08-16-2010, 06:58 AM
When we start gaining more jobs then we're losing, then we'll be heading in the right direction. As long as we lose more jobs then gain, we're just heading down.

PoliCon
08-16-2010, 07:59 AM
Are private sector jobs market heading in the right direction ?

http://theneweditor.com/uploads/PublicSectorvs.PrivateSector.png

You're gonna post charts from BLOGS that show something quite different from your claim - and you expect us to capitulate to your asinine claims? :rolleyes:

djones520
08-16-2010, 08:36 AM
No, he wants us to say that losing fewer jobs then before means things are better. But as Moo showed before with man hours lost, as long as we are still in negative growth things are just getting worse. May not be getting worse as fast, but it is not getting any better.

malloc
08-16-2010, 09:20 AM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=301563&postcount=49

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

djones520
08-16-2010, 09:25 AM
My apologies malloc. I knew the person who made that post started with an M. :p

malloc
08-16-2010, 09:28 AM
My apologies malloc. I knew the person who made that post started with an M. :p

No problem, and the roll eyes weren't for you.

Rockntractor
08-16-2010, 09:30 AM
A Positive growth that is too low would still not be good enough. You have to be able to employ new people getting out of school and entering the work force. I can imagine there are a lot of these Rock The Vote kids that will be putting a little more thought into the next election after having their ambitions crushed by King Hopey.

Gingersnap
08-16-2010, 09:56 AM
No.

Initial job losses were due to the usual things: business, contraction, unfilled vacancies, and retirement. Now, there are fewer "losses" because there is no more fat to cut.

NJCardFan
08-16-2010, 10:30 AM
Again I must explain Stupidicus' graph in such simplistic terms that even he can understand:

Take a bucket and fill it with water. Hang the bucket on a hook and poke a hole in the bottom of it. Watch the water drain out of the bucket. Eventually there's going to be less water draining out of the bucket, right? So, does that mean that the bucket is filling up with water or does that mean that the water loss in the bucket has reached it's limit?

Satanicus
08-16-2010, 11:16 AM
No, he wants us to say that losing fewer jobs then before means things are better..

Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

djones520
08-16-2010, 11:19 AM
Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

Being able to see further then the tip of your nose does not mean you have a twisted mind.

Satanicus
08-16-2010, 11:22 AM
Being able to see further then the tip of your nose does not mean you have a twisted mind.

So if the nation sheds less and less jobs each month , you think that is the wrong direction ?

djones520
08-16-2010, 11:24 AM
So if the nation sheds less and less jobs each month , you think that is the wrong direction ?

How many times have I said it? As long as the country has negative job growth, then we are heading in the wrong direction. Period. End of story.

I'm not answering that fucking question again.

It's no wonder they booted your ass at DU. You acted the same way there that you do here. It's amazing how we've managed to restrain ourselves so far.

Satanicus
08-16-2010, 11:30 AM
How many times have I said it? As long as the country has negative job growth, then we are heading in the wrong direction. Period. End of story.
.

So losing 700,000 jobs a month is the very same as losing 1000 jobs a month ?

It means there was no progress made ?

LOL , You have no idea , none.

Learn some math and get back to me.

Lager
08-16-2010, 11:30 AM
Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

Your devotion to one average politician keeps you from seeing the big picture. Pull away from your graphs and ask yourself if it really seems like things are permanently on the right track out of this mess. You'll find many objective opinions with far more economic wisdom than yourself, who worry we are not. It's got nothing to do with dislike of your affirmative action president and everything to do with reality. Businesses and companies who are holding on to their cash are not doing so because they have something against your hero. They don't make emotional decisions, they make practical ones, or they won't survive.

Compare the situation to a region in the country who is suffering from exteme flooding. If they get a day without rain, that is good. But one or even two days without rain isn't the end of the problem. Not until they get long term, and consistent good weather, will they know the trend is over and things are getting back to normal again.

djones520
08-16-2010, 11:33 AM
So losing 700,000 jobs a month is the very same as losing 1000 jobs a month ?

It means there was no progress made ?

LOL , You have no idea , none.

Learn some math and get back to me.

I've met boxes of rocks with more brain power then what you've been able to exhibit.

malloc
08-16-2010, 11:35 AM
So losing 700,000 jobs a month is the very same as losing 1000 jobs a month ?

It means there was no progress made
LOL , You have no idea , none.

Learn some math and get back to me.

We still have 701,000 people not working. You aren't even asking the right question. It's not 'a' as in some random month. It's a function of time, so is losing 700,000 jobs last month (per se) better or worse than losing only1,000 this or some future month. The answer is no, it is not better. Because that means that at the end of this month there is 701,000 people not producing, instead of just 700,000. You know what. I've explained this already, you are just a clueless idiot.


Where did you study economics again?

djones520
08-16-2010, 11:46 AM
You know what the worse part of this is? You wouldn't even be trying to make this weak ass argument if a R was in the White House instead of the guy you "unapologetically knob slobber". :rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
08-16-2010, 12:08 PM
Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

If I'm travelling south on my bike to get some spray on wax, but the bike shop with the white rastafarian owner is actually north of my location, and I slow my bike down without turning around, am I now getting closer to the bike shop? Or am I slowly still going the wrong way? At what point am I getting closer?

lacarnut
08-16-2010, 12:15 PM
Are private sector jobs market heading in the right direction ?


http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/6/29/632734-127782733504491-Andrei-Tratseuski_origin.jpg

There is a little problem with your chart; it stops at the month of May. Are you aware that June had a net loss of jobs and July had a net loss of 131,000?

See, you are dishonest, lying, little asshole

NJCardFan
08-16-2010, 12:18 PM
Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

Why are you ignoring my analogy?

Rebel Yell
08-16-2010, 12:20 PM
Why are you ignoring my analogy?

Duuuuhhhhh.

PoliCon
08-16-2010, 12:55 PM
Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

DUMBFUCK - losing is LOSING. Get it? :rolleyes:

PoliCon
08-16-2010, 12:56 PM
So if the nation sheds less and less jobs each month , you think that is the wrong direction ?

You're still heading DOWN either way - so YES. That's the wrong fucking direction. :rolleyes:

lacarnut
08-16-2010, 01:13 PM
You're still heading DOWN either way - so YES. That's the wrong fucking direction. :rolleyes:

Less is better to that moron.

Remind me of an attorney that thought he was smarter than a cop. He would not co-operate and questioned whether the infraction of not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign was valid. The cop whipped out his night stick and started beating him with it. He asked the attorney "do you want me to slow down or do you want me to stop."

Nubs
08-16-2010, 01:13 PM
So my per month income was $700 less than my expenses for 6 months = $4200 behind on billls

Better job, now my per month income is $200 less than expenses for the last 3 months = $600 behind

I am now $4800 behind on my bills and will be $5000 behind by end of next month.

While this may be an improvement in the rate of decline, I am still sinking further and further into debt without any hope of paying off the debt. How could anyone call this scenerio an improved situation?? All you have accompished is to delay bankruptcy.

The only was to begin to pay off the debt is to reduce spending or declare bankruptcy and restructure debt so that income is greater than expenses.

asdf2231
08-16-2010, 03:36 PM
and... *poof*

:)

Speedy
08-16-2010, 04:03 PM
So losing 700,000 jobs a month is the very same as losing 1000 jobs a month ?

It means there was no progress made ?



Yes it is the same. It is like sky diving. You freefall fast and then deploy a chute. You are still dropping and have not reached bottom.

m00
08-16-2010, 06:12 PM
Honestly, it's hard for me to believe job numbers in general (either under Bush or Obama tbh), because at every company I've been at, we were always hiring skilled people for good pay. When the company I was working for in Australia was collapsing, I found another job that paid just as much at a better company in under a month.

So I think "jobs" is a very complex issue. Because it also has to do what jobs we are talking about. If we are talking about skilled jobs in the tech sector, there seems to always be work available. Hell, we're hiring people now. And we were hiring people before Obama took office, and hiring people through the financial collapse. We were also terminating contracts of various positions, but for reasons other than "oh shit the economy is sinking." Part of optimizing business is actively seeking positive attrition of your work force.

What interests me most - and what I haven't seen data on - is trends in terms of the kinds of jobs that we are gaining and losing, the skill level required for those jobs, and what those jobs are paying. If we lose 500,000 crap jobs at insolvent companies, and pick up 250,000 "good" jobs at growing companies I wouldn't necessarily consider that a net loss. Meanwhile, if we trade 250,000 highly skilled tech jobs and gained 500,000 jobs doing roadwork, I would consider this a net loss. I suppose I've never seen such numbers because they can be complex and open to interpretation, and politicians don't release information that "the other side" can easily spin.

Constitutionally Speaking
08-16-2010, 07:49 PM
You're gonna post charts from BLOGS that show something quite different from your claim - and you expect us to capitulate to your asinine claims? :rolleyes:

Without equal time frames this is an absolutely meaningless statistic. In addition, you do realize that we have lost 2 million plus private sector jobs since the stimulus passed, don't you????

Zathras
08-17-2010, 12:01 AM
Something else about the graph that shows the jobs are still going in the wrong direction...government jobs are increasing. Once the bars of the graph switch directions then we will be headed in the right direction. Till then Stupidicus we're heading in the wrong direction, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Satanicus
08-17-2010, 06:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by djones520
No, he wants us to say that losing fewer jobs then before means things are better..

Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

djones520
08-17-2010, 06:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by djones520
No, he wants us to say that losing fewer jobs then before means things are better..

Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

You must be losing it. You posted that exact message in this thread already numbnuts.

Zathras
08-17-2010, 09:11 AM
BWAK It's Bush's fault BWAK.....BWAK DUmmy want a cracker BWAK!!!

Fixed.

FlaGator
08-17-2010, 09:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by djones520
No, he wants us to say that losing fewer jobs then before means things are better..

Yep , losing less means we are heading in the right direction.

losing more would mean we are heading in the wrong direction.

But in your twisted mind , losing more and less are both in the wrong direction

Go figure.

Guess what? Whether you are falling at 500 mile an hour or 100 miles per hour you are still falling.