"Job openings plunge by most in nearly four years"

And there are 8,245,105 more people in the US.

Why don't you look at the number EMPLOYED?:

Here's private nonfarm employment:

Ja sure there are more people employed, but the economy is not growing at a rate as high as the rate of new people entering the work force. If we keep at this rate the number of unemployed will keep rising.

Easy vote for someone besides the incumbent.

Dan

There are 1.5 million more unemployed than in January, 2009.

Irrelevant. We have the lowest workforce participation in over 40 years. Obama has negative job growth.

It is pretty easy for the economy to have full employment when the private sector is adding 25% of GDP to its debt load as it did every year from 1998-2008.

Now that the private sector is no longer spending 25% more than its income (today it's spending about 8% less than income) it will be impossible for the economy to maintain full employment unless the govt borrows the funds the private sector is no longer willing or able to borrow.

When Congress decides to balance the budget the US private sector economy will fall off a cliff. Unemployment will jump to

Irving Fisher, the man who Milton Friedman called "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced", describes the process:

So you're saying no businesses in the private sector were/are going concerns?

In your dreams maybe... What happens when nobody is willing to borrow? You know like when the private sector has already borrowed $25 trillion and is not interested in borrowing more even at rock bottom interest rates.

And very little of that enormous debt went into productive purposes. All that borrowing went to mostly chasing after inflating assets (AKA capital gains) and now nobody wants to borrow or lend because the assets are valued way ore than they are worth.

In the last 3 years the private sector has saved $3 trillion more than it has lent out.

And nobody will borrow for productive purposes because there is no demand for production. There is no demand for production because the money is all tied up with repaying debt or trying to protect deflating financial assets

things are not going to change by wishful thinking or by arguing about who was supposed to be in charge of the deck chairs on the titanic.

What "happens" is exactly what we have been seeing for the past several = years.

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:7Pednd-_odBMn3zSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@scnresearch.com:

True.

Yet, Bush saw a net increase of 1,095,000 jobs between January of 2001 and January of 2009 even with the recession during 2007 and 2008. Obama has seen a net decrease of 552,000 jobs between January of 2009 and May's preliminary report.

I'm not the one doing that.

Ed Huntress wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Which agrees pretty much with my findings. Of course, Obama's numbers started at the low point while Bush's numbers started with Clinton's high ending. Neither one is responsible for the numbers that they started with, however. It just worked out that way.

BTW, the numbers I have disagree somewhat with yours since mine are all nonfarm numbers. I show:

Mine are all employment other than farm so it would include the public sector.

Yep.....that is why I made the comment that to stay even on the unemployment percentage you need to grow jobs at least even with population growth.

Then don't do it. I simply asked a question, I didn't ask you to go to work on it. ;)

This has been explained to you before.

Not according to the chart found here :

Not according to the chart found here :

That's a nice tool, one I've used it many times in research myself; = sadly, the generated tables aren't directly linkable.

But even if true, your 552,000 figure would be a drop in the bucket if = expressed as a ratio to the total loss of government workers that = occured over the same period, or at least 8had occured the last time I = checked. =20

Nor am I.

Anyways, while seemingly we are in fact slowly recovering, it's becoming = increasingly apparent that our continuing with allowing disproportionate = tax advantages to the wealthiest members of our society while at the = same cutting back on government employment certainly doesn't appear to = be speeding things along..

snipped-for-privacy@dudu.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yes, but you keep failing to read the numbers. Try that once. My numbers are actual numbers from the Department of Labor Statistics, the reference to, I see, you snipped.

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:F4idnSGCoOyijn_SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@scnresearch.com:

You posted this before and I looked at it. What it shows is monthly changes in non farm employment whereas the servlet below will show actual numbers from the monthly jobs report.

Yes, but that is also why I gave the title for the figures being looked at.

The bottom line is that Obama has overseen a very significant recovery from what he was handed but he is not quite back to the levels that were in play prior to his coming into office.

This is the title of the chart at that location you wish to look at.

Yes.....my point was that to reduce the unemployment numbers we need new jobs in number that exceed population growth.

it's

No, but if you really wish to compare the effect of that taxcut (which Obama extended) was about $700B over a 10 year period. The amount cut from the middle class was $4.4T over the same time period.

so-called

Interestingly, on my screen, it displays a graph.

Here are the cooresponding numbers, generated directly from the BLS = site :

=3D=3D=3D

Series Id: LNU01000000 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level Labor force status: Civilian labor force Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over

Download: Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

=3D=3D=3D=20

The line wrap will probably be all messed up but the important numbers = are below:

Jan 2000 141228

Jan 2009 153445

Present 54998

Yes, and this has occured in spite of a staunch refusal on the part of = his opponents to even consider any ideas that might have a chance of = improving the situation

Thanks, I've been all over that site before and lately I've been having = problems with my peripheral vision that make it kind of difficult to = navigate =20

Well, I know at least a few folks who work for the government and I can = assure you that most of them work pretty darned hard to earn their = living.

I would be interested to see those numbers, yes.

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote=20

The important numbers are below:

Jan 2000 141228

Jan 2009 153445

Correction :

Present 154998

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:4pSdnWcvTu9-93_SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@scnresearch.com:

Interesting that the same site seems to give different numbers for essentially the same thing.