Home  Maps  About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  

(928088)

view threaded

Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:09:29 2012

That's not good. New jobs added in March were much lower than expected. As usual, the rate is being lowered because people are once again not looking for work (which for some stupid reason means they don't count):

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46975031

Post a New Response

(928089)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by DAND124 on Fri Apr 6 12:13:30 2012, in response to Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:09:29 2012.

As usual, the rate is being lowered because people are once again not looking for work (which for some stupid reason means they don't count):

it's always been done that way; you didn't object when Bush was President.

Post a New Response

(928090)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 12:22:01 2012, in response to Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:09:29 2012.

As usual, the rate is being lowered because people are once again not looking for work

No, that number decreased by 141,000.

Post a New Response

(928091)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:24:33 2012, in response to Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by DAND124 on Fri Apr 6 12:13:30 2012.

Unemployment was never as high, or as closely watched as it is now. I think it should be re-calculated no matter who is president.

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT


(928096)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 12:47:31 2012, in response to Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:24:33 2012.

Unemployment was never as high, or as closely watched as it is now.

It was higher in 1982-83 than it has been any time since and was certainly closely watched then.

I think it should be re-calculated no matter who is president.

You can't just change an internationally accepted methodology. FWIW, the BLS does report several different measures of unemployment, including the rate including discouraged workers (it's 8.7 percent).

Post a New Response

(928102)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 6 13:05:19 2012, in response to Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by DAND124 on Fri Apr 6 12:13:30 2012.

Bush isn't running for reelection.

Post a New Response

(928105)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 6 13:06:19 2012, in response to Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:09:29 2012.

No one cares. People are numb to this shit.

Trayvon and contraception have already won it for Obama.

Post a New Response

(928106)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 13:07:16 2012, in response to Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 6 13:05:19 2012.

There were also never nearly as many disaffected long-term unemployed people as there are now. The rate does not reflect them, but they still collect UEP checks and still need work. At no time in any previous president's reign have we seen such a LARGE disaffected workforce, at least not since Roosevelt.

Post a New Response

(928107)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 6 13:13:23 2012, in response to Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 13:07:16 2012.

A lot has changed since Roosevelt.

Technology is changing the world. It is reducing the size of the workforce. Outsourcing is another scourge.



Post a New Response

(928108)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by ClearAspect on Fri Apr 6 13:17:44 2012, in response to Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:24:33 2012.

You forgot the Reagan Years...

Post a New Response

(928135)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 14:11:16 2012, in response to Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:09:29 2012.

Unfortunately, over 100,000 fewer jobs were created last month than the previous 2. The difference is that over 160,000 have dropped out of the job market causing the unemployment number to drop. In reality, this is terrible news for the obamites. It may finally be a sign that higher gasoline prices are affecting the job market.

Post a New Response

(928140)

view threaded

The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 14:16:22 2012, in response to Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:09:29 2012.

Unemployment is higher among women. This is the democrats war against women.

Post a New Response

(928145)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 14:25:37 2012, in response to The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 14:16:22 2012.

Proff?


You are mischaracterizing what the War on Women is all about. One cannot get a job and expect to keep it if they constantly run the risk of pregnancy. Working women need to maintain their family size to a manageable level, so the children do not suffer. Women are still paid 25% less over all, so cost and availability of basic medical care that includes contraceptives is an issue. These are basic concepts of reality that you still don't get. Although I can understand that. You're not the one dealing with these issues.

Post a New Response

(928153)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 15:00:35 2012, in response to Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 13:07:16 2012.

There were also never nearly as many disaffected long-term unemployed people as there are now. The rate does not reflect them, but they still collect UEP checks and still need work.

And there were 118,000 fewer of them in March as there were in February.

Post a New Response

(928154)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 15:06:46 2012, in response to The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 14:16:22 2012.

Unemployment is higher among women. This is the democrats war against women.

No it isn't. The unemployment rate is 7.6 percent for men and 7.4 percent for women, teenagers excluded.

Post a New Response

(928157)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 6 15:39:59 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 14:25:37 2012.

Lol!!!!!!

Post a New Response

(928161)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 15:54:18 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 14:25:37 2012.

Women are still paid 25% less over all, so cost and availability of basic medical care that includes contraceptives is an issue.

Even Female Train Operators??

Post a New Response

(928164)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 16:04:05 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 15:54:18 2012.

I wouldn't have any idea. They wouldn't allow me to train for that job when I applied to NYCT.

Post a New Response

(928167)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:06:36 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 16:04:05 2012.

They wouldn't allow me to train for that job when I applied to NYCT.

You passed the test?

If so why did they disqualify you if you dont mind me asking?



Post a New Response

(928169)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Rockparkman on Fri Apr 6 16:11:50 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 6 15:39:59 2012.

The joke's on you, DIRTBAG!!!
Taxes= GOOD
Profit without regulation= CORRUPTION.
Police=COWARDS.
Bureaucrats=HEROES.
Solution:
ARM the bureaucrats and fire the cops.

Post a New Response

(928170)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 16:12:25 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:06:36 2012.

I'm female. Women were not allowed to take the test, qualify or work on the actual railroad then. All that was open to women was token attendant and/or office positions.

Post a New Response

(928171)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:14:54 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 16:12:25 2012.

I'm female. Women were not allowed to take the test, qualify or work on the actual railroad then. All that was open to women was token attendant and/or office positions.

Wow what year was this?



Post a New Response

(928172)

view threaded

Re: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT

Posted by orange blossom special on Fri Apr 6 16:15:51 2012, in response to Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 6 12:09:29 2012.

120k is a failure number x2

Post a New Response

(928182)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:30:04 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 14:25:37 2012.

Shut the fuck up and go make dinner.

Post a New Response

(928184)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:31:31 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:14:54 2012.

It's bullshit. Women traditionally did not seek out those titles but there was never a prohibition and I dare her to provide proof that there was.

Post a New Response

(928186)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:33:10 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 15:06:46 2012.

7.6 for man? 7.4 for women yet the total is 8.2% great math, Sylvester.

Post a New Response

(928188)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:35:04 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 16:04:05 2012.

I CALL




Post a New Response

(928190)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:36:57 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:31:31 2012.

Well i want to hear what she has to say about this Steve..

Im always two minds about most things...

Post a New Response

(928193)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:42:34 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:36:57 2012.

The mother of the former General Supt. of Jamaica Shop and Coney Island Shop was a Conductor in the 1940s and 1950s. I'd bet that she was not the only one of her sex.

One is denied a job with NYCT for only a few reasons. Among them being their health would not allow them to perform the job, some sort of action in the criminal justice system or illegal immigration status.

Post a New Response

(928194)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 16:42:54 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:33:10 2012.

7.6 for man? 7.4 for women yet the total is 8.2% great math, Sylvester.

Teenagers excluded. It's 25 percent for ages 16-19, both sexes.

Post a New Response

(928196)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 16:44:59 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:30:04 2012.

See what I mean?

Post a New Response

(928197)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:47:10 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:42:34 2012.

The mother of the former General Supt. of Jamaica Shop and Coney Island Shop was a Conductor in the 1940s and 1950s. I'd bet that she was not the only one of her sex.

All being said i want to hear WHY she said women are excluded...

One is denied a job with NYCT for only a few reasons. Among them being their health would not allow them to perform the job, some sort of action in the criminal justice system or illegal immigration status.

Agreed hence why i want to hear why she didnt get this Job..

Always a reason for any and everything..



Post a New Response

(928199)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:47:55 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 16:42:54 2012.

I won't be so unpleasant as to suggest that I don't believe your statistics, however, perhaps you have a graph or chart handy? Of course the entire "war against women" thing is a distraction concocted by the left-leaning lemming losers to distract us from the real issue of the economy which, in case you have not noticed, still sucks. 13 million unemployed. Another 6 million underemployed. Half of those out of work more than 6 months.

Post a New Response

(928200)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:48:35 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 16:44:59 2012.

Regardless of whats going on bet you two can you help me out here as to why NYCT did what they did and what year?

Post a New Response

(928201)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:49:00 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:47:10 2012.

Word of warning: Don't hold your breath.

Post a New Response

(928203)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:51:45 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:49:00 2012.

I dont plan on it...

Post a New Response

(928215)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 17:07:44 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:47:55 2012.

I won't be so unpleasant as to suggest that I don't believe your statistics, however, perhaps you have a graph or chart handy?

BLS March Employment Situation Summary Table A

Post a New Response

(928217)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:21:26 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:42:34 2012.

During WW2, that makes sense.

There were no health issues at the time, no criminal record and I was born in NYC. Regardless, I know what I was told when I applied.

Post a New Response

(928218)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:22:25 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:14:54 2012.

Early 1970s.

Post a New Response

(928219)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:29:35 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:48:35 2012.

At the initial interview, I was told the only positions available to me were either secretarial (didn't qualify) and token attendants, that they would not put women on the railroad itself. An interview is no time to make a scene, or threaten to sue. In those times, such happened frequently to women. It was the era of "help wanted male, "help wanted female". Doesn't make it any less wrong.

Post a New Response

(928220)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 17:32:55 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:29:35 2012.

Perhaps you sould have went that route...

Thank you for answering...

Post a New Response

(928222)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:36:02 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:35:04 2012.



Post a New Response

(928223)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 17:36:19 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Apr 6 17:07:44 2012.

Thank you!

Post a New Response

(928224)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 17:38:10 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:36:02 2012.

I notice that you've still not answered Railman's question (not that I'm surprised)
ONCE AGAIN I CALL


Post a New Response

(928225)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 17:39:29 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 17:32:55 2012.

I don't consider that an "answer".

Post a New Response

(928228)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:44:04 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 17:38:10 2012.

I did. Hmmmm.....try reading next time?



Post a New Response

(928229)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 6 17:46:27 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 17:39:29 2012.

The questioner was fine with it. It's not your place to say anything about it.

Post a New Response

(928233)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Apr 6 17:54:51 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:36:57 2012.

It's true ... there were two "women" conductors, but they both had dangly thingies in their pants and they weren't real women. :)

Seriously ... none back then.

Post a New Response

(928237)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Apr 6 17:57:59 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Railman718 on Fri Apr 6 16:47:10 2012.

Perhaps he can give us the name of just *ONE* female conductor on the payroll in the 1970's? Nah ...

Post a New Response

(928240)

view threaded

Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Apr 6 17:58:53 2012, in response to Re: The Real War Against Women (was: Unemployment at 8.2%, BUT), posted by Train Dude on Fri Apr 6 16:30:04 2012.

Ah ... finally found what little Chris was talking about. Go make dinner? You really DO keep the wife, kids and poodles locked in the basement, don't you? :(

Post a New Response

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]