ADP report shows 179K private-sector jobs added in May

After the first quarter GDP was REVISED DOWN to a MINUS ON PERCENT now comes this. Job growth that doesn't come to our growth in population

ADP report shows 179K private-sector jobs added in May

Private sector employment increased by 179,000 jobs from April to May according to the May ADP National Employment Report®. Broadly distributed to the public each month, free of charge, the ADP National Employment Report is produced by ADP®, a leading global provider of Human Capital Management (HCM) solutions, in collaboration with Moody’s Analytics. The report, which is derived from ADP’s actual payroll data, measures the change in total nonfarm private employment each month on a seasonally-adjusted basis. …

Read more:
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/2014/May/NER/NER-May-2014.aspx

Want to see the best boost to the economy ever?

Impeach Obama and remove him from office.

The funny thing here is that you two are probably completely ignorant to the fact that we lost 425,000 private sector jobs during the eight year tenure of Bush - a president I assume each of you voted for twice.

Meanwhile, here you are complaining about a month in which we only added 179,000 jobs.  Yeah.  We only saw an increase of 179,000 jobs...in one month.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the fact that 179,000 exceeds the level of job growth needed to keep up with population growth.

boards of FL wrote:The funny thing here is that you two are probably completely ignorant to the fact that we lost 425,000 private sector jobs during the eight year tenure of Bush - a president I assume each of you voted for twice.

Meanwhile, here you are complaining about a month in which we only added 179,000 jobs.  Yeah.  We only saw an increase of 179,000 jobs...in one month.

How many jobs had he added at this point in his presidency?

What percentage of working age adults were not working?

What was the size of our working population?

Yeah, ONLY, since it takes 200,000 additional jobs monthly to just keep even with our population growth.

Good luck!

Markle wrote:How many jobs had he added at this point in his presidency?

What percentage of working age adults were not working?

What was the size of our working population?

Asking a series of rhetorical questions doesn't make you any less wrong.

Markle wrote:Yeah, ONLY, since it takes 200,000 additional jobs monthly to just keep even with our population growth.

No it doesn't.

Actually, I'll try answering the rhetorical questions once.  I'm curious if there is an actual point waiting to be made, or if Markle is just a moron only capable of asking rhetorical questions when he is outside of his copy and paste script.

Let's see...

Markle wrote:How many jobs had he added at this point in his presidency?

Bush: 2,401,000 private sector jobs as of 04/2006

Obama: 4,986,000 private sector jobs as of 04/2014

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

Markle wrote:What percentage of working age adults were not working?

Bush: 66.1%* as of 04/2006

Obama: 62.8%* as of 04/2014


* - This is the labor force participation rate.  Feel free to replace this with your own numbers if you have them (you don't).

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

Markle wrote:What was the size of our working population?

Bush: 111,397,000 (labor force); 213888 (civilian non institutional pop, 16+)

Obama: 116,383,000 (labor force); 247439 (civilian non institutional pop, 16+)

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data


OK, Markle.  There you are.  Each of your rhetorical questions have been answered.  How will you proceed?  Which outcome will you confirm?  Did you actually have a point, or are you merely a moron asking rhetorical questions in the absence of a point?

I'll also preemptively state that running away form this will confirm the latter.

2001
4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7

2002
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0

2003
5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7

2004
5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4

2005
5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9

2006
4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

2007
4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0

2008
5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3

2009
7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9

2010
9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4

2011
9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5

2012
8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2

Here are the key findings from this chart to share with your friends.

When President Bush took office in January, 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.2%.

After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

Rising still in January, 2009 when President Obama took office, the rate was 7.8%.


bush had good unemployment rate, businesses saw Obama coming.

Markle wrote:After the first quarter GDP was REVISED DOWN to a MINUS ON PERCENT now comes this.  Job growth that doesn't come to our growth in population

ADP report shows 179K private-sector jobs added in May

Private sector employment increased by 179,000 jobs from April to May according to the May ADP National Employment Report®. Broadly distributed to the public each month, free of charge, the ADP National Employment Report is produced by ADP®, a leading global provider of Human Capital Management (HCM) solutions, in collaboration with Moody’s Analytics. The report, which is derived from ADP’s actual payroll data, measures the change in total nonfarm private employment each month on a seasonally-adjusted basis. …

Read more:
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/2014/May/NER/NER-May-2014.aspx

More service industry jobs yea haw....

boards of FL wrote:Actually, I'll try answering the rhetorical questions once.  I'm curious if there is an actual point waiting to be made, or if Markle is just a moron only capable of asking rhetorical questions when he is outside of his copy and paste script.

Let's see...

Markle wrote:How many jobs had he added at this point in his presidency?

Bush: 2,401,000 private sector jobs as of 04/2006

Obama: 4,986,000 private sector jobs as of 04/2014

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

Markle wrote:What percentage of working age adults were not working?

Bush: 66.1%* as of 04/2006

Obama: 62.8%* as of 04/2014


* - This is the labor force participation rate.  Feel free to replace this with your own numbers if you have them (you don't).

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

Markle wrote:What was the size of our working population?

Bush: 111,397,000 (labor force); 213888 (civilian non institutional pop, 16+)

Obama: 116,383,000 (labor force); 247439 (civilian non institutional pop, 16+)

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data


OK, Markle.  There you are.  Each of your rhetorical questions have been answered.  How will you proceed?  Which outcome will you confirm?  Did you actually have a point, or are you merely a moron asking rhetorical questions in the absence of a point?

I'll also preemptively state that running away form this will confirm the latter.

How many of your "labor force" were working?  You know, that has to do with the unemployment rate but it is good to see that you recognize that the population is GROWING.  How cool is that?  We're making progress.

Then how do you explain this?
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey


Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over




http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

By the way, as you know, your link shows nothing, it goes to a home page.  You'll find mine useful.

boards of FL wrote:OK, Markle.  There you are.  Each of your rhetorical questions have been answered.  How will you proceed?  Which outcome will you confirm?  Did you actually have a point, or are you merely a moron asking rhetorical questions in the absence of a point?

And there we have it.  Markle confirms the latter.  Answer his rhetorical questions, and he'll just come back with more rhetorical questions.  No point to be made, just rhetorical questions.

Thanks you, Markle.

Markle wrote:How many of your "labor force" were working?

Markle wrote:Then how do you explain this?
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

No objection from Markle? I guess we're done here!

boards of FL wrote:No objection from Markle?  I guess we're done here!

I can only guess that with all your liberal education you were not taught to think critically.

Apparently you do not understand that 92 million people are not in the labor force. That is the highest in 30 something years.

We have the highest ever food stamp use EVER.

But you insist the economy is doing fine and continue to post these fabricated POLLS from the GOV.

You and many here are obviously insulated from the real world. People down here on the ground know your GOV numbers are full of shit.

boards of FL wrote:No objection from Markle?  I guess we're done here!

You denied the facts.  Nothing else to be said.



What was the GDP for the first quarter again please?

Markle wrote:
You denied the facts.

What? You never presented any facts. You only asked rhetorical questions. Normally I point that fact out to you and call it a day, but this time I actually went as far as answering your rhetorical questions...just to see if maybe you had a point to make. It turned out that you didn't. You just asked more rhetorical questions. You have nothing of substance to offer here beyond a, "Yeah...but...".

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:
You denied the facts.

What?  You never presented any facts.  You only asked rhetorical questions.  Normally I point that fact out to you and call it a day, but this time I actually went as far as answering your rhetorical questions...just to see if maybe you had a point to make.   It turned out that you didn't.  You just asked more rhetorical questions.  You have nothing of substance to offer here beyond a, "Yeah...but...".  

What was the GDP the first quarter of this year again?

-1.0 prrcent

-1.0 percent

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101745692

Where have all the missing American worker's gone?

Markle wrote:
What was the GDP the first quarter of this year again?

The 2nd estimate came in at -1.0%.

There you are.  Another rhetorical question answered.  This is your chance to turn things around here.  Are you merely a rube asking rhetorical questions in the absence of a point, or do you have an actual point?


By a show of hands, who here thinks the next response from Markle will either be A) he will not respond or B) a rhetorical question?

Why strap many people on foodstamps?

They must be qualifying

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:
What was the GDP the first quarter of this year again?

The 2nd estimate came in at -1.0%.

There you are.  Another rhetorical question answered.  This is your chance to turn things around here.  Are you merely a rube asking rhetorical questions in the absence of a point, or do you have an actual point?


By a show of hands, who here thinks the next response from Markle will either be A) he will not respond or B) a rhetorical question?

I ask specific questions, nothing rhetorical whereupon you answer a different question. This one you got right though. The GDP SHRANK by a full 1% after years of anemic growth.

If we have another quarter with negative growth, we officially have another recession. Most folks haven't noticed that we ever got out of the last one.

Markle wrote:I ask specific questions, nothing rhetorical whereupon you answer a different question.  This one you got right though.  The GDP SHRANK by a full 1% after years of anemic growth.

If we have another quarter with negative growth, we officially have another recession.  Most folks haven't noticed that we ever got out of the last one.

Fair enough. So now that we are past your rhetorical questions, what was your point? Or did you ever actually have one?