Here's an interesting chart with some data about how many jobs have been lost and the years those losses occurred.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/CES0000000001_65317_1265768894699.gif
http://i46.tinypic.com/11tpx7n.jpg
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth)

I'll let the vultures form their own opinions.

I'll let the vultures form their own opinions.

I would much rather hear yours.

Counting the unemployed is like counting striper C&R!

I would much rather hear yours.

I don't have one. I just find the bell curve of job losses increasing quite significantly starting in Jan. '08, peaking in Jan. '09 and then decreasing through Jan. '10 with some positive job growth in November interesting.

I does show a significant slowing in jobs lost in the last few months.
It also shows significant actual jobs created during 6 of the 8 Bush years after a slumping economy that he inherited.

The economy is not in free fall, but without positive job growth those who are currently unemployed will remain so.

I don't have one. I just find the bell curve of job losses increasing quite significantly starting in Jan. '08, peaking in Jan. '09 and then decreasing through Jan. '10 with some positive job growth in November interesting.

The + in Nov/09 was probably due to part time retail hiring.
I did remember hearing though that the retail jobs held pretty steady
in Jan/10.
That's a good sign, but the only 2 areas that had true job growth were
N.Dakota and Washington DC. Big G is doing ok for itself.

I does show a significant slowing in jobs lost in the last few months.
It also shows significant actual jobs created during 6 of the 8 Bush years after a slumping economy that he inherited.

6 of the 8 years huh?

Let's see: His first year was a complete bust. Second year, complete bust. Third year, hovering around even. Forth, fifth and sixth years were good; I'll give him that, but they also lead up to the financial bubble busting. Seventh year started to slow. Eighth year completely terrible.

I'd say only 3 1/2 years had "significant actual jobs created". A year and a half were break-even years. And 3 years were completely in the toilet.

This is an apolitial obsercation.Chart aside, Obama said unemplyment (state of the union) is @ 10%. 1 in 10 Americans out of work. Now in good times, unemplyoment is @ 5%. So around 5% of Americans are out of work, more than normal.
So does it make sense to spend more $ on jobs bills and other stimulus for 5% of the population? I know people are suffering out of work, but it seems like a small amount? The reality is 90% of people are still working. Just a thought.

Here's an interesting chart with some data about how many jobs have been lost and the years those losses occurred.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/CES0000000001_65317_1265768894699.gif
http://i46.tinypic.com/11tpx7n.jpg
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth)

I'll let the vultures form their own opinions.

I'm not sure if you'd consider me a "vulture" since this isn't opinion, but fact. Job losses aren't really a good indicator about how the employment situation in the country is. You need to look at the unemployment rate along with the total number of discouraged workers and the total number of workers who are underemployed. Once companies go through massive layoffs, there aren't as many jobs that can be lost, so job losses naturally are going to decrease. To use an analogy you are familiar with, think about the striped bass fishery. If stocks are decreased by overfishing, there will be fewer fish to kill so the numbers reported will be fewer. Just because there are fewer fish reported as being killed doesn't mean things are better for the striper stocks. Ultimately, if you break down the stats, the only area of growth in the last 13 months has been government jobs.

The unemployment rate is deceiving. You need to evaluate unemployment against the rate at which a democracy is sustainable, and that rate is far less than 100%. If unemployment were to rise to someplace in the high low-high 30% range, the type of democracy and free market economy we've enjoyed becomes very likely to degrade.

Stimulus monies are suppose to stimulate the economy.

Why was stimulus monies funneled to support unemployment? :wall:

Where is the stimulation? :smash: