Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	here we go--again
Date:	1/21/2016 9:29:53 AM

The number of applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly increased last week to a six-month high, indicating tempered progress in the labor market.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Few will hear this news
Date:	1/21/2016 11:02:22 AM

When the numbers are good it is wall to wall with the govt media.  Bad news?   Meh........  Recall all the coverage the December numbers got, despite being a pure fabrication?  

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	Few will hear this news
Date:	1/21/2016 1:08:05 PM

stores closing everywhere: MACYS, SEARS, WALMART, J.C. PENNEY; K MART; OFFICE DEPOT, GAP, WALGREEN; ETC ETC; think Obama (Un) Care & min wage have anything to do with it ??

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Few will hear this news
Date:	1/21/2016 4:39:35 PM

No I don't.  Let's address them individually -

Macy's - was just reading that Macy's is going heavily into their outlet stores (BTW, as did Nordstrom and Saks), and closing their department stores.  (changing customers shopping patterns). 

Sears - has been on life support for a long, long time.  The problem is that once Sears was known for their store brands which were highly regarded, think appliances and tools.  In recent years they have been sourcing these things oversears and the quality is not what it was.  Additionall Home Depot and Lowes have started carrying appliances most often at better prices. (changing customer shopping patterns).

Walmart - They are closing some store, 9 in AL, that have nothing to do with $15 minimum wage and they give their employees so few hours, they are unaffected by Obamacare.

J.C Penneys - Much the same as Sears.  They have tried to incoporate brands, like Lands End, without much success. Both Sears and JC Penney used to rely heavily on catalog sales, which are no longer on the upswing.  (changing customer shopping patterns). 

Kmart - been on life support for a long, long time due to challenges from Walmart and Target.  Even Martha Stewart blew them off.  (changing customer shopping patterns).

Office Depot- could not compete with Staples in the Free Market. 

Gap - Gap is interesting.  They failed to change their merchandizing and products to coincide with what consumers want to buy.  They also own Banana Republic.  Also they face stiff competition from Old Navy, which has a dedicated following and cheaper pricing. 

Walgreens - was bought out by Rite Aid.  You will see stores close as they consolidate. 

I know you would love to blame Obama and miniumum wage, but for these businesses that is just not the case.  Customers are moving away from traditional department stores, and into more specialized stores.  Companies are pouring their money into their outlet operation, because inexplicably, people think they are getting better deals at outlets (and I suspect outlets are cheaper to run).  And as Heidi Klum says "in fashion, one day you are in and the next day you are out".    Another store I expect to see bite the dust is Talbots, woman's clothes.  They have been struggling too.   

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Few will hear this news
Date:	1/21/2016 6:36:07 PM

Eight years of no jobs, no insurance...thanks to employers avoiding o-BAMAcare will keep Americans out of stores, and no hope for the future will lead companies to downsize in preparation for the crash that is coming shortly....all thanks to o-BAMA's policies.  Dance, Dance...shuffle, shuffle

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Few will hear this news
Date:	1/21/2016 8:03:40 PM

I guess you are discounting that management of these companies might just suck and failure to plan and forecast correctly about what customers want to buy has changed?  Or that one company would buy out another company and therefore consolidate their stores?  Obama may have done bad things, but stores went out of business during other Administrations too that did nothing with health care.... Montgomery Ward, FAO Schwartz, Gimbals, Garfinkels.  Some of the stores listed by FlyFisher have only stayed in business by the grace of God, their business has been in the red so long......

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hound and Wixie
Date:	1/21/2016 9:10:26 PM (updated 1/21/2016 9:13:00 PM)

Hound...thanks for bringing commen-sense to counter non-sense...as is your usual SOP.

Wixie...thanks for still moer BS and non-sense...as is your usual SOP.

PS: Wixie., are you aware that there are 6 million more Americans employed today than at the best months of W...that, in fact, more Americans are working today than any time in history...that employment has risen 70 months in a row, the only time that has ever happened before was during the Clinton administration...in those 70 months 10 times more Americans found jobs than in the entire 96 months of W's disaster?  These are facts, inconvenient truths for such as you. Deny them all you want...it does not change the facts...Dance dance / shuffle shuffle!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Some reality for you Archie
Date:	1/22/2016 4:43:17 PM

You do realize that since Obama took office approximately 15 million new workers have entered the work force, right?  That there are 6 million more jobs today is actually not something to crow about. The number you keep spouting over and over from the Democrat party talking points is just plain nonsense, but it does appeal to the economically illiterate left wing nuts.  

What is important is the labor participation rate, which is the lowest since 1977.  And the second most important data point is average wages which have declined under Obama.  So unless you think a lower percentage of work eligible persons actually working and for lower wages are a good thing, you would not be so happy.  But if you think the opposite then I suppose it is time to celebrate.  Sorry to bust your bubble.....well, actually I am not at all sorry. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	What bubble
Date:	1/22/2016 9:21:14 PM (updated 1/22/2016 9:42:58 PM)

The truth and facts are not a bubble you can burst.  You can try, but the truth remains.  I do not credit Obama with the 14 million new jobs over the last 70 months just as I do not blame W for the fact that inflation adjusted wages went down much faster on his watch than Obama's.

Yes, I realize that 14 million new jobs have come on line in the last 6 yeras and that even with that we are still only 6 million up.  Do you realize when the majority of the job losses resulting in the 8 million divergence occured?  W had very little to do with it, but do you realize and acknowledge when his term ended we were losing 850,000 jobs a month and getting worse every month?  Obama had very little to do with it, but do you realize and acknowledge that when he took office the trend began to reverse and within 8 months the graph turned positive?

I am afraid I cannot recall his name, but a well known generally conservative and very orthodox economist pointed out several months ago that he had no concern at all with the lower percentage of people in the work force by pointing out that, while some of the decrease was due to discouraged job seekers, the vast majority of the decrease was due to more late teens and 20 somethings choosing college over entering the job market and to the number of baby boomers voluntarily retiring...good news because it opened up new positions for the work force to move up making more positions available lower on the pecking order.

Now, be honest, if the economy had performed exactly as it has over the last 7 years but a President John McCain or Mitt Rominey had presided over that economy, would you have posted what you did above?  Now give me an answer but search your soul and be honest MM.

Facts are stubborn things MM, but they are real and they are forever.  DANCE, DANCE / SHUFFLE, SHUFFLE!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	What utter nonsense
Date:	1/23/2016 8:37:32 AM

It doesn't surprise me you can't recall the name of the fictional conservative economist not worried about the labor participation rate.  He is a complete fool if indeed he even exists, which I doubt. Interesting that when I skewer your stupid 6 million jobs comment you go back to lost jobs during the recession. News flash Archie, that happens with every recession.  Especially one that was deepened by government distortion of the housing markets. But that is then and this is now and after 7 years of the worst recovery since FDR's failed economic policies you somehow think creating so few jobs and lower wages as something to brag about. Tsk, tsk, such low expectations for our first black president. Why is that?  You never choose to answer that essential question. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	What utter nonsense...I agree
Date:	1/23/2016 11:03:34 PM

nonsense and more dance, dance / shuffle, shuffle.

For just once in your life why not answer my questions MM.  And while you are at it please point out one single thing I posted which was false along with how and why it is false...intending to live a few more years I will not hold my breath!!

In the famous words of Wixie the Pixie..."Dance, dance / shuffle, shuffle".

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	I know you guys hate it
Date:	1/24/2016 9:05:56 AM

When one of the few "leftwing Oblammer lovin Dimocrats" on this forum produce any facts that refute your T party talking points, but so what...they are still facts.  Amazing how often those facts either make you change the subject or stop talking and sneak off pouting with your tail between your legs.  The best answer to lies are truths!

Look, Obama deserves little if any of the current many good aspects of the US economy, conversely he sure as he// deserves little if any of the blame for the continuing bad aspects.  He was handed a very bad hand, not by Bush, but by the Wall Street sharks, mortgage charlatans and the unfortunate fact that all economies run in cycles.  The current cycle is up!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Surprise surprise MM
Date:	1/24/2016 10:25:25 AM

Check out Shigeru Fujita (economist for the Philly Fed).  He is the guy who pointed out that 80% of the drop in the percentage of people in the labor market can be attributed to demographic factors at each end of the age spectrum and to more mothers choosing to stay home with the kids (do you oppose that MM?) rather than cylical or other current economic factors...he has the stats!

Intended to post this last night but unintentionally deleted.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry but he is wrong
Date:	1/24/2016 3:07:44 PM (updated 1/24/2016 3:17:44 PM)

I posted this before and won't restate the facts but this has been studied and around 25% of the increase in labor participation rate comes from those not interested in working (retired, etc.). You know the old saw about getting two economists to agree on anything. No wonder it's called the dismal science. I will go with a fact based study over some obscure economist with a regional Fed. Keep trying Archie but remember, an opinion is different than a fact. Not to mention I can find no evidence he is a conservative economist. Did you include that little fabrication to make him appear more reliable?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry but he is wrong
Date:	1/24/2016 3:24:18 PM (updated 1/24/2016 3:41:16 PM)

Just going by the words of the original article.  Ok, you believe the "facts" espoused by your economist and I will believe the "facts" rendered by another...but keep in mind, the Japanese fellow had supporting stats and graphs too.  I guess it comes down to believing what you want to believe and searching until you find some "expert" with a chart that seems to support your or my view.

You are right and I have said the same thing more than a few times, that facts are not opinions, but 8 or 9 times out of ten most posters on this forum are expressing an opinion as though it were fact. 

I am 71 and still working because I enjoy it, but I do know at least 5 other architects who were working 3 years ago who have now retired because they could rather than because they had to, I do know 3 mothers (my daughter included) who have left the workforce to stay home with the kids,  I do know at least 2 young guys who have quit jobs to enroll in graduate school, but I do not know anyone who has dropped out of the labor pool because they were discouraged.  I know they are out there but l don't know where.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry but he is wrong
Date:	1/24/2016 4:13:22 PM

I'll readily admit to my bias regarding sources I like. But on this issue I am agnostic.  Regardless of the reasons for the lower labor participation rate it is de facto a serious problem.  Having fewer people in the active labor pool is a dangerous thing for a whole variety of reasons.  Especially when they are of working age and capable.  From your perspective it is fewer people to pay taxes that support your big government programs.  From mine, it is more people not contributing to our economy and relying on either savings or some government program.  Either way, both of us should rue the low labor participation rate regardless of our rationale.  On this issue we should be aligned, unless all you want is more govt dependence so they will vote for Democrats. Pretty soon they will run out of other people's money and then what?  

I do agree that blaming Bush for the recession is silly.  But that is because I cannot think of one thing he did to cause it. But on the weak recovery I can come up with literally dozens of policy decisions, laws and regulations passed by Democrats that have negatively impacted the economy. I have asked this before and am still waiting for a reasonable answer, what exactly did Bush do to cause the recession?  Not,asking you to answer because you've already said he didn't. But he is routinely blamed and no one seems able,to articulate why.