Texas Job creation : only thanx to government hiring .

You have to understand that doing everything state by state takes time. I'd rather not waste mine in going state by state. It's apparent that states under 5 percent unemployment have very low populations.

How many? Four, Seven at best. Out of the 27 states that have less than 5 million residents it not really a lot.

It's rather simple. The less people you have in the work force the lower unemployment will be. Unemployment was 9.8 percent at one time during Obama's tenure and fluctuated between 9.9 and 9.6. It fell below 9.5 and now it's fluctuating between 9.2 and 8.9 and has been doing this for several months.

The unemployment didn't fall between 9.5 because things are suddenly getting better. It fell because there less people in the work force than before.

Like I said early, the amount of people in the work force determines what the unemployment rate is. It just so happens that New York has less people in it's work force than Texas. New York has 8.5 million on average and Texas has 10 million workers on average.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here are the number of employment for both states. You'll have to deal with text data this time. I don't feel like taking another screen shot.

The data shows numbers in thousands in case you are wondering. But yeah, it's a perfect example of how the number of employed shows what the unemployment rate would be. It doesn't always deal with populate but the amount of people in the workforce.

The term is just private sector jobs and okay. Still, Texas hasn't had a net loss of "private sector jobs" since Feb of this year.

 

They are much better than an unemployment check.

 

And since they do they better pick up a 'shovel' and start going door to door to hope and find a job. Maybe one of their neighbors needs a drain ditch cleared before the summer ends.

 

No SOME states with lower population have lower unemployment just like SOME states with large populations have lower ( then avergae) unemployment.

More you cant say.

It shows smaller population isnt the only factor, its a very complex issue, reducing it too large vs small states is quit wrong.

Thats not an argument, unemployment is in % .

It follows a simular curve then what texas is doing, clearly once again showing texas is nothing special.

And how compares that to the federal level?

 

There is no State above 5 million residents which has unemployment above 6 percent. Starting from Colorado going all the way up to California I think you take the time the find that yourself you'll see that is true.

That might be the case if it were half or 25 percent of the states in the union but clearly it's not the case.

Okay Mr. SmartyPants. And how do you think the unemployment rate is calculated in the first place?

Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed Workers / Total Labor Force) * 100

Anyone who has taken an economic class knows that much. If you do the Math, NY will most likely have less unemployment than Texas. It's not possible to have more people working in your state than actual residents. Naturally NY will have a lower unemployment rate than Texas.

What curve are you talking about? The unemployment in US doesn't determine what unemployment will be in the individual states. Texas unemployment rate stayed around 8.3 - 8.2 while the US unemployment rate dropped from 9.4 to 8.9

Texas:

2010 Dec 8.3(B)
2011 Jan 8.3
2011 Feb 8.2
2011 Mar 8.1
2011 Apr 8.0
2011 May 8.0
2011 Jun 8.2(P)

US:

2010 Dec 9.4(B)
2011 Jan 9.0
2011 Feb 8.9
2011 Mar 8.8
2011 Apr 9.0
2011 May 9.1
2011 Jun 9.2(P)

You're not suppose to compare jobs at the national level to the state level. The total jobs in the nation are compiled together while the total amount of jobs in Texas are compiled by the total amount of jobs in every county in Texas.

 

You mean below 6% .

And yes but there are small states who do worse then the average showing its not just population size.

Thats BS. Wether or not a state is large or small doesnt matter in its calculation you do understand the concept of unemployment in %?

there are differences in population in economy in environment,education,minerals, placement, historical,...

Those are the determining factors, size probably does play a role but a small one.

So federal takes a simular drop, nothing special in texas.

yes of course I know that but Perry IS comparing. He is using it as a mayor part of his campaign.

 

Unemployment 5 percent and under is considered full employment so I don't know why you would make 6 % the bar.

Population does play a role in employment. It all depends on how many people in that state are in the work force. You will never find a state with more people in the work force than inhabitants in that state.

All states have their own record of employment in their particular area. Just because the country gets a net worth in jobs as a whole doesn't mean some states didn't get a net loss. The only types of jobs which are taken into employment statistics are Government jobs which the President can take credit for all he wants, but it still doesn't help his case.

 

Actually that depends anywhere between 4-6+%

And there is no reasaon to just pick 5 or 6 for that matter. Again a theory has to work for all, you cant exclude some that dont fit.

yes employmeny plays a role, and I never said more then people in the state (dont know why you keep bringing that up) yet its clear that the size is not a determining factor, plenty of others play.

This isnt about obama but about perry, again fact is he didnt create private sector jobs to cause the gains in texas. He didnt instate the policys, even worse the jobs created were thx to obama and his own spending in the gouvernement, something he critisizes obama for.

 

What theory are you taking about? And there is no way 6 percent and under would be considered full employment. That's more than half way to double digits in case you haven't notice.

I don't know what you're trying to say but okay.

This isnt about obama but about perry, again fact is he didnt create private sector jobs to cause the gains in texas. He didnt instate the policys, even worse the jobs created were thx to obama and his own spending in the gouvernement, something he critisizes obama for.[/QUOTE]

He did create jobs. What policies are you talking about. And the Federal Jobs creation for the state of Texas are at a net loss.

 

If Texas didn't do so well on its own... then why did a contingent of California law makers trek out to Texas to see why they were creating all the jobs that California was losing?

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/50/2086120.pdf

Again it depends on situation.

But thats beside the topic .

Only the last couple of months, and I wonder wich jobs are in those statistics , overal the last years its up.

Add to that the jobs created by the state and local government itself or by health care or education and there isnt much left in the private sector that actually lost jobs.

As for policy, Perry is proud on low taxes easy for companies, but that was all instated by bush and others before him.

Thats doesnt leave an awfull lot for perry to be proud of.

 

They believed the perry BS?

Its also stupid to be proud of luring companies with "entitlements" from other states. Thats doesnt help the USA at all, foreign investment is important .

 

What exactly is this suppose to show? I'm confused.

Total private jobs involves health care and education and it's suppose to exclude government local and state. He hasn't had a net lost in this area since January of this year.

What's wrong with this exactly?

 

Friedman's view has prevailed so that in much of modern macroeconomics, full employment means the lowest level of unemployment that can be sustained given the structure of the economy. Using the terminology first introduced by James Tobin (following the lead of Franco Modigliani), this equals the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) when the real gross domestic product equals potential output. This concept is identical to the "natural" rate but reflects the fact that there is nothing "natural" about an economy.

He talks about the last 3 years, and there he has had a net loss . The last couple of months is no differenty from federal.

Again the question is wether perry was responsible.

He is using this false claim as his most important reason for being president.

 

That's nice. Although I don't think the words full employment was ever mentioned in that PDF you sent to me.

I don't know when or were he said that. Everyone has net losses at some point. You're gonna have to show that one to me.

What's the false claim? That he has low taxes for corporations?

 

It uses the term NAIRU .

http://publicmediatexas.org/2010/10/13/perry-touts-texas-80-of-national-private-sector-job-growth/

For example, plenty more of those.

That he personaly is responsible and that texas is doing soo much better.

 

The words Full Employment aren't mentioned in the PDF so I don't know where you got that definition from.

I never said he never lost any jobs. He said that created 850,000 jobs since he's been in office. The statistics are even provided on the source you gave me. It appears you have misinterpreted.

There aren't any indicators which show otherwise.