AUG: +151,000 jobs. Unemployment rate steady at 4.9%. AUG details here!.. Jobs since Obama took office?... Unemp. rate under Obama?

Friday, April 5, 2013

How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (March 2013 update)




How many jobs created or lost under Obama?
How many private sector jobs have been lost or added during Obama's presidency?
How many new jobs in the last 4 years since Obama was inaugurated?
How many Americans were working or employed when Obama took office... compared to now?




Numbers for March with all revisions:

Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 in seasonally adjusted numbers:
  • 5.9 million MORE jobs in total
  • 6.5 million MORE private sector jobs
  • 5,261,000 MORE people working 

Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009) in seasonally adjusted numbers:
  • 1.6 million MORE jobs in total
  • 2.3 million MORE private sector jobs
  • 1,137,000 MORE people working

Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 37 months?
NO!
  • 37 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.

Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 30 months?

NO!
  • 30 months of consecutive over all job growth.
Are more people unemployed now than when Obama took office in January 2009?  
NO!
  • Despite 796,000 MORE people in the labor force (either working or actively looking for work) now vs. January 2009, there are 290,000 FEWER people unemployed now than in January 2009. 


Fact check and important information on these jobs numbers...

The above jobs numbers are from the BLS jobs report of March 2013, which was released in April 2013.  The surveys used to gather these numbers are taken as of the week which includes the 12th day of the month, in this case, March 12, 2013. 

29 comments:

  1. I can hardly wait for the March 2013 spin on the worst job growth after a recession by any President since the Hoover Roosevelt Great depression era. Less than 30,000 jobs a month since Obama became President, and I know you are so proud. The lowest job participation rate since 1979 ...... I am sure that your version will be fabulous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anybody who blames the Obama administration for the most disgusting, corrupt Republican Congress of all times is a fool. And the job participation rate has really gone down for two reasons: Kids 16 to 24 enrolled in school and older people retiring. But Republicans would rather have everyone working for no-minimum wage jobs until they drop. Why you want to support people who want to destroy the middle and working classes in this country is beyond me.

      And there is no spin. I take the new jobs numbers, put them on a spreadsheet and publish what comes out.

      6.5 million more private sector jobs in three years, despite incredible obstruction and despite the worst economic crash in 80 years. Take the blinders off.

      Delete
    2. But you did spin it Molly. The 6.5 million jobs you quote is not since Obama took office but rather since the very depth of the job loss trough. If that isn't spin what is? And if we go into another recession will you stop counting again until we have another positive job growth month? A presidents term runs from the January inauguration day until his term ends also on that January inauguration day 4 or 8 years later. He or you cannot pick and choose when to start counting anything. Counting anything good or bad begins at inauguration, not when you choose.

      And Molly, as far as the other thing you mention, the excuse for the job participation rate is just foolish. First off you try and paint two opposing statistics. One reason you say is because there are more young people and they are enrolling in school. And then you say that there are more old people, and they are retiring. Which is it? Is America becoming younger, or older ..... you can't have it both ways. And even if you manage to torture that statistic until it screams out what you want to hear, it still doesn't explain why. Why suddenly under Obama do more people want to go to school and why do more want to retire? Could it be because they can't find a decent job, or any job.

      And lastly Molly. Those of the liberal persuasion always believe that conservatives hate the less affluent. That is a misconception that I fear runs amuck in liberal land. I am a conservative and and do not hate the less fortunate, and wish that all in America could live a better life. The only difference lies in how we see what could or should be done. I actually believe we do a disservice to the poor by giving them unlimited and lifetime help. Benjamin Franklin said it well.

      “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

      Well Molly, there's my take.

      Delete
    3. The Conservatives admit everyday they hate the working class suckers who pay into the system through their own tax money and call these people who can't find jobs or are not paid enough money that live on social services "Entitlement leeches" ! But the only "Entitlement leeches" are the Corporations, Big Banks, Rich Republicans and big Oil companies who don't need the money and borrow Billions with a "B" from hard working tax payers every year through government subsidies that they will never pay back to tax payers ever. That is where the giant Ttitanic leak is, it is in government Welfare for the Corporations and the rich and that is increasing our debt everyday. It is not by working class people who may be on social services paid in by their own tax money who are creating our Titanic debt. Social services paid in by taxpayers is not a "Entitlement" rather a "Necessity" to get citizens back on their feet, and or enable them to survive until a job is available. The Corporations are flushed with cash now, not forced to hire anyone, and taking more tax payers money in subsidies than ever before and clearly they don't need it. Who is taking America to the cleaners ?? The Republican party that's who, they enable more government deregulation so the rich have no laws to obey and the Corporations and big Banks get richer and richer everyday by even more corruption, fraud, subsidies, and the working class die off a slow and painful death. With no job future and no means to feed their family, and or to put a roof over their heads. Republican fans have to wake up or they will die whithout knowing what happened to them and their families.

      Delete
    4. You said “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

      Your statement here is completely illogical, if people don't have jobs how do they become richer and do more for themselves ? So what you are saying is the less jobs that are available and the less done for the poor, underpaid and jobless the better off they would be ??? Really are you that ignorant of reality ? All Republican fantasy loving Tea Party Wack jobs need to Wake up to the real World soon or there will be no World left for them to destroy.....

      Delete
    5. It is foolish at best and just ignorant at worst for liberals, any liberal to think that conservatives hate the working class. According to Gallup, 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative .... that is 126 million Americans. Do you really believe that 126 million Americans hate the working class? Most of those conservatives are the working class. What makes us conservative is not any liberal imagined hate for the less affluent, but rather our belief that America is a good nation, that capitalism works, that normal heterosexual relations is better for America than our sudden embracing of the gay and lesbian lifestyle, that a fetus is really a baby and shouldn't be cast aside like some dirty underwear, that it is not right for one half of the country to support the other half, that you are responsible for yourself, that government should do it's job of protecting our nation and keep it's nose out of our private lives, that the second amendment means something. It is all of that and much more that and much more that defines all 126 million of us as conservative, and not ant hate for the poor as you seem to believe.

      And by the way. According to that same Gallup survey only 21% of Americans identify as liberal ..... that's 66 million of you, the rest don't know what they are, but I assume are easily swayed.

      Delete
    6. Yes buddy keep listening to your Fox Fantasy World News and your Disney Poll 40% of Americans identify themselves as Conservative ? Really ? Let me ask you do you even know what that word "Conservative" means ? So you are saying most people identify with Mit Romney business as usual Corporate Facism tactics and the pass 40 year Capitilistic World view ? And so that is why most people voted for Obama, that is not a question, that is a real fact. Get into reality guy, the old ways of not changing the system and leaving these backwards thinking Conservatives in power are now dying off now. Ask yourself this, Is Conservative thinking and old ways really helping you and others you know ?? I thought so.

      So there has to be many new changes to the system otherwise the rich get more filthy rich and don't hire anyone, and the middle class and poor suffer more and more like they already have and end up homeless or worse, and with no job's future.

      Is that what you want to keep things as they are, a Conservative World view that clearly does not work at all.
      That is not a questions, but a fact.

      Delete
    7. And you so called Conservatives, and or Republicans, or whatever you call yourselves today, You absolutely Do-Not-Get-It.
      Your party Does-Not-Care-About-You or Anyone, Your Family, Your Marriages, about Abortion, Race, Creed or Country, about Religious Freedoms, and or about "The Constitution" at all, at all, at all.
      Got it ?!?
      I don't think you guys do, because you always keep side stepping the Real Issues and the Real Problems this Country faces everyday, and You always get people talking about these other non important Issues that have nothing to do with the Real Issues like people losing their Health Care, Jobs, Savings, Retirement and Our Families Future's.
      If You really wanted to talk about the Real Issues that are affecting Everyone in this Country, You would have already. But You don't Period.
      So Stop Destroying Our Country by further De-regulating every Law so that Banks, Oil companies, and Corporations can continue to Fleece America. Stop-It !!! Now !!!
      Then and only then maybe we can talk. Let me ask, Do You even care about Your Own Future ??
      Until then You just look even more Ignorant and Foolish than You already apparently are.
      I believe that if You really wanted to talk about the Real Problems, and Stop Creating Everyone Else's Problems, You would have already done so.
      But clearly You have not, and so now not only are You creating more of a mess for all of Us, but now another Super Recession that No Man can climb out of ! Thanks' allot Republicans'.
      Stop side stepping the real Issues by distraction Tactics and off the path Talking points.
      You don't ever want to Get-It do You, that is not a question, but a clearly known fact.

      Delete
    8. Anony Mouse writes:

      "But you did spin it Molly. The 6.5 million jobs you quote is not since Obama took office but rather since the very depth of the job loss trough. If that isn't spin what is? And if we go into another recession will you stop counting again until we have another positive job growth month? A presidents term runs from the January inauguration day until his term ends also on that January inauguration day 4 or 8 years later. He or you cannot pick and choose when to start counting anything. Counting anything good or bad begins at inauguration, not when you choose."

      I provide two sets of numbers and I am very clear about what those two sets of numbers represent: One is from the "trough" of the recession; one is from the month Obama took office. I have also provided other sets of numbers, one starting with the beginning of Obama's first fiscal year, and one starting three months after Obama took office. Readers are free to use and quote whichever set of numbers they choose.

      Delete
    9. "And Molly, as far as the other thing you mention, the excuse for the job participation rate is just foolish. First off you try and paint two opposing statistics. One reason you say is because there are more young people and they are enrolling in school. And then you say that there are more old people, and they are retiring. Which is it? Is America becoming younger, or older ..... you can't have it both ways. And even if you manage to torture that statistic until it screams out what you want to hear, it still doesn't explain why. Why suddenly under Obama do more people want to go to school and why do more want to retire? Could it be because they can't find a decent job, or any job. "

      No excuse, Nony.. just the facts. You seem to have a problem with logic. Yes, more young people are enrolled in school and people enrolled in school have a lower labor participation rate. The number of people enrolled in school has been increasing for decades now, and the labor participation rate of young people has been going down for decades now.. since the late 70's for younger people 16 to 19, and since the late 80's for older young people, 20 to 24. As more young people stay in school, get degrees, and pursue advanced degrees, the labor participation rate drops.

      And, yes, we have an increasing number of older people 55+ in this country due to the aging of the Baby Boomers, and those people are starting to retire. Actually, they aren't retiring earlier, but there are just so many of them that their retirement throws off the figures.

      I'm not saying that America is becoming older AND younger.. I'm saying that there are two different cultural and demographic shifts occurring that are impacting the percentage of people in the labor force. I can't make it any clearer than that and if you can't comprehend that, well, perhaps that is your problem, not mine.

      No, it is not under Obama that "suddenly" more people want to go to school; more people have been staying in school for decades now. No, people are not retiring earlier under Obama, it is just that there are more of them. Older people are actually staying in the work force longer. That is also a trend that has been occurring for over a decade now.

      I'll publish a graph of the labor participation rate of the various age groups, but I don't think you will have any understanding of it.

      Delete
    10. "And lastly Molly. Those of the liberal persuasion always believe that conservatives hate the less affluent. That is a misconception that I fear runs amuck in liberal land. I am a conservative and and do not hate the less fortunate, and wish that all in America could live a better life. The only difference lies in how we see what could or should be done. I actually believe we do a disservice to the poor by giving them unlimited and lifetime help. Benjamin Franklin said it well."

      I'm sorry, Nony, I grew up in a very conservative household. I was standing on a corner in 1964 waving placards for Barry Goldwater along with some of my other conservative junior high classmates. Though my family was middle class, we did have some very wealthy relatives. They did hate the less affluent. They blamed people who weren't as well off as they were, even when their riches came from family businesses started by fathers or grandparents. Some of them were racist and hated people of other colors and races. I was laughed at and mocked when I started to support something like civil rights as I hit those teenage years.

      What most of the formerly middle class people who have been hurt in this recession want is a decent job.. One that pays the bills, enables them to work with dignity, not as though they were enslaved, and one that allows them to retire when they still can enjoy life.

      The issue isn't that people who are struggling didn't "work hard", "make good choices", or "plan ahead".. though that may be true of some. The issue is that the decks are increasingly stacked against regular people by the richest among us. And the richest among us have they conservatives lackeys like you to persuade people that we would be better off as a country if we let the disabled and the old starve in the street, if we let those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own go without a dime of help even if they can't find a job for years, and if we refused to provide decent educational support to young people who want to finish high school or attend college.

      Delete
    11. Thanks for replying, though I disagree with you on most points, at least you made a bold effort without too many slurs. I have noticed that liberals .... and Molly, you are a liberal, anyway most liberals have a hard time debating issues on their merits and so rather depend on throwing slurs at their opponents. You held it down at least to telling me I have no understanding, that I am a lackey, I have a problem with logic, am unable to comprehend, kudos!

      As far as the labor participation rate goes, the connection you try to make between more young people going to school and an aging population causing the rate to fall sounds good until you look at the chart. Yes, it has been falling since about the end of the Clinton presidency. But your explanation for why is pure wishful speculation. The rate grew from the time women entered the work force en mass, beginning in the early 60s, and like any rising chart had it's pauses bumps and hick ups, but generally up. The recession that began late in Clinton's last term and extended into 2003 had a 4 year decline in labor participation of about 1%, but then leveled out for the last 4 years of the Bush presidency. Since Obama took office the chart has literately fallen off a cliff dropping about 3 percentage points in only 4 years in the Obama era. So can you honestly say that suddenly in only these past 4 years our population has aged so rapidly and the desire for schooling has increased so dramatically that the rate has fallen so much? Molly, that is what you call looking at things through rose colored glasses.

      As far as presenting the "jobs" created under Obama ..... it is how you headline it that makes it spin. Jobs created from the trough are headlined and enlarged in bold lettering, actual jobs under Obama are placed lower as almost an after thought. To the average low information reader he/she sees only the number you headline. And you well know, since your site is mainly about jobs and numbers, that it takes about 125,000 new jobs a month to keep up with population growth, 125,000 X 50 months of Obama ought to = 6,250,000 jobs. You posted the actual numbers of jobs created under Obama, and neither the number from the trough or the actual number since he took office even cover population growth, and yet the unemployment number continues to fall. Molly, perhaps some other "lackey" would be swayed by your arguments on why participation falls or how many are working from what start date, or how great this Obama recovery is ..... but this boy doesn't have any rose colored glasses, and I read and am able to discern (I realize you think I am unable to) ..... so to sum up this section, it's spin.

      Delete
    12. And Molly, you say, "What most of the formerly middle class people who have been hurt in this recession want is a decent job.. One that pays the bills, enables them to work with dignity, not as though they were enslaved, and one that allows them to retire when they still can enjoy life.
      The issue isn't that people who are struggling didn't "work hard", "make good choices", or "plan ahead".. though that may be true of some. The issue is that the decks are increasingly stacked against regular people by the richest among us".
      I fear that you are a typical liberal that does not understand capitalism, few liberals do. Just what do you want, communism, socialism? How do you perceive these evil companies share the wealth? Do you believe like Obama that we should take by force the money from the successful, whether companies or individuals and then distribute this to the more needy in the form of what, subsidies, welfare, more food stamps and other goodies? Or do you think that we should pass laws that everybody in America is paid say, at least $15 or $20 or $30 an hour? How would you fix it Molly for the "struggling" masses? You see Molly, I am a realist not a dreamer. Liberals are dreamers, they tend to see things as they wish they could be, should be, but they rarely understand enough about what makes things how they are and real solutions that might make it better. In reality Molly, what would make things better is more jobs, a robust economy, and government cannot create that. They can create an environment that allows the free market to prosper which in turn creates more jobs, which in turn creates a higher standard of living for all. Unfortunately liberal policies .... and Obama is the poster child for liberal policies .... they hinder the economy. They try and fix things in a way that is exactly backwards.
      I am going to conclude this because I full well know that I can never convince liberals of the reality when their vision of how it ought to be looks so much better to them. Liberals still think that Reagan was the evil empire and not the soviet union. Liberals still believe that Clinton was responsible for the big internet tech boom economy, and refer to him as some economic genius to prove the worth of Democratic policies. And precisely because liberals live in a fantasy world of their own creation, that they have such a difficult time with reality, because fantasy almost always trumps reality. So I will finish with a bit of reality.

      If you really care about the poor and middle class, then you must allow the rich to get richer, with minimal rules and regulations .... enough mind you so that the rich don't abuse the poor, but not so many that you stifle their desire for additional wealth creation. It is the desire for ever greater wealth that causes those with money to create and invest in order to have even more, and there are few ways to do either that does not require the labor in one way or the other of those in need of jobs. The best way to create ever increasing prosperity for all is to have a robust economy. The law of supply and demand works on wages exactly as it does on commodities. Raising the minimum wage to $9 or $10 or even $15 an hour will never allow someone low on the ladder to live comfortably, and it shouldn't. But competition for workers because the labor pool shrinks because of a robust economy will create better pay and better benefits for those at the bottom as well as the rest. Those Molly are economic realities.

      Delete
    13. And this isn't to you Molly, but rather to the very angry liberal posting back to me also calling himself "anonymous". This Disney FOX poll as you call it was a Gallup poll, as I mentioned, which you can look up. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills could use a little adjustment. The same polling organization that I am sure you quoted when it showed Obama with a lead in the last election.

      Why are you such an angry individual? You seem quite resentful of the nation you have the good fortune to live in.

      Must go now so I will leave it there ..... perhaps i will add to my rebuttal when I have more time.

      Delete
    14. Trying to get a few more replies in here when I have a chance:

      Nony wrote: "Thanks for replying, though I disagree with you on most points, at least you made a bold effort without too many slurs. I have noticed that liberals .... and Molly, you are a liberal, anyway most liberals have a hard time debating issues on their merits and so rather depend on throwing slurs at their opponents. You held it down at least to telling me I have no understanding, that I am a lackey, I have a problem with logic, am unable to comprehend, kudos!"

      Of course I am a liberal and I am proud of it.
      I'm Proud I'm a Liberal

      Delete
    15. "you are a liberal, anyway most liberals have a hard time debating issues on their merits and so rather depend on throwing slurs at their opponents."

      Unfortunately, people of all political and social persuasions do this. Certainly you have to be aware of this. To claim that slurring opponents is a liberal trait is absurd.

      Delete
    16. That was a different time Molly. Being "Proud to be a liberal" in the early 60s was a whole different animal. Kennedy was a hawk, took us to the very brink of nuclear war, aggressively expanded the Viet-Nam war. He was for lowering taxes not increasing them. You can look up a couple dozen speeches where he talked about lowering taxes to spur economic growth ..... the exact opposite of Obama. His other famous quote was, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". That's about the exact opposite of what Obama and most liberals say, promise and run on today. I don't know your age, but I was glued to the set when they announced Jack Kennedy's assassination. I liked Kennedy, he was my kind of liberal, and I am conservative. Kennedy would have liked Mitt Romney, they would have had a lot in common. Kennedy would not even recognize the party Obama claims as Democrat.

      Delete
    17. This is what Kennedy said in 1960:

      "If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)"

      That is still the essence of liberalism to me and to most of us. Tax cuts were not gospel among liberals or conservatives in 1960.

      Delete
  2. What about the hundreds of thousands of public sector workers losing their jobs from GOP actions (like on the state level)? Or the GOP blocking any infrastructure rebuilding and focusing on abortion, immigrants, cutting revenue? OR making their main goal to do whatever they can to sabotage any move forward in an effort to make Obama look bad, AND further their own goal to disassemble our government and sell off the pieces to the highest bidder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep... I agree completely. These Republicans are not good people and they do not have concern for this country or its people... They seem to only care about building wealth for the rich and catering to social reactionaries in their party.

      We've lost 718,000 government jobs at all levels (state, local, federal).

      How many government jobs lost or added under Obama?

      Delete
    2. Do you have any facts to support such outrageous claims? You do realize that the only thing the GOP controls is the House? And can pass no laws without the senate and Obama? And I'm assuming your referencing the sequester that you lefties like to blame solely on the republicans even thou its form was summited by Obama and it was passed by BOTH the house and the Dem controlled senate? And its all Bush's fault we invaded Iraq right? Congress didn't approve it and Hillary didn't vote for it and Joe Biden didn't not only vote for it, He led a campaign for us to do it. Must be nice to be able to just totally block out facts and just blindly follow opinion

      Delete
  3. This^ Our republican gov cut thousands of public sector jobs, which goes right on the unemployment figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it does.. The unemployment rate would probably be in the 5-6% range now if not for extensive government cutbacks. See the link I just posted above.

      Delete
  4. I believe the dems had majorities in the house and senate in 2007 and 2008 in bushs last 2 years in the trough .greater majorities in 2009 and 2010 .still hold the senate and presidency 2/3rds of the power how do those job numbers look ? repubs can only obstruct not pass anything they like, unless they can dangle a big enough carrot for Obama to latch on to for compromise. obamacare was passed without one repub vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry; I can't really understand your comment.

      I'll give it a shot: You believe that, because the Dems had a majority in both the House and the Senate in 2009 to 2010, they could do whatever they wanted to do.

      Not true, since the filibuster has become such a popular tool. See this:

      There was No Democratic Supermajority in 2009 to 2010!

      Delete
  5. The GOP just passed a law unanimously passed by all Republicans in Congress called the "Employment Flexibility Act". And if it goes into law it states that employers will have the right by law to lower their employee's work week hours to less than 40 hours a wekk, even if the company is doing well financially. Further the employee has no rights now when it comes to their own Vacation pay, sick leave, retirement,and healthcare benefits. It is now up to the employer if he/she wants to enable or disable these paid in benefits paid in by their employee's.

    Furthermore by law the employer will Not have to pay any employee if they so happen to work 40 hours or more in a work week.

    To add insult to injury the employer can now put this money stolen from their employee's overtime, paid vacations, sick leave, healthcare, and retirement into the employers own savings account accruing interest for their criminal employers'. Then the employer pockets that money.

    Republican businesses and Corporations wet dream is now a reality, and they have been for quit some time now enacting these policies.( they have been doing this for decades now and getting away with it)

    So now the CEO's and Management will get even more big money Checks paid to them by all their ignorant employee's, all stolen right out of the employee's pockets legally.

    Imagine all that employee's hard earned money vanishing into the Rich criminal pockets who do not need more money. That means all employee's will now make far less money than ever before in history. And Employee's will look forward to not having their healthcare, vacations, sick leave, retirement, and or any future job security whatsoever.

    So I guess now all of us hard working class leeches(those of us that are lucky enough to have a job) are called all kinds of deplorable names by the Republicans, yes all of us working class pee-on leeches and entitlement losers, all of us are so despised by the Rich Republican GOP and their Corporations.

    Now according to them we are so privileged to just go and live under a bridge and die some where with our families. Isn't that so sweet and nice of them ? Aren't we so glad to have Republican law makers look out for our own well being ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you read the act? Your post indicates not.
      They can't cut your hours back, the only controversy is that instead of being paid overtime, you receive comp time (At time and a half rate) AND its voluntary - if you'd rather be paid for overtime, then your paid overtime. No different than agreeing to a salary when you take a new job. Man the spin you liberals put on things, hard to believe your the "tolerant" ones.. Comp time has been in the public sector forever, and offered by some companies now. I'd love to see the part that says no rights to their vacation pay? sick leave? Really? Sick leave? That's ALWAYS been a option in the private sector, if your hourly or salary no company is obligated to pay sick leave, that's also negotiated at your hire.

      Delete
    2. I have read the Act and a few good articles pro and con. I don't trust Republicans and I don't believe that this bill, if passed, would ultimately be good for the people of this country.

      But here is the text of the bill:

      Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013

      Delete
    3. And here is a good article on the pros and cons... Don't miss the reasonably intelligent discussion in the comments at the end of the article:

      Is the Working Families Flexibility Act Really Family Friendly?

      Delete

I appreciate intelligent comments and questions, including those that are at odds with anything posted here. I have elected not to screen comments before they are published; however, any comments that are in any way insulting, caustic, or intentionally inflammatory will be deleted without notice. Spam will also be immediately deleted.