Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't believe they made another chest thumping jobs thread when all they have managed is a ___Flat___Lined___Employment___Rate___. Freaking pathetic & reeks of desperation.
Don't waste our time until you asswipes actually do manage to improve the employment rate. Obamacrats have yet to move the needle upward on jobs in this country after they destroyed so many when they won control in 2006.
Your claim about the Obama record borders on dishonesty.
Start with the Obama record, it’s true that 1.7 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect. So how much of that Obama job loss took place in, say, the first half of 2009?
The answer is: more than all of it. The economy lost 3.1 million jobs between January 2009 and June 2009 and has since gained 1.4 million jobs.
By the time the first Obama economic initiative was passed, 3% of the total 3.5% lost in civilian employment had already occurred.
The fact is, Bush was driving over a cliff, then handed the wheel to Obama and the right-wingers on CD are trying to blame Obama for driving over a cliff.
After Great Depression, the United States put in place a long list of safeguards and a lot more awareness to prevent another Great Depression from ever happening. Since then, there have been many collapses that could have generated another Great Depression if it hadn't been for government awareness and intervention on the economy's behalf.
The highest peaks of unemployment tend to automatically "bounce" and trend downwards very rapidly. The 2007/2008 collapse stated out a lot like many others, but it did something not seen since the Great Depression: It peaked, flattened out and quite stubbornly stayed above 9.0%.
The 2007/2008 collapse was not the worst thing we've seen since WW2. Unemployment hit a higher peak in the 1980's in Reagan's first term. And yes, the preceding Carter presidency can be blamed for sowing the seeds that led to the crisis. But ultimately, you gotta own your own economic crisis and Reagan did. After hitting an eye-popping 10.8% unemployment, the rate dropped very quickly. But with less tinkering, less bail-outs and less messing with all segments of the economy, the ship righted itself at break-neck speed.
In two short years, Reagan's saw the unemployment rate drop down to 7.2%. So Reagan entered the 1984 election with a very real economic success story: 3.6% less unemployment in just two years!
Barack Obama inherited a crisis of his own which peaked in October of 2009 with a 10.0% unemployment rate. Unlike the crisis under Reagan, the unemployment rate flattened out and quite stubbornly stayed above 9%. It has gradually trended downward over the last 2.5 years. Now it is below 9% for a whole 2 months straight -- a trend that may or may not continue. Of course I hope the trend continues! But even if it does continue, why does this recovery look a lot more flat and a lot less vertical than any recovery period since WW2? Why is it taking so much longer this time? In the past, the bigger the crisis, the faster the rate of recovery is, but not this time. Why is that?
It looks like bad economic policy to me. Too much meddling and too much of the wrong cure for what ails the economy. And we're not out of the woods yet either. As I already said, two months straight of improvement isn't exactly a guarantee that we're in rapid recovery yet. The good news is, we'll be able to see if this is a natural rapid recovery we've always seen in the past. But if this is the real McCoy and we're finally in the rapid recovery phase, it's kinda hard to say that Obama made it happen. Looking at the data, you can make a stronger case for saying that he delayed the recovery. And all the while, we've been hearing from Obamacrats and Obama himself that it's all George W's fault. Obama isn't owning his own economic crisis like a big boy. That along has rapidly eroded my respect for the man. Now that there is a brief downward trend, it's all because Barack Obama saved the day. If you can blame George W Bush for four years of economic misery, shouldn't you throw him some credit for fixing it too? All Obama did was take Bush's bailout policy and kept running with it. What did he do differently?
And lets not forget the these numbers are kinda inaccurate. There are unemployed people who stopped looking. There are underemployed people who get less hours and/or less pay than they need to get by.
You can always be counted on to contribute thoughtful posts to any discussion. I like that
However, your suggesting that we should give GWB credit for the current recovery (if it's real) seems a little, um... counterintuitive .
The inherent stability of the US economy has always helped it to recover pretty quickly from the busts in the boom-bust cycle. Almost like a boat rolling over, then floating upright again.
This latest "bust" was so severe, it's being called a mini-depression. The factors in play at the time Bush left office left it in doubt that we couldever recover. We could have been facing a "Poisidan Adventure" scenario, a 20 year recession like Japan's.
But whether they always knew what they were doing or not, Obama and his economic team started twisting dials like mad, and, what do you know, it seems to have worked!
It's pointless to assert, as you and Romney are doing, "Well, if it wasn't for Obama's policies (that is, if the GOP was running things), we could have recovered even faster". You can say that if you like, and you might even believe it. But you can never prove it.
That is incorrect way of putting it. The change involved was renumbering, not replacing of existing standards. The standard for putting forth the unemployment rate (official rate) did not change. So, 8.3% today would be 8.3% before 1994 as well.
That would be totally false and inaccurate.
There are any number of websites that calculate unemployment by previous government methods, including several websites at universities.
As calculated by all administrations from Truman to Carter, the present numbers give an unemployment rate of 19.3%
As calculated during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, the current data yields a rate of 15.2%.
If you had ever taken a few advanced Economic courses at university, you would know that, since you'd spend hours crunching the numbers for homework and on tests.
If you calculated unemployment using the Clinton-method (the present model) based on the labor participation rate at the start of the recession, your real unemployment rate would be about 11.3%.
If you reject the Truth in favor of ideological lies, then the only person you hurt is yourself and 100 Million others.
Do you understand that with a labor participation rate of 63.7%, that you cannot fund Social Security and Medicare?
Is there anyone who doesn't understand that?
You have at least 4.5 Million people who are not working, and who are not paying taxes to Social Security and Medicare, and you desperately need their tax revenues to sustain those programs.
Even if you do as the Social Security Administration suggests and eliminate the cap and rate the FICA tax rate to 16.4%, the program will go totally bankrupt decades before it was projected to do so.
And if you do as Medicare asks and either raise the Medicare tax rate to 3.7% or cut Medicare by 17%, you cannot fund that program beyond 2025, without increasing the tax rate to about 11% and/or cutting the program to the bone.
And why? Because fewer people are working, and those who are working are earning less than they previously earned.
There's nothing good here.
You have nothing but problems economically between now and the end of this decade (and beyond), and if you all continue to cloak yourselves in the stench of ideology, you're going to be sucking pond water through your asses.
To be forewarned is to be foretold...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suncc49
This is the largest absolute jump in 'Persons Not In Labor Force' on record...and biggest percentage jump in 30 years.
Yeah, so?
You act shocked.
I've been telling you all here for 2 years now that I'm predicting a final Labor Participation Rate of 62.8%.
You're almost there.
Predicting...accurately...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
From the BLS report it looks like the participation rate is going down.
Boomers are retiring and the loss breakdown by race showed that Whites are leaving the workforce.
63.7% is the new participation number.
LOL..are they all "going Galt" ?
Quote:
After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) rose in January, while the civilian labor force participation rate held at 63.7 percent
Uh, wut?
"....held at 63.7%?"
Um, it was 64.0% so how in the Hell and can it be "holding" if it declined 0.3%?
These are the raw numbers, compiled by the government. See them at:
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
Looks to me like the unemployment rate went UP from Dec. 2011 to Jan 2012. And the number of people unemployed went UP, by 849 thousand people. (6.7% MORE people were unemployed in Jan than in Dec).
"Seasonal adjustments" have somehow made this go away. I wonder how those 849,000 additional unemployed people feel about this?
These are the raw numbers, compiled by the government. See them at:
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
Looks to me like the unemployment rate went UP from Dec. 2011 to Jan 2012. And the number of people unemployed went UP, by 849 thousand people. (6.7% MORE people were unemployed in Jan than in Dec).
"Seasonal adjustments" have somehow made this go away. I wonder how those 849,000 additional unemployed people feel about this?
Gee great, the economy added more fast food and retail low wage jobs and drops unemployment rate. Something that can make us all proud. Instead of getting rid of unfair trade agreements our president signs more of them, further reducing manufacturing in America.
8.3?? Not true. More like well over 10%. And the labor force continues to shrink.
Yup..they are either joining the 1% that don't need to work or they all won lotto and are basking in dough.
Oh and BTW the number of people going on emergency unemployment increased 100K. That is a different report though and not touted as loudly as this. So not many will know that tiny detail.
Obama should be impeached. This Muslim terrorist communist fool of a president manufactured those employment numbers to make him look good so he will be re-elected.
Impeached...on what charge? Your proof those numbers are made up? What do the German-accent voices in your head tell you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All Obama did was take Bush's bailout policy and kept running with it. What did he do differently?
.
