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 looked at your website and there is only a 3% difference in regards to a comparison of the labor participation rates of 2004 and 2014.
Do you think this is a significant change?
I personally feel that the chart posted is pretty misleading. It stated the labor participation rate was 66% in Feb of 2004 and 63% in Feb of 2014. That really isn't that much of a drop. Also if you compared GW Bush's years to Clinton's second term, the graph is practically the same, a decrease. So evidently the rate of participation has been decreasing since 2000 when it was over 67% (went to 65% under Bush, but then back up).
That is a very significant change. You need to look at the historical trends and see where it has been. Driving UE numbers downward (via soft numbers) can lower UER and LFPR, (by reducing work force).
Well, wait a minute ... you just said I was right on two points. So it isn't an "all time" high. It is still too high, and that figure from four years ago (if correct) was still under this administration.
Layoffs began to happen as soon as the result of the November 2008 election was known. This is because people (and this is factual) knew what was coming, because Barack Obama made it clear in his campaign what he intended to do. People aren't stupid. They began to downsize immediately. They took Obama at his word. Bottom line: that 17% figure cannot be blamed on Bush!
No, layoffs did NOT begin "to happen as soon as the result of the November 2008 election was known".
There you go just making stuff up again.
The monthly jobs number report went negative in MARCH of 2008 (and thereafter stayed that way throughout the entire year) - and had only ONCE managed to crack the +100,000 mark in the entire 2nd half of 2007 (and you folks HARP on ANY month that Obama gets a "lower than +100,000 jobs report" as "evidence that the economy is 'not recovering'" - Bush had THAT situation (lower than +100,000 jobs report") for a FULL YEAR AND A HALF before Obama was even sworn in.
Obama wasn't the Democratic nominee until JUNE of 2008.
The upshot is that layoffs began almost a full year (10 months) before Obama was ever sworn in - and "weak" jobs reports (ie "less than +100,000) had begun a full 18 MONTHS before Obama was sworn in - at a time when Obama had barely declared his candidacy (and was considered a "long shot to win" - at that time.
The Recession began under Bush - BEFORE Obama won the election, and in fact the slowdown began long before Obama was even the frontrunner in the Democratic race - let alone the frontrunner in the Presidential race.
Try and get your facts straight (especially when they are so easily checked) - failure to do so really undermines your "nononsenseguy" handle.
Obummer continues to wipe the entitlement folks from the map. Is he including the real unemployed or the real suffering in any statistic? The lost population...
Do you really believe Clinton didn't know how the govt makes its money?
He said he was wrong to take Rubin's and Summers' advice.
Quote:
Former President Bill Clinton said his Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were wrong in the advice they gave him about regulating derivatives when he was in office.
“I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take” their advice, Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week” program.
Their argument was that derivatives didn’t need transparency because they were “expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of people will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection,” Clinton said. “The flaw in that argument was that first of all, sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”
“Even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect 100 percent of the investments,” Clinton said.
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.
