Unemployment @ 9.8% - 263,000 Jobs lost (wages, companies, compare, income) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 14 - City-Data Forum

sanrene · 10-02-2009, 02:17 PM

Is there any doubt what the Left would be saying of these numbers if Bush was in office? I'm sure we all remember how they ranted at his UE numbers....when they were at 5%, how they wailed about how the job seekers were "underemployed".

We remember all that, don't we?

Saggy, that chart comes directly from obama, sans the little red dots that represent the REAL UE numbers.

Wapasha · 10-02-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saganista

If you count people who aren't working and aren't looking for work. My dog would fit that definition if it weren't for the people part...

Take it up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For what it's worth, with all the lack of experience and naivete that 0bama possess, your dog could do as good a job as president.

Indurain · 10-02-2009, 02:21 PM

Unemployment rate at December 2008 = 7.2%

cleanhouse · 10-02-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indurain

Unemployment rate at December 2008 = 7.2%

Anyone educated in economics knows U6 is the true measure. Stop posting like you are a Global economic Guro.

Indurain · 10-02-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleanhouse

Anyone educated in economics knows U6 is the true measure. Stop posting like you are a Global economic Guro.

Financial and economic guru to you, amigo.

cleanhouse · 10-02-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indurain

Amateurs.
Dishonest amateurs at that.

Comments like the above.

You join CD a month ago walk in and talk about posters like this when it is completely evident by your posts you have no better or higher knowledge then they do.

saganista · 10-02-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanrene

Saggy, that chart comes directly from obama, sans the little red dots that represent the REAL UE numbers.

Eleventy-seven....

saganista · 10-02-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Take it up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Why? They list it as one of their "alternative" measures of unemployment. You are the one who has claimed that it's pertinent.

Indurain · 10-02-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleanhouse

Comments like the above.

You join CD a month ago walk in and talk about posters like this when it is completely evident by your posts you have no better or higher knowledge then they do.

I am not particularly interested in what your kind think.

However, there is a considerable lack of understanding here of economic and financial issues here - especially with your fellow travellers.
Some of that ignorance is because some posters just do not have a clue.
And some others deliberately try to frame the facts to suit their opinions.

So instead of trying to shout the odds with me - try reading and educating yourself.
Understood?

mossomo · 10-02-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indurain

Amateurs. Dishonest amateurs at that.

Real personal consumption expenditures decreased 0.9 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to an increase of 0.6 percent in the first.

Pg2 Paragraph 3 of the Q2 GDP Report written by the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis

It's right there in the GDP Report by the DoC, there's really no more of this to debate; Q2 PCE = decrease 0.9%

My previous links (supporting -1.2%) were using projected Q2 data and were published prior to the reports release...