Obama fights for credit as unemployment rate hits new low

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by bwk, Feb 5, 2016.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,939
    Likes Received:
    39,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    52 months under 6.0. With and AVERAGE labor participation rate.

    It was 5.0 at the end of 2007 it did not hit or go over 7.5% until January 2009, two years after the Democrats took majority control of the government.

    Because the labor participation is at historically high levels, economist aren't calling it full employment or full employment with a BIG caveat. Don't you agree?

    Our employment situation is far from looking great, even good although it is finally improving no thanks to Obama else tell my specifically why he should get any credit and something a little deeper than "it's on his watch".
     
  2. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Saying unemployment is around 5% is a huge government lie. Tens of millions are not working, and are not being reported.
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,939
    Likes Received:
    39,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not when you specify you are talking U3. It is quite accurate and you can use that number to compare past U3 numbrers. And that was fine for decades because the labor participation rate did not vary much. The problem now is that the labor participation rate DOES come into play because it has fallen to historic lows, so yes one could call it a lie of omission not taking that into account. The data is correct, it's how you use it.
     
  4. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your unemployment statistics are way off. The job force participation is the lowest ever. Everybody quit looking for work, and are no longer with the job force. Therefore no longer accounted for. That's what happens when you significantly raise taxes on the rich. The rich just leave to other countries with less taxes. Taking their jobs with them. Under Obama we have lost 2.5 to 4 trillion in tax dollars, due to businesses moving out of America. Meanwhile he is establishing policies that cost even more to taxpayers.
     
  5. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You will believe anything they tell you. 4.9% is not the unemployment number. More people are being laid off than hired. And if you are hired, because of policies, you will not receive overtime, and your hours will be less than 8. Most of the jobs created are part time, but they don't say that. I wonder why?
     
  6. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are not way off, because Obama didn't up and say all of a sudden he wanted these people out of the work force. That's on them. You truly do not have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
    You haven't a clue of what you are talking about; http://foreffectivegov.org/blog/think-corporate-tax-cuts-create-jobs-think-again
     

Share This Page