Trump on Pace to Do What Obama Couldn’t

I am trying to get you to answer a question on a subject which you brought up.

You said that you would not call the BLS report lousy?

All I am trying to do at this moment is find out what you would call it then.

Remember, you brought up the unemployment rate and painted it as a good thing. That means you must believe in it. Well the unemployment rate is based on the Household Survey - it has NOTHING to do with the Establishment Survey (the 156,000 number). NOTHING.
So, if you believe the U-3 is accurate, then you HAVE to believe that the Household Survey is accurate as well because the latter is what the former is based on.
And the Household Survey says that last month, there were 74,000 fewer people employed in America then the month before.
You cannot just say the U-3 is great and then ignore the survey it is derived from...that makes no sense. That would be like saying you love skydiving but do not believe in gravity.

So I will ask you for the third time - a VERY simple question:

If a month that saw at least 74,000 less people employed (far more non-seasonally adjusted) and the employed saw their weekly wages drop is not a lousy month...what would you call it then?

 

Who deserves the credit for this?

 

The 'official' unemployment rate is under 5%...yes. But the U-3 is a joke. And I will show you how it is.

The U-3 does not count discouraged workers (people that have given up looking for work). So if someone looks and looks and looks for work but just cannot find any and is forced to give up 'officially' looking. And they then take jobs under the table to make ends meet/go back to school/etc.. Officially, they have given up looking for work. But in reality, they are just as desperate for employment - they simply had to give up looking and move on to something else.

In fact, the U-3 is so ridiculous that there could be only one person working in America...just one. And everyone else is desperate for work and is available to start work immediately. But because there are no job opening's, they were forced to give up looking.
So, under this scenario - with only one American working and 200,000,000 desperate for a job but were forced to give up looking - the official unemployment rate would be 0%. That's right, only one American has a job and the BLS says that the American official unemployment rate is ZERO.
That is just one example of what a complete and total joke the U-3/'official' unemployment rate is.
The U-6 is a FAR better measurement for unemployment (though even it is not perfect). And until 1994, it was - in essence - the official unemployment rate. But the government changed the way they measured unemployment to make it sound much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#1994_revisions

BTW, the U-6 rate today is 8.6%.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

 

you dont state facts, just hate

 

you are desperate to hate America. There are 6.2 million job openings at the moment go get one. middle class income is higher now than at any time in our history. take your hate America crap someplace else. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.12924afb1004

 

just another lets recreate reality post.

 

probably good to take an econ class before making an embarrassing post. recoveries from financial classes are always slow. econ 101

 

this has been explained to you and yet you keep posting your lie. Why are your posts so dishonest?

 

UE has been calculated the same way for decades. UE is under 5%.

Using your method, you would count stay at home moms, college kids, the elderly/retired, all as unemployed. When they are not.

 

Carter didn't have the worst recession in 80 years, a financial collapse, or a housing crisis to deal with.

 

time for an edjecashun https://unemploymentdata.com/what-is-u-6-unemployment/

 

Follow your own advice.

 

No, it would not.

Stay at home moms are not looking for a job, neither are many college kids or the elderly/retired (who do not need a job). The U-6 only counts people who actually want a job AND are available to work but gave up looking for some reason. It does not count people who do not want a job/are not available to work.

'My method' is the U-6...and it has been used (though it was not called U-6) for FAR longer then the U-3 has been.

BTW - the Federal Reserve no longer uses the U-3 as it's principle employment indicator (because even it knows how ridiculous it is).

http://nypost.com/2016/03/30/feds-unemployment-stats-show-higher-jobless-rate/

I don't care what you say the unemployment rate is...the U-3 is a joke. Any unemployment rate that counts 1 person working and 200 million not looking but wanting/available for a job as 0% unemployment is a complete joke.

And I am neither Dem nor Rep.

 

you arent coherent

 

you certainly are uneducated

 

Although I often agree with rahl, in this case I agree with your assessment of the situation. The U6 rate is more telling than the U3 rate. That's why wages are still not rising, despite U3 indicating almost full employment. There are still a lot of people on the sidelines (not counted in U3) who will get back in if unemployment further declines. The U3 rate, however, will remain fairly constant, allowing Trump and his fans to claim that the economy is great --- while disregarding the fact that trump himself claimed only a year ago that REAL unemployment is >40%. How did Trump manage to reduce the unemployment from >40% to 5% in less than a year, with dysfunction and 0 policy changes? Oh yes, he didn't, but his fans claim that all of a sudden now we have the best economy ever, based on what exactly???? Hot air???

 

Wages stagnant. Trump is doing exactly what every Republican president does. Ignores that wages don't change and claims victory because employment numbers are better, while ignoring the worth of those jobs as wages stay stagnant. Prices blooming everywhere else.

The American people are getting poorer, as usual.

Thanks, Don!

 

LOL...and you are not to be taken seriously on this. Your posts are making little sense and are filled with baseless, unproven attacks and zero facts.

In future, I think it would be wise for you not to post here as you are making yourself look REALLY silly.

No doubt you do not get this.

No doubt I will pay little attention to your posts from now on (at least on this subject).

Have a VERY nice day...you appear to need it.

 

your post is childish

 

So your ignorance makes me silly got you. The U6 is within a point of where it was prior to the recession why are you all hysterical

 

Only one president in US history never had an 3% annual GDP, deal with it. In case you forgot that's Obama.

 

I would call it cherry picking a statistic that reflects baby boomers retiring out of an overall economic report full of good news.

 

Fact: Obama is only US president never to achieve a 3% annual GDP. No hate just fact

 

Explained? Oh you mean more excuses of why Obama was a failure as president.

 

Given that he did something that Nixon and Eisenhower and Kennedy couldn't do no he wasn't a failure