Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since 2008.

In 2012....there are 23 Democrat Senate seats up....10 Republican seats.

....make sure you show face here on Nov. 7, 2012......take your ass whooping like a limp wristed man.
.
.
.

 

If you would look up.....the point your missing is around 30,000 ft.

The Unemployment Rate is going down because Obama is shrinking the work force by 300,000 people per month.
.
.
.

 

Apparently you don't quite understand the historic nature of the mid-term shellacking. The ramifications will be felt for years as it brought in 29 new Republican Governors, including 9 of the 10 key swing states for 2012 and more than 600 Republican state legislators, creating majorities in many states.

I completely understand the desire to minimize what really happened.

 

I understand that argument in regard to the unemployment rate. What I was talking about is the Labor Force Participation Rate....the subject of the shocking downward trend in the gray graph.

A lot of social and demographic figures play into that downward trendline in LFPR. It is not akin to unemployment and it's not a valid counter argument

This is a better explanation for those using LFRR in their arguments to actually understand what the statistic is.

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=29



In regard to the people giving up looking for work....that is certainly a valid dynamic with respect the the unemployment rate. But because it is admittedly unquantifiable by it's nature, it's relative value is merely speculative.

 

This "oh, everyone's leaving the workforce, so great job numbers are meaningless" argument is laughable garbage. What, are those that are leaving the workforce (never to return?) simply just giving up on life? Are they inclined to accept one year of unemployment benefits (can they even get that much) and then simply starve in the streets? Is the hopeless tone in your posts supposed to make us think that these people intend to jump off bridges because job numbers look better but Obama is still president? Either people need jobs and income, or they don't. Its simple. If you retire, you leave the job force. If you get a job, you leave the unemployed listing. Who exactly lives in this society with no job, is not officially retired, and has no money or income, but isn't still officially "employable"? I guess if you owned rental property, muni bonds, or an annuity, you could not have a job and stop looking. But who else?

Seriously, if one right wing windbag can give me a common sense answer to that question, I'll mail you a lollipop for Christmas. And don't tell me its the "welfare" crowd. Those people are still counted in the "looking for a job" category.

 

How is what I posted not a valid counter-argument? You posted an incorrect definition of the Labor Force Participation rate, I corrected you, and now you are posting sources that agree with my definition, not yours.

From the first line of your source

... which is exactly what I said.

It's a valid dynamic with respect to the labor force participation as well, which is why I brought it up.

 

Who cares about unemployment numbers? Those are completely irrelevant. Retirees, homeless, college kids, teens, stay-at-home moms. None of these people count.

Unemployment could be 30%, but everyone could have a home, electricity, food, etc.

Unemployment could be 1%, but everyone could barely have enough money to buy basic necessities. <----- This is where we are headed. (Japan unemployment is around 4% and that place is miserable.)

 

Sure. Check the numbers over the past couple years.

 

1.8%

Who knows what that number represents besides the actual representation of the OWS crowd?

 

Credit infused GDP?

 

I don't disagree with that and never did. My point is that....

Retirees are not actively seeking employment, but are counted in the LFPR denominator. The retirees are growing at a faster rate than new people in the workforce, thus making the trendline go down.

The way people have been using this chart, they obviously do not understand the statistic. The LFRPchart would have had a downward trendline at this point in time even if our economy was booming like the 1990's.

 

What? Retirees aren't counted in the LFPR! Where are you getting these bogus facts? Retirees have left the work force. The only people that are part of the labor force are people who are already employed, or those trying to become employed, like I explained earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force

 

latest gdp growth?

 

I wasn't arguing that they were part of the labor force.....They are a major factor in determining the participation rate....Let me just give you the math:

LFPR = CLF/ CNIP -- meaning labor force participation rate is calculated by dividing the civilian labor force by the civilian non-institutional population.



(Retirees are part of the CNIP)....IOW, they are included in the divisor of the equation....and their presence dilutes the rate/percent......disproportionately so, over time, as baby boomers retire.....

 

When have we seen "great numbers" during the Kenyan Tyrant's term?

Reagan Recovery---600,000 new jobs per month
Obama Recovery---60,000* new jobs per month
*half at McDonalds

Where is the improvement?

Number Americans Unemployed 27 Weeks and Longer Since Obama


Since The Kenyan Tyrant took office......he hasnt had ONE MONTH--where his job growth even exceeded population growth.

So your saying you want those discouraged people included in the unemployment rate?

....which would make the current rate closer to 11% unemployment....

Send the lollipop to Barack's abandoned brother George......who lives in a hut and ****s in a bucket.......he is starving.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

Daesin. If you haven't figured out the stat manipulation of this POTUS and his admin yet, you are willfully being ignorant to truth. Look it up. Most people (R's, D's, L's, and I's) have moved past the point of deliberately keeping their head in the sand.

Being played isn't winning.

 

I think those jobless claims are are a result of a very stagnant GDP. It appears that the economy has shrunken as far as it can without a total economic collapse.

Second quarter 1.3% growth and the third quarter 1.8%. I guess this is the "new normal" Under 2% GDP growth, new jobless claims just under 400,000 a WEEK. It fell a whole 4000 claims. While that may seem like good news Seasonal hiring of temporary workers can easily account for that. The private sector won't make any meaningful gains in new jobs till Obama loses his.

 

The GOP before 2011, didn't control congress since 2007.

 

Good point. But it won't take to may years to reverse the Democrat damage. Just scale the EPA's budget back to 2001 levels, repeal Obama Care, Shut down Fannie and Freddie and scale back the Dept of Education funding back to 1990 levels. Also make earmarks subject to a full vote of both houses, not buried in some omnibus spending bill.

 

I would love that however, dems will then say.

we are trying to kill everyone
we want dirty air and water
we want kids to be stupid
we want to kill grandma and take away her home

 

Stimulus passed in 2009.

 

What did the Congressional GOP do though to help the economy... nothing!

 

Isn't that what the tea party backed politicians promised? To stop Obama's agenda -- even if it meant doing nothing..




You can kinda say, by stopping the bailouts, trying to stop spending, etc.. The GOP has done SOMETHING by doing nothing No matter what, they are doing the bidding of their constituents -- their voters...

 

By 2007 it was too late.

 

My little city added 9000 jobs in the 3rd Qtr. That (*)(*)(*)(*) Obama. He musta been featherbedding his first 3 years just to look good in time for the election.