dude the number worked the same way with Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.the number is the number...deal with it.
7.7%%!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter the next guy
- Start date
dude the number worked the same way with Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.the number is the number...deal with it.
Those dudes didn't have millions of people out of work for years that they could stop counting as unemployed
the number is the number...deal with it.
The # is fukked up
Really
Regan sat at 7.2% on his relection day breh
millions of people were out of work in the Regan days, black people still counted back then too.
Stop talking out your culo.
Stop talking out your culo. the labor force participation rate have been declining for some time now (and would keep declining even when the economy recovers) cause of retiring workers. yes the recession is dragging it down a bit but it's not the sole reason.
The unemployment rate doesn't say much by itself or just looking at a month or two but overall the way it has been trending for the past few months is a good sign. And what did they "redefine" in the way unemployment is counted we're gonna need a source on that.
Stop talking out your culo. the labor force participation rate have been declining for some time now (and would keep declining even when the economy recovers) cause of retiring workers. yes the recession is dragging it down a bit but it's not the sole reason.
The unemployment rate doesn't say much by itself or just looking at a month or two but overall the way it has been trending for the past few months is a good sign. And what did they "redefine" in the way unemployment is counted we're gonna need a source on that.
Really
Regan sat at 7.2% on his relection day breh
millions of people were out of work in the Regan days, black people still counted back then too.
Reagan was at 6.3% upon election, with a LFPR of 64%. Weird now that we have a UE rate of 7.7% with a similar LFPR. When UE hit 10.8%, LFPR was also still about 64% in late 1982
Labor force participation rate = working age (16-64) people employed or looking for work. A higher % of retirees (who are generally age 65+) has nothing to do with it
Reagan was at 6.3% upon election, with a LFPR of 64%. Weird now that we have a UE rate of 7.7% with a similar LFPR. When UE hit 10.8%, LFPR was also still about 64% in late 1982
Labor force participation rate = working age (16-64) people employed or looking for work. A higher % of retirees (who are generally age 65+) has nothing to do with it
Why don't you make a case for why Labor statistics have all over sudden changed under Obama than all the other presidents and we can go from there. Stop with the vacuous speculation.
why r u on here lying son
Regan's run for re-election unemployment was 7.2% that's a fact.
for the record i was fuking around, i thought this whole fudged numbers issue was dead
You are right in that the rules haven't changed, I will admit that
But the point is Obama has the unique circumstance... a large # of "discouraged workers"
Discouraged worker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I.e. people who have been out of work for so long (at least a year) that they get clipped out of the UE rate, making it look like hiring is up when really its just a decrease in the # of people counted as unemployed. You only count as being unemployed if you have been out of work for less than a year; that UE and LFPR are going down together = more people out of work for more than a year which I think we can all agree is NOT a good thing, and an obvious flaw in the "unemployment" rate
why r u on here lying son
Regan's run for re-election unemployment was 7.2% that's a fact.
*EDIT* I thought Reagan entered office in 1980 not 1981. The point about UE rate still stands though
Reagan was at 6.3% upon election, with a LFPR of 64%. Weird now that we have a UE rate of 7.7% with a similar LFPR. When UE hit 10.8%, LFPR was also still about 64% in late 1982
Labor force participation rate = working age (16-64) people employed or looking for work. A higher % of retirees (who are generally age 65+) has nothing to do with it
i don't know who's numbers you're looking at, but it might explain the fukkery you're been posting, but the bls counts people 16 and older Bureau of Labor Statistics Data and most major publication including the wsj use their data. another thing is that the 16-24 age group makes up a bigger part of the population than ever before and that group has always had low employment
No it does not stand...when your starting Unemployment number is wrong.
the fact is that the number is the number...has been since Carter, Regan and who ever else you want to name.
People are just upset because its Obama & now the numbers are going down some. Its stupid.
the fact is that the number is the number...has been since Carter, Regan and who ever else you want to name.
People are just upset because its Obama & now the numbers are going down some. Its stupid.
exactly I like how conservatives have been complaining about the ue number being fudged with no argument for months and now they are using this bullshyt argument. They also said the dec number would skyrocket
The definitions I saw said it generally counted as 16-64i don't know who's numbers you're looking at, but it might explain the fukkery you're been posting, but the bls counts people 16 and older Bureau of Labor Statistics Data and most major publication including the wsj use their data. another thing is that the 16-24 age group makes up a bigger part of the population than ever before and that group has always had low employment
BLS glossary made no qualification so I was wrong on that
But the trends are still ominous
Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity
16-24 had a participation rate that was pretty in line with the average but that is set to drop over time... and you know how hard it is to enter the workforce w/no experience
Plus baby boomers are set to enter retirement age, but are holding onto their jobs and will continue to, further keeping kids out of work
Labor participation rate is low and is projected to keep falling... population is set to age while the young people who pay for retirement entitlements will have less and less opportunity to work & pay those bills... but yes lets celebrate a drop in "unemployment"
The Baby boomer generation is retiring in waves, and the replacement generation is smaller in population. Thats what largely explains the discrepancy. Get out of the right wing bubble.
funny how you came repeating the same bullshyt you saw on some website crying about how obama will be the end of the U.S all high and mighty without taking two minutes to actually fact check but yet you still staying on course with how "ominous" things are and you wonder why you clowns can't be taken seriously. those "ominous" trends for 16-24 is because of the expected increase in school enrollment for that age group and even if it wasn't that's a long term issue, right now the focus is on getting the economy back on track which is seems like it's doing.