Any number claiming isn't good, and there could always be improvement, but don't change the subject. Unemployment is at its lowest point since before the recession. Do you dispute that? Also, I asked for a source about the Wall Street stuff. Do you have one?
One of the other things you might need to address is ratios of the stats you've cited. You threw out 93 million earlier, which it turns out is the number not in the workforce. Which is very different than unemployment for reasons mentioned. But - and here might be the more important point - even if the number without a job is higher than 5.1%, wouldn't that number still be the lowest its been since before the recession? One would have to assume that the percentage of people not in the workforce would be the highest when unemployment is highest, no? Your statistics, therefore, probably fail to make a point about unemployment. But even if they succeeded on that front, they'd fail to make a point of comparative value between political administrations. Which, in this thread specifically about Obama, that was the point, yeah? At best it's an indictment of, well, everything regardless of political affiliation. At worst, it's a statistic with little relevance to actual economic and unemployment variables.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/01/09/workforce-participation-rate-hits-record-low/You know you could just do your own research.
That's a really disingenuous number. You are counting retired people, you're counting children in school and young adults in university, you are counting home makers....that has never been a measurement that anyone used, it's just used because the actual unemployment numbers that have been used for the better part of a century look really good for Obama.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a really disingenuous number. You are counting retired people, you're counting children in school and young adults in university, you are counting home makers....that has never been a measurement that anyone used, it's just used because the actual unemployment numbers that have been used for the better part of a century look really good for Obama.
Seriously with that word "disingenuous", its so old. You act like everything said here is taken literally. Its a discussion, not life or death. Maybe time to just put you back on ignore.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It worked well in Greece paying everyone for shining nobs. I don't recall Trump saying that, do you have a source to back up your insult, or you just talking out your ass as usual?
You're quoting his bullshit figure. Just one more bit of spoon-fed shit you're willing to swallow
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The usual bs, the country has about a 40-50% unemployment rate.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your lucky, a lot of people don't. And those numbers Q99 posted are of coarse not accurate.
Ah hem, quote from the article that I had in my original post:
"The job market is getting better: After 59 straight months of job gains, this shouldn’t be a controversial statement. But at a time when Donald Trump is claiming the “real” unemployment rate is 42 percent, it’s worth saying anyway. "
Note that by the standards that one would call the current unemployment 40-50%, we'd never get much lower than 40%, we'd be in the high-30s on the best employment days of our lives, and were already hitting 40% during Bush.
See, if you want to change the employment scale, you need to apply it consistently across the board....
...and the original article even includes the specific numbers you said are more accurate than the original article ^^
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
[B]I don't accept that low numbers, and neither does anyone else, including wallstreet, which reeled last week about jobless claims.
That is the number using the traditional method of doing so.
Note, there's also another, higher number that Gallup uses: 6%.
Then there's the total number of people not working regardless of circumstances like age, which no-one ever uses, and which isss addressed by the article too because they're just that thorough.
Plus, there's also the other key number, the simple quantity of jobs gained each year, 3 Million a year, which is a number that is completely separate from any method-selecting.
And on the Wallstreet side.... the article is about wallstreet's response to begin with.
This is all in my original post, you know, including the 40% number, including the wallstreet response, including everything. I kinda anticipating the normal excuses and addressed all of them.
All~l of them.
So not only is it disingenuous, but it's pre-emptively responded to.
In detail, in the original article, in the original post, which apparently you didn't read thoroughly enough,
So... check? Checkmate?
In any case, I believe an 'oh snap' is in order.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The usual bs, the country has about a 40-50% unemployment rate.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.
Originally posted by RobtardWhile that may be true, when it is factually pointed out that his first 5-6 years were a financial catastrophe, the only response is, "it's Bush's fault!"
TI's suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. When shown proof of a possible positive that the President has done for the country, his ODS causes him to claim the opposite and then compound it.
He's taken ridiculously much less vacation days than Bush. Golf can be a great way to get things done with certain people, and even if he does it just to relax, that's fine as well, he has a very high pressure job, and to play around of Golf in his spare time is perfectly fine.
You are also lying about him playing more Golf than any other president combined, Eisenhower alone is in the same ballpark. You are so disingenuous it's sickening.