• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

The numbers that liberals want to ignore

Unemployment rate without and with Discouraged workers

Without 8.64%
With 9.4%

UE Rate w/o DW 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08% 9.01% 8.64%

UE Rate with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76% 9.64% 9.36%

U-6 Unemployment 15.6%
 
U.S. Job Prospects at Three-Year High

By Shobhana Chandra - Dec 5, 2011 10:00 AM ET

A measure of job prospects in the U.S. climbed in November to a three-year high, helped by growth in the world’s largest economy.

The Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index jumped 1.2 percent to 103.7, the highest level since September 2008, from 102.4 the prior month that was more than initially estimated, figures from the New York-based private research group showed today. The measure rose 6.4 percent from November 2010.
Click to expand...

U.S. Job Prospects at Three-Year High - Bloomberg
 
Samhain said:
To level set, a "healthy environment" value for this report type is 280-325k a week.

Anything in the neighborhood of 400k, indicates a sluggish economy, at best.
Click to expand...

Actually it's around 375,000 to see positive job growth.
 
Conservative said:
The numbers that liberals want to ignore

Unemployment rate without and with Discouraged workers

Without 8.64%
With 9.4%

UE Rate w/o DW 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08% 9.01% 8.64%

UE Rate with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76% 9.64% 9.36%

U-6 Unemployment 15.6%
Click to expand...

You mean like Conservatives ignored the same numbers under Bush?
 
Conservative said:
Over 400,000 per week are applying for first time unemployment claims meaning that the jobs just aren't there so the claim about baby boomers retiring are just another diversion from reality. We have a growing population and yet a declining labor force. How do you reconcile the two?
Click to expand...
`

Simple.

Growing population means squat. Newborns are not counted as part of the labour force before they are 15. Sure there is immigration (legal) but there is also deaths...

Babyboomers = new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have no change.
Babyboomers > new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have a lower labour force participation number.
Babyboomers < new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have a growth in the labour force.

To this you have to add deaths of course.. and of course there is no real statistics on how much of the "people leaving the labour force" is divided up between deaths, retirements and the statistical "giving up".

But the point is, babyboomers retiring can have a rather large impact on the labour force at least in the short term.
 
Of course the U6 unemployment rate is also falling.
 
PeteEU said:
`

Simple.

Growing population means squat. Newborns are not counted as part of the labour force before they are 15. Sure there is immigration (legal) but there is also deaths...

Babyboomers = new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have no change.
Babyboomers > new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have a lower labour force participation number.
Babyboomers < new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have a growth in the labour force.

To this you have to add deaths of course.. and of course there is no real statistics on how much of the "people leaving the labour force" is divided up between deaths, retirements and the statistical "giving up".

But the point is, babyboomers retiring can have a rather large impact on the labour force at least in the short term.
Click to expand...

So the number of people reaching the age of 15 does not grow each day ??
 
VanceMack said:
Why apparently he is running ona whole slew of seasonal minimum wage retail jobs that happen every year and typically last about 2 months.Thats building your house on some serious quicksand right there...but hey...all he has to do is throw out that little Jedi mind trick to the mouthbreathers and they swallow it every time.

Ive said it before...I dont think there is any way he doesnt win reelection. He has the 47% ers...the crippled and dependent pets addicted to the handouts in his pocket. He has all the mindless OWS types...the rebels without a clue. And if he needs to he will pass and EO for amnesty granting voter rights to illegal immigrants just before the election. This is truly in the bag.

And lets be honest...the GOP isnt exactly fielding a viable alternative...
Click to expand...

Even the 47%'ers know that after Obama soaks the rich folks, he's going to soak them next. Pay taxes, or not, they want to go to work.
 
PeteEU said:
You mean like Conservatives ignored the same numbers under Bush?
Click to expand...

Why would conservatives ignore high unemployment numbers under the past liberal president?
Oh, right. It's that hyperpartisan thingy, isn't it? silliness, that's what it is.
 
PeteEU said:
You mean like Conservatives ignored the same numbers under Bush?
Click to expand...

Average unemployment rate during Bush's term was 5.2%.

Just a wee bit better than Obama's.
 
Gill said:
Average unemployment rate during Bush's term was 5.2%.

Just a wee bit better than Obama's.
Click to expand...


We’ll compare them after Obama competes his two terms.:rock
 
PeteEU said:
You mean like Conservatives ignored the same numbers under Bush?
Click to expand...

The numbers were never that high under Bush, but Bush isn't in office. It is three years into the Obama Administration and if any Republican had these kind of numbers you would be outraged and going ballistic.
 
PeteEU said:
`

Simple.

Growing population means squat. Newborns are not counted as part of the labour force before they are 15. Sure there is immigration (legal) but there is also deaths...

Babyboomers = new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have no change.
Babyboomers > new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have a lower labour force participation number.
Babyboomers < new people into the labour force + people reentering the labour force, then you have a growth in the labour force.

To this you have to add deaths of course.. and of course there is no real statistics on how much of the "people leaving the labour force" is divided up between deaths, retirements and the statistical "giving up".

But the point is, babyboomers retiring can have a rather large impact on the labour force at least in the short term.
Click to expand...

Do you always make excuses for the failure of liberalism? Now it is Babyboomer retiring with no evidence that those retirees were the majority of those 315k. Before it was Bush's fault. Liberals never take responsibility for anything.
 
AdamT said:
Of course the U6 unemployment rate is also falling.
Click to expand...

There are 24 million unemployed and under employed Americans. If a Republican had those numbers you would be outraged. The labor force keeps dropping thus the U-6 will be dropping.
 
treedancer said:
We’ll compare them after Obama competes his two terms.:rock
Click to expand...

Since that will never happen, I'd be glad to compare Bush's first 3 years with Obama's.

Or, we could compare Reagan's first three years to Obama's since they both came into office with high unemployment.

uer_rvo.jpg
 
Since that will never happen, I'd be glad to compare Bush's first 3 years with Obama's.

Or, we could compare Reagan's first three years to Obama's since they both came into office with high unemployment.
Click to expand...
I'm curious...what policies would a conservative inact that would cause a massive decrease in unemployment?
 
Gill said:
Since that will never happen, I'd be glad to compare Bush's first 3 years with Obama's.

Or, we could compare Reagan's first three years to Obama's since they both came into office with high unemployment.

View attachment 67119077
Click to expand...

Why don't you compare Bush's last three years with Obama's first three years. Then you'll understand why Obama's numbers are what they are.
 
j-mac said:
Either they are duping America, or not counting some people that absolutely be counted, or I don't know what, because I sure don't see the problem getting better.

They tinker around with these stats in DC to the point where no one is telling the truth any more. I am disappointed in the lies.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, I remember this conversation when Bush was president. I could swear you saw it differently then.

Anyhow, yes, many are likely not being counted. This is almost always the case. that said, it is better to see the numbers improve than not. Kind of like slowing the bleeding.

But no one should argue it is over.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm curious...what policies would a conservative inact that would cause a massive decrease in unemployment?
Click to expand...

Easy.... vote Obama out of office. Once that's done, confidence will immediately return to the business community and they'll start hiring.
 
AdamT said:
Why don't you compare Bush's last three years with Obama's first three years. Then you'll understand why Obama's numbers are what they are.
Click to expand...

You mean 2007-2008 when Obama and Democrats controlled the legislative process and the purse strings? Keep diverting from the Obama record especially since he had overwhelming control of the Congress day One when he took office. If any Republican had the Obama results three years into the Republican Administration you would be going crazy but now it is ok because it is Obama. Why do you support this empty suit and divert from his real record?
 
apdst said:
Even the 47%'ers know that after Obama soaks the rich folks, he's going to soak them next. Pay taxes, or not, they want to go to work.
Click to expand...
They know it but they are still going to vote for him. Obamas got that banker/broker spunk he on him and they know he is going to keep tossing them crumbs, signing those checks. You have a lot more faith in that 47% than i do.
 
AdamT said:
Why don't you compare Bush's last three years with Obama's first three years. Then you'll understand why Obama's numbers are what they are
Click to expand...
.

Sure you want to do that ???

BUSH
2006 - 5.0
2007 - 5.0
2008 - 5.7

Average: 5.2

OBAMA
2009 - 9.3
2010 - 9.6
2011 - 9.0

Average: 9.3
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You mean 2007-2008 when Obama and Democrats controlled the legislative process and the purse strings? Keep diverting from the Obama record especially since he had overwhelming control of the Congress day One when he took office. If any Republican had the Obama results three years into the Republican Administration you would be going crazy but now it is ok because it is Obama. Why do you support this empty suit and divert from his real record?
Click to expand...

Um, yeah, 2007 and 2008 when the real estate bust was already baked in ... and how many bills did Congress force through over Bush's veto?
 
AdamT said:
Um, yeah, 2007 and 2008 when the real estate bust was already baked in ... and how many bills did Congress force through over Bush's veto?
Click to expand...

You mean that real estate bust that Democrats were part of? Maybe if Obama didn't spend so much time seeking a new job instead of accepting a paycheck for a job he didn't do, he would have been better prepared to take over. Obama's problem however is one experienced by most liberals,, lack of leadership skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom