US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Dickieboy · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Again, forget the percentages. The rates were relative from when each respective president took office up until their 36th month in office -- same as Obama. And regardless of what the rate was when each one took office, it increased more under every single Republican president than Obama with the lone exception of Reagan, who saw the same0.5 point increase as Obama. I also note that Obama was the only Democrat president to even have the unemployment rate increase after 36 months in office, but then again, no other president except for FDR was handed an economy which lost 8 million jobs in 18 months.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data [/INDENT]

Ok, lets do (data from your link).

Eisenhower began office with a UE rate of 2.6%
Nixon began office with a UE rate of 3.4%
Ford began office with a UE rate of 5.5%
GHWB began office with a UE rate of 5.2%

Considering that many economist think that ‘full employment’ is around 5% the UE rate of the presidents above had nowhere to go but up. Conversely the Democratic presidents began office with UE rates of:

Kennedy – 6.6%
Johnson – 5.7%
Carter – 7.5%
Clinton – 7.3%
Obama – 7.8%

Obviously theirs were high enough than any seemingly increase in confidence (among other reasons) from the new office would result in SOME reduction in the rate.

Was this your point?

Conservative · Feb 6, 2012

treedancer said:
What other recession in history was left to a President with an economy In as bad a shape as this one was? The only thing that comes close is when Hoover left FDR the great Depression.

The 1981-82 recession was worse on the American people as evidenced by the misery index including high interest rates, high unemployment, and of course morale. you obviously werent old enough to remember

Conservative · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Republicans were in charge while the housing market was ballooning out of control which led to the financial collapse while Democrats were in charge.

But of course, you know this already. You just can't help yourself from lying about it.

You really don't understand leadership do you? Leaders accept responsibility not delegating it.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Ok, lets do (data from your link).

Eisenhower began office with a UE rate of 2.6%
Nixon began office with a UE rate of 3.4%
Ford began office with a UE rate of 5.5%
GHWB began office with a UE rate of 5.2%

Considering that many economist think that ‘full employment’ is around 5% the UE rate of the presidents above had nowhere to go but up. Conversely the Democratic presidents began office with UE rates of:

Kennedy – 6.6%
Johnson – 5.7%
Carter – 7.5%
Clinton – 7.3%
Obama – 7.8%

Obviously theirs were high enough than any seemingly increase in confidence (among other reasons) from the new office would result in SOME reduction in the rate.

Was this your point?

I'd say you highlighting the fact tha Republican Presidents typically inherit low unemployment rates; but Democrat presidents typically inherit high unemployment rates; pretty much makes my point.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Conservative said:
You really don't understand leadership do you? Leaders accept responsibility not delegating it.

Regretably for you, your insults do absolutely nothing to refute what I said. I take that as tacit confession on your part that you concede my point. Thanks.tKd

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Conservative said:
The 1981-82 recession was worse on the American people as evidenced by the misery index including high interest rates, high unemployment, and of course morale. you obviously werent old enough to remember

Stop lying. You are well aware that GDP is the number one indicator of the economy, not the misery index, which is not an indicator.i

Conservative · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Regretably for you, your insults do absolutely nothing to refute what I said. I take that as tacit confession on your part that you concede my point. Thanks.tKd

No problem, liberals always claim victory to divert from their failurs.

Conservative · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop lying. You are well aware that GDP is the number one indicator of the economy, not the misery index, which is not an indicator.i

So report the GDP numbers 2 years after the end of the Reagan and Obama recession. Do the same with jobs, employment, misery index. Isn't it interesting that everyone is a liar but you?

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Conservative said:
No problem, liberals always claim victory to divert from their failurs.

Cries the poster who just relied on insults to divert from his failure to refute what I said.

:roll::roll::roll:

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Conservative said:
So report the GDP numbers 2 years after the end of the Reagan and Obama recession. Do the same with jobs, employment, misery index. Isn't it interesting that everyone is a liar but you?

Try and sray focused, Con ... we're talking about the recessions, not the recoveries. Stop trying to change topics every time your nonsense gets shot down.

Dickieboy · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I'd say you highlighting the fact tha Republican Presidents typically inherit low unemployment rates; but Democrat presidents typically inherit high unemployment rates; pretty much makes my point.

I thought per your post #461 was making the point that ‘Republican president going back to Hoover since they all performed worse than Obama’…What did I miss? Moving the goal post?...nice :lamo

Further, you know I expected you to reply with such. Do you REALLY believe that things like UE, GDP growth, income equality, income mobility, poverty, etc. are wholly affected by one person, the president? Did you spend the time to see what the trend of UE percentages were prior to the various administrations or are you just throwing darts? Again your point seems shallow taken specifically without interpreting the broader situation.

Gary · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Ok, lets do (data from your link).

Eisenhower began office with a UE rate of 2.6%
Nixon began office with a UE rate of 3.4%
Ford began office with a UE rate of 5.5%
GHWB began office with a UE rate of 5.2%

Considering that many economist think that ‘full employment’ is around 5% the UE rate of the presidents above had nowhere to go but up. Conversely the Democratic presidents began office with UE rates of:

Kennedy – 6.6%
Johnson – 5.7%
Carter – 7.5%
Clinton – 7.3%
Obama – 7.8%

Obviously theirs were high enough than any seemingly increase in confidence (among other reasons) from the new office would result in SOME reduction in the rate.

Was this your point?

Full employment was generally considered 4%, not 5% and that wasn't the case back in Ike's day. That concept became popular when the Fed started using unemployment statistics to fight inflation, during the Carter administration. The Fed believes it can curb inflation by preventing a wage/price spiral and raising interest rates before the unemployment approaches 4%. That means the government has decided that 1 in 25 will not have a job. The policy also produces wages that get lower over time and reduces the whole economy.

Was this your point?

Which means a Democrat who follows a Republican is going to start off having a high unemployment rate, because the Republican is going to make it high and a Republican following a Democrat will have a low unemployment rate. Democrats make jobs and Republicans make poverty. The exceptions are Johnson followed Kennedy and the rate was lowered by Kennedy. Ford followed Nixon and the rate was higher by Nixon.

Dickieboy · Feb 6, 2012

Gary said:
Full employment was generally considered 4%, not 5% and that wasn't the case back in Ike's day. That concept became popular when the Fed started using unemployment statistics to fight inflation, during the Carter administration. The Fed believes it can curb inflation by preventing a wage/price spiral and raising interest rates before the unemployment approaches 4%. That means the government has decided that 1 in 25 will not have a job. The policy also produces wages that get lower over time and reduces the whole economy.

Which means a Democrat who follows a Republican is going to start off having a high unemployment rate, because the Republican is going to make it high and a Republican following a Democrat will have a low unemployment rate. Democrats make jobs and Republicans make poverty. The exceptions are Johnson followed Kennedy and the rate was lowered by Kennedy. Ford followed Nixon and the rate was higher by Nixon.

First, there appears to be NO consensus on the specific percentage that represents full employment so we debating said number will be futile.

Secondly, your post is confusing. First you infer that the Fed manipulates the UE rate which means the government decides the percentage. Aren’t Fed policies somewhat independent of government direction? Then you suggest one party following another party has a different effect but qualify it with two instances out of eight where the same party transfers with different results with no reference to the aforementioned Fed relationship. Seems like a generalized claim that branches in various directions, Fed-government-Democrat-Republican, etc.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
I thought per your post #461 was making the point that ‘Republican president going back to Hoover since they all performed worse than Obama’…What did I miss? Moving the goal post?...nice :lamo

Further, you know I expected you to reply with such. Do you REALLY believe that things like UE, GDP growth, income equality, income mobility, poverty, etc. are wholly affected by one person, the president? Did you spend the time to see what the trend of UE percentages were prior to the various administrations or are you just throwing darts? Again your point seems shallow taken specifically without interpreting the broader situation.

My point was that the unemployment rate increases more while presidents are president. I point out how you noticed that led to Republican presidents inherit low unemployment rates while Democrat presidents inherit higher unemployment rates and suddenly, the president's role plays little in the unemployment rate.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Dickieboy · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
My point was that the unemployment rate increases more while presidents are president.

How can I do anything but agree with this?

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
How can I do anything but agree with this?

Oops. :3oops: Sorry, meant "while presidents are Republican."

Dickieboy · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Oops. :3oops: Sorry, meant "while presidents are Republican."

So your corrected point is 'the unemployment rate increases more while presidents are Republican'. Prove it.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
So your corrected point is 'the unemployment rate increases more while presidents are Republican'. Prove it.

You already proved it in post #501 when you showed Republican presidents typically inherit low unemployment rates while Democrat presidents typically inherit high unemployment rates.

Now you want me to prove you RIGHT??

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Dickieboy · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You already proved it in post #501 when you showed Republican presidents typically inherit low unemployment rates while Democrat presidents typically inherit high unemployment rates.

Now you want me to prove you RIGHT??

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Yes...specifically your claim ''the unemployment rate increases more while presidents are Republican' which I made no reference to in my #501 post.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Yes...specifically your claim ''the unemployment rate increases more while presidents are Republican' which I made no reference to in my #501 post.

Holy ****! Of course you made reference to it. You showed where Republican presidents typically inherit low unemployment rates while Democrat presidents typically inherit higher unemployment rates. Well? For that to be true implies that the unemployment rate typically falls while the president is a Democrat and that it typically rises while the president is a Republican.

I certainly hope you don't need me to explain to you that a rising unemployment rate increases more than a falling unemployment rate.:doh

It looks to meike you don't even understand what you wrote.

Dickieboy · Feb 6, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy ****! Of course you made reference to it. You showed where Republican presidents typically inherit low unemployment rates while Democrat presidents typically inherit higher unemployment rates. Well? For that to be true implies that the unemployment rate typically falls while the president is a Democrat and that it typically rises while the president is a Republican.

I certainly hope you don't need me to explain to you that a rising unemployment rate increases more than a falling unemployment rate.:doh

It looks to meike you don't even understand what you wrote.

OH, yes I see your point. Now explain to me how since Republicans do so badly they continue to get elected.

TheNextEra · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Now explain to me how since Republicans do so badly they continue to get elected.

Because the masses can be easily fooled. That isn't sarcasm either and it isn't just for Republicans,but for Dems as well.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 6, 2012

Dickieboy said:
OH, yes I see your point. Now explain to me how since Republicans do so badly they continue to get elected.

Who ever said unemployment is the only issue which drives electors at the polls? Eisenhower was elected because Truman left office so unpopular. Nixon was elected because LBJ failures with Vietnam. Reagan was elected because of Carter's failure over the Iran hostage crisis. Bush Sr. Was the only Republican elected due the the success of a prior Republican. Bush Jr. was elected because Clinton was impeached.

Gary · Feb 6, 2012

Originally Posted by Gary
Full employment was generally considered 4%, not 5% and that wasn't the case back in Ike's day. That concept became popular when the Fed started using unemployment statistics to fight inflation, during the Carter administration. The Fed believes it can curb inflation by preventing a wage/price spiral and raising interest rates before the unemployment approaches 4%. That means the government has decided that 1 in 25 will not have a job. The policy also produces wages that get lower over time and reduces the whole economy.

Which means a Democrat who follows a Republican is going to start off having a high unemployment rate, because the Republican is going to make it high and a Republican following a Democrat will have a low unemployment rate. Democrats make jobs and Republicans make poverty. The exceptions are Johnson followed Kennedy and the rate was lowered by Kennedy. Ford followed Nixon and the rate was higher by Nixon.

Dickieboy said:
First, there appears to be NO consensus on the specific percentage that represents full employment so we debating said number will be futile.

Secondly, your post is confusing. First you infer that the Fed manipulates the UE rate which means the government decides the percentage. Aren’t Fed policies somewhat independent of government direction? Then you suggest one party following another party has a different effect but qualify it with two instances out of eight where the same party transfers with different results with no reference to the aforementioned Fed relationship. Seems like a generalized claim that branches in various directions, Fed-government-Democrat-Republican, etc.

How does this:

That concept became popular when the Fed started using unemployment statistics to fight inflation, during the Carter administration.

Become this:

First you infer that the Fed manipulates the UE rate which means the government decides the percentage.

Go to the Fed website and read how they have a mandate from Congress to curb inflation and that mandate started in the Carter administration! That's when the talk about full employment became commonplace.

When Johnson took office, Kennedy had lowered the unemployment rate and Johnson continued to lower it. When Ford took over, Nixon had raised the unemployment rate and Ford had a higher initial rate, because of that increase.

You want to point out that the Democrats are benefiting from high unemployment rates when they take office and ignore who made it that way. You want to point out how unfair it is that unemployment rates are so low when Republicans take office and ignore that it was the Democrats who made the unemployment rate low. Good Presidents create jobs and lower the unemployment rate and bad Presidents don't.

When Obama took office, this economy was in free fall and over half a million a month were becoming unemployed. That trend continued for a long time. Between 2008 and 2009, 5,341,000 more unemployed were added.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

Here's the data all the way back to 1940:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

No one was worrying about having an unemplyment rate less than the 4% full employment amount from 1966 through 1969 or back from 1951 through 1953.

Prof. Peabody · Feb 6, 2012

Jobless rate has fallen because of dropouts

Obama benefits from uncounted

By Patrice Hill - The Washington Times

Thursday, February 2, 2012

The big drop in the unemployment rate in recent months to 8.3 percent from double-digit rates during the recession came at a fortunate time for President Obama, but economists say it as much because of young people dropping out of the labor market as it is the result of businesses adding jobs.

The steep drop in unemployment only months before the election is similar to a big drop from double-digit levels that boosted President Reagan when he sought re-election in 1984 after a deep, double-dip recession during his first term.

Reagan campaigned amid a revival of economic growth to robust rates of more than 7 percent and the re-employment of thousands of laid-off factory workers. Mr. Obama is running on a far more subdued recovery with growth averaging about 2 percent and unexciting job gains of about 130,000 a month.

When people stop looking for work, they are no longer counted as part of the labor force or “unemployed.” Evidence suggests that many of the young dropouts, who proved to be instrumental in Mr. Obama’s election in 2008, are continuing their schooling to avoid the tough job market and to increase their skills and chances of eventually securing employment.

“People stop looking for work for various reasons, which might include taking an early retirement, going back to school, or deciding to be a full-time, stay-at-home parent,” Ms. Moore said.

The president isn’t going to make “political hay” when that causes a decline in unemployment, she said, because “if they all decided to start looking for work tomorrow, the jobless rate would skyrocket again.”

The percentage of workers ages 16 to 19 has dropped 4.3 percentage points to 34.2 percent since the end of the recession in 2010, while the share of people between 20 and 24 working has declined 1.6 percentage points to 71.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Jobless rate has fallen because of dropouts - Washington Times

Add that to the 10+% of the people who are employed wanting to work full time but only able to find part time work (me) and it's easy to see why the unemployment numbers are going down. It takes approx 125,000 new jobs per month to just break even with all the new people attempting to join the job market. People turn 18 every day and start looking for work. So to believe 130,000 new jobs a month would substancially bring down unemployment when we need 125,000 just to break even is simply ridiculous. Of course the Obama administration will attempt to spin anything into good economic news, even the slightest anomoly to sitting all but dead in the water. Look at the GDP growth for 2011, 1.6% for the year. At that rate, the economy will be back to normal just in time for Captain Kirk to open the first Star Base.

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Debate MMA