• 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. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

Gimmesometruth said:
Complete falsehood, employment levels had stabilized in 2010.

Employment-Population-Ratio-2012.png
Click to expand...
Hmm, again he runs off rather than admit he's wrong. Imagine that? :shrug:
 
Conservative said:
And your ridiculous claim that because you ignore the fact that discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed in the U-3 numbers that Obama's unemployment performance is better than other GOP Presidents. How did the discouraged worker count during Reagan's term look?
Click to expand...

Why does that make a difference? Discouraged weren't part of the U-5 (the equivalent of the current U-3) back then. The definition of Discouraged changed in 1994, so there's no real comparison.
 
I notice how threads like this appear whenever there's good news
Click to expand...

you call 166,000 jobs, 20% of em temp, the majority in low wage service and retail, increasing numbers reduced to part time, an alarming spike in the number of youth giving up and dropping out...

in times like these

you call THAT good news

again, even dumb barack obama won't go THERE

party on, peeps
 
pinqy said:
Why does that make a difference? Discouraged weren't part of the U-5 (the equivalent of the current U-3) back then. The definition of Discouraged changed in 1994, so there's no real comparison.
Click to expand...

I t turns out, this is what he was crying about...

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Speaking of bad presidents ... Obama is doing a better job with regards to unemployment than every single Republican president going back as far as BLS data goes? Here's a list of presidents, along with the level of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 51 months in office...


Clinton -2.2 -30%
Johnson -1.9 -33%
Kennedy** -1.2 -14%
Obama -0.3 -4%
Reagan -0.2 -3%
Carter*** 0.0 0%
Bush +1.0 +24%
Eisenhower +1.0 +34%
Nixon +1.6 +47%
GHW Bush*** +1.9 +35%
Ford* +2.0 +36%

* = in office 29 months

** = in office 34 months

*** = in office 48 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data​
Click to expand...
 
GOP refuses to push ANY jobs programs, to restore public employment, to help in pushing ANY economic stimulation that might make the President look better
Click to expand...

he needs OUR help?

to make HIM look better?

he must REALLY be an idiot!

LOL!
 
he runs off rather than admit he's wrong
Click to expand...

he did?

LOL!

what else did he do?

i see why you find him so fascinating...

why are so many more workers forced to work part time this month compared to march?

why did some HALF MILLION drop out of the work force just last month?

why did the white house promise we'd be at 5.1% unemployment TODAY due to passage of his 867B stim?
 
Students, retirees, stay home spouses, independently wealthy, whatever
Click to expand...

or...

people who have been looking for 18 months, having to contact unemployment every 30 days to demonstrate their determination, typing up resumes, writing letters, making phone calls, interviewing, driving, networking, following leads, reading ads, asking friends and family and friends of friends, starting all over again, worrying, not sleeping, suffering a great deal of anxiety, perhaps getting sick...

with family, dependents, responsibilities, housing, bills, applying for benefits (not easy) and following thru and remaining qualified...

fighting hopelessness, heart breaking, doubts about self worth...

retirements collapsed, dreams dead...

fear and anxiety becoming acute...

until you just quit and become part of the 36.3

you're not real good at anticipating moves ahead, are you?
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
people who have been looking for 18 months, having to contact unemployment every 30 days to demonstrate their determination, typing up resumes, writing letters, making phone calls, interviewing, driving, networking, following leads, reading ads, asking friends and family and friends of friends, starting all over again, worrying, not sleeping, suffering a great deal of anxiety, perhaps getting sick...

with family, dependents, responsibilities, housing, bills, applying for benefits (not easy) and following thru and remaining qualified...

fighting hopelessness, heart breaking, doubts about self worth...

retirements collapsed, dreams dead...

fear and anxiety becoming acute...

until you just quit and become part of the 36.3
Click to expand...
Why do you think any of that is relevant when trying to measure unemployment?
 
DA60 said:
Whoa - I took a glancing look at your post (I did not actually read it).

There is NO WAY I am getting into some huge, multi-quote debate with you over this...life is WAY too short for that and I do not NEARLY care enough what you think on this (no offense).

Maybe you like endlessly debating opinions over and over again - I do not.

You made your points, I disagree with them.

So unless you have some links that disprove things I have said - end of discussion.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
There's really nothing to agree or disagree with it. I simply posted the facts.
 
j-mac said:
No. Listen, I am a layman when it comes to economics, and statistics. I confess that I am not very good at comprehending all the aspects behind coming up with the numbers that are fed to us through media. But, I do remember that we were told that we needed some 250,000 jobs created each month in order to keep up with population growth. Now we are being told that 130,000, to 180,000 is good enough, and lowers the rate. There is only one reason for that to happen in my understanding, and that is that the number of people dropping out of the workforce, exceeds the demand for new employment, so the number in my eyes is a shell game, and a lie.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, if a republican was in office, they would be singing the praises of these numbers. And we'd all be just shocked. Shocked I tells ya!
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't worry, if a republican was in office, they would be singing the praises of these numbers. And we'd all be just shocked. Shocked I tells ya!
Click to expand...
If a Republican was President, they would be telling everyone how great the Republican President was for fixing this country, while Democrats would be making the exact same arguments they are now making. This is why I'm not a Democrat.
 
Slyfox696 said:
If a Republican was President, they would be telling everyone how great the Republican President was for fixing this country, while Democrats would be making the exact same arguments they are now making. This is why I'm not a Democrat.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but found it interesting you singled out democrats. The problem as I see it giving presidents blame and credit when they have only limit ability to effect the economy. We ask them to lie.
 
=Gimmesometruth;1061772525]False representation, faulty premise.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted but since you have your own business without any outside employees you don't have much credibility.

You are so confused, govt spending as a component of the economy and on a per capitia level has declined, the idea that govt should shrink as the country increases in size is silly, a false premise. In the 90's we had higher rates, increased revenues, declining deficits, lowered spending to gdp levels.
Click to expand...

Really? Where is the link from BEA.gov that shows that? In the 90's we also had a GOP Congress after Democrats were kicked out in 1994

I'm not in the short term.
Click to expand...

You are indeed out of touch with reality

Complete falsehood, employment levels had stabilized in 2010.
Click to expand...

Really? You call this stabilizing?

Discouraged workers, average over 1.1 million a month. Guess those shovels still hadn't arrived

2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
Click to expand...



Finally a concession![/QUOTE]

Yes, unlike you I understand the components of GDP and the percentage each contributes to the total
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
So this is what your rant is about?? Because you're not happy since Obama has lowered the unemployment rate more than every single Republican president going back as far as BLS data shows??

:lamo :lamo :lamo

And by the way, I didn't ignore discouraged workers, I included them in another chart showing that Obama still performs better than his Republican counter parts when using the U6 rate.

As far as discouraged workers under Reagan, I don't know, how many were there?

And again, you continue to deflect away from your nonsensical claim that 9 million jobs were lost under Obama.

I thought you said you admit when you're wrong, as I had done.

Seems not. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No problem at all, I have now learned from you that even though the U-3 numbers don't include discouraged workers that apparently a discouraged worker is less unemployed than a regular unemployed.

I have checked over and over again and no where have I found Obama having fewer discouraged workers than Bush but that is ok, your head is so far up Obama's ass you are incapable of seeing anything straight
 
pinqy said:
I have no opinion on the matter.
They're not unemployed at all because they're not trying to get ajob...they're Not in the Labor Force.

How are you getting that from what I wrote? I'm giving you the actual numbers, not the false numbers you were claiming. I've said nothing about good or bad.

It's not. Everyone in the labor force wants a job. That's kind of the definition of the labor force: Wanting a job and doing something about working. And the labor force has gone up 1 million.

There are some people not in the labor force who say they want a job (this includes the discouraged) but aren't actually doing anything about it. The number of people NOT in the Labor Force who say they want a job has increased 700,000: from 5.7 million to 6.4 million.

Yes they do...and they are in the labor force.

Do you not understand the definitions?
Click to expand...

Thanks, glad to hear that discouraged workers are less unemployed than actual reported unemployed in the U-3 numbers. Seems the difference is discouraged workers aren't counted in the U-3 number so if they aren't unemployed why are they counted in the U-6 numbers?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...yeah, that is what we want! That is a "normal" we seek! FFS, the absolute dishonesty you need to ascribe to your adversary while ignoring your sides intransigence. Again, the GOP refuses to push ANY jobs programs, to restore public employment, to help in pushing ANY economic stimulation that might make the President look better.

Politics before nation, the GOP way.
Click to expand...

The best economic news the American economy could get would be a major address by Obama stating that he is resigning for the good of the country
 
pinqy said:
Why does that make a difference? Discouraged weren't part of the U-5 (the equivalent of the current U-3) back then. The definition of Discouraged changed in 1994, so there's no real comparison.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the official rate during Reagan included discouraged workers, that was changed in 1994 by the Democrat controlled Congress. That is why you cannot find discouraged workers anywhere in BLS during the Reagan term
 
The Prof said:
he did?

LOL!

what else did he do?

i see why you find him so fascinating...

why are so many more workers forced to work part time this month compared to march?

why did some HALF MILLION drop out of the work force just last month?

why did the white house promise we'd be at 5.1% unemployment TODAY due to passage of his 867B stim?
Click to expand...

Notice how our little friends live in their own little world of fantasyland where they are right and everyone else is wrong. I do have a life outside of this forum but never run from anyone. You see, liberals in this tread are insecure "little people" whose success can be measured by counting on your fingers and who need Obama to level the playing field due to their inability to compete.
 
pinqy said:
Why do you think any of that is relevant when trying to measure unemployment?
Click to expand...

Why? Because a discouraged worker is a drain on society and were once unemployed but lost their unemployment benefits due to them running out.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't worry, if a republican was in office, they would be singing the praises of these numbers. And we'd all be just shocked. Shocked I tells ya!
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted now back it up with facts
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, the official rate during Reagan included discouraged workers, that was changed in 1994 by the Democrat controlled Congress. That is why you cannot find discouraged workers anywhere in BLS during the Reagan term
Click to expand...

No, discouraged workers have never been part of the official rate. You're making it clear you've never done any actual research.
Quick link for now of the changes to the alternative measures:
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
You'll note that the U5 was the same as the current U3 and that discouraged workers were added in the U7.
 
pinqy said:
No, discouraged workers have never been part of the official rate. You're making it clear you've never done any actual research.
Quick link for now of the changes to the alternative measures:
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
You'll note that the U5 was the same as the current U3 and that discouraged workers were added in the U7.
Click to expand...

Then you won't have any problem posting the bls chart that shows Discouraged workers prior to 1994. Thanks in advance
 
Conservative said:
No problem at all, I have now learned from you that even though the U-3 numbers don't include discouraged workers that apparently a discouraged worker is less unemployed than a regular unemployed.

I have checked over and over again and no where have I found Obama having fewer discouraged workers than Bush but that is ok, your head is so far up Obama's ass you are incapable of seeing anything straight
Click to expand...
Obama has 101,000 more discouraged workers than when he started. Bush had 433,000 more than when he started. Yay, Bush!! :lamo

Jan/2001: 301,000
Jan/2009: 734,000
Apr/2013: 835,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom