Page 31 of 50 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 499

Thread: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

  1. #301
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    01-11-17 @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,764

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What is it about Obama supporters that create such a very selective memory and such loyal support?
    As pinqy has pointed out, it's not a question of supporting Obama. The issue is that you have a distorted perception of the data. You and others in this forum refuse to acknowledge something that has been explained to you repeatedly: the economy was in worse than terrible shape when Obama inherited it — it was on the verge of going under. Since then it has steadily improved. If the trends continue, the numbers by the end of his second term will be significantly better than they are now. What will you say then? Took too long, too much deficit spending. It's a broken record.

    Another important factor to take into account is that the figures from, say, 2005 and 2006, were the result of an economy that was in a housing bubble, one that was getting ready to burst. That created the mess that Obama has been cleaning up. There is nothing objective about yer analysis; it's baseless, unqualified, partisan rhetoric. And so predictably you portray those who take an unbiased view as falling into that category.

    pinqy mentioned trends. Here's U-4 over the past twenty years:

    U4_1994_2015.jpg

    It moved between 4% and 6% until the Great Recession hit. It's about to re-enter that range. That's why we say Obama has led the employment market back to recovery.

    Here's discouraged as a percentage of the civilian population aged 25 to 64 from 2000 until last fall:

    disc_as_perc_of_25_to_64_pop.jpg

    Same trend — getting back to the normal range. Ideally, you'd look at the civilian labor force over the age of sixteen. If you weren't such a pathetic hack, I might work up a graph of those numbers, but there's no point in it.
    Last edited by mmi; 05-15-15 at 01:46 PM.

  2. #302
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    60,912

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Nothing is good or bad without something to compare it to. I otherwords, nothing is absolute. Presidential performance is just the same.

    Like if I told you that I am 6 kritans tall and weigh 200 zigars, that would mean nothing in itself. It's only when you understand the units of measurement, and have some sort of baseline concept that my height of 6 kritans and weight of 200 zigars means anything.

    Most conservatives seem to be OK with the performance of our country under Bush, thus they set an exceptionally low baseline. Compared to that baseline, Obummer is a wonderful POTUS. Now if you compared Obummer to a different president, like Reagan, then depending on the metric, Obummer could still be wonderful, or he could be terrible.

    In my opinion, Obummer is the worst Dem president during my lifetime, and Reagan was the best republican president. I find it hillarious when people compare Obummer to Reagan (the worst of one set to the best of a different set), a better comparison would be Obummer to W Bush (the worst of each set).
    As I stated, the actual official numbers and basic civics tells us a different story. You buy what you are told but post no numbers to prove your point. Much effort has been put into destroying GW Bush and it has worked especially with people like you. The facts however tell a different story but then when did facts ever make a difference to you?

    There is a reason for the 2007-09 recession but to may it is all Bush and not reality. There is a reason for the 4.9 trillion Bush debt but then again that reason is ignored by Democrat supporters/ There is a reason for all the effort to destroy Bush and that reason is to divert from Obama. Obama is incompetent. Obama lacks leadership skills. Obama's resume wouldn't put him in middle management of any business. Facts make all the difference in the world to me. When are you going to post some that are relevant?

  3. #303
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    60,912

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    As pinqy has pointed out, it's not a question of supporting Obama. The issue is that you have a distorted perception of the data. You and others in this forum refuse to acknowledge something that has been explained to you repeatedly: the economy was in worse than terrible shape when Obama inherited it — it was on the verge of going under. Since then it has steadily improved. If the trends continue, the numbers by the end of his term will be significantly better than they are now. What will you say then? Took too long, too much deficit spending. It's a broken record.

    Another important factor to take into account is that the figures from, say, 2005 and 2006 were the result of an economy that was in a housing bubble, one that getting ready to burst. That created the mess that Obama has been cleaning up. There is nothing objective about yer analysis; it's baseless, unqualified, partisan rhetoric. And so predictably you portray those who take an unbiased view as falling into that category.

    pinqy mentioned trends. Here's U-4 over the past twenty years:

    U4_1994_2015.jpg

    It moved between 4% and 6% until the Great Recession hit. It's about to re-enter that range. That's why we say Obama has led the employment market back to recovery.

    Here's discouraged as a percentage of the civilian population aged 25 to 64 from 2000 until last fall:

    disc_as_perc_of_25_to_64_pop.jpg

    Same trend — getting back to the normal range. Ideally, you'd look at the civilian labor force over the age of sixteen. If you weren't such a pathetic hack, I might work up a graph of those numbers, but there's no point in it.
    Interesting, and yet after 8.2 trillion dollars added to the debt and an 842 billion dollar stimulus the number of discouraged workers is higher than when Obama took office. You use the discouraged workers as a percentage of a certain age group and yet by your own chart they still exceed anything Bush ever had.

    Seems interesting to me that will all the debt that number is still high regardless of the population growth. Since there is such an emphasis on population growth please explain to me why there hasn't been a similar growth in the labor force as there was during the entire Bush term? Guess population growth only matters when it supports your claim.

    By the way, amazing that when Bush took office there was a labor force of 144 million and when he left it was 154 million or a 10 million increase. Today that number is 157 million or a 3 million increase. Did the population just stop growing?
    Last edited by Conservative; 05-15-15 at 01:52 PM.

  4. #304
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

    U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?
    Actually, no. We haven't seen employment-to-population ratios this low since the 70s. Obama's terms have been characterized by consistently low numbers.

    Employment-to-population ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  5. #305
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    01-11-17 @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,764

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    explain to me why there hasn't been a similar growth in the labor force
    Retiring baby boomers, more young people staying in school, more parents staying at home to raise young children. Sound familiar? Or do those facts get drowned out by yer incessant partisan rants?

  6. #306
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    01-11-17 @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,764

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    We haven't seen employment-to-population ratios this low since the 70s. Obama's terms have been characterized by consistently low numbers.
    How would account for that?

  7. #307
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,427

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Don't you think when Obama signed and passed a stimulus program at a cost of 842 billion that the U-6 rate ought to drop?
    It has dropped. A lot. It's been going down consistantly for 5 years.
    When do actual costs play into your analysis of the results?
    I have no idea how to estimate what kind of results we should get per dollar, so, lacking any idea of what costs "should be" I can't include the costs as part of my analyis.

    How low do the numbers need to go, back to pre recession levels.
    Probably won't happen this year. Probably will next year. What would the proper rate of decline been for the amount of money spent? What formula are you using?
    Last edited by pinqy; 05-15-15 at 02:20 PM.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  8. #308
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    How would account for that?
    Dunno for sure, I'm not the one insisting that Obama has been good for the economy and employment. However, the dip in the numbers is exclusively within Obama's terms of office.

  9. #309
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,427

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Dunno for sure, I'm not the one insisting that Obama has been good for the economy and employment. However, the dip in the numbers is exclusively within Obama's terms of office.
    Obama has been President since 2000?

    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  10. #310
    User
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    08-12-15 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    96

    re: U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

    Under George W. Bush the average level was lower.

Page 31 of 50 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •