• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure, as soon as you document your claim that the calculation of U-3 unemployment has changed since Reagan. TIA

Already have, discouraged workers weren't counted as unemployed after 1994. There was no calculation for U-6 numbers during the Reagan years or prior to 1994
 
Last edited:
Sheik, my head is fully above ground and my eyes open, Obama's policies have been a failure and the results show it. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. you have a lot invested in the hated of Bush and ignorance of the data choosing to post percentage change vs. actual numbers.

There's no way your head can be above ground without understanding what I posted. The truth (something you're allergic to) is that you just don't want to accept it.
 
Last edited:
There's no way your head can be above ground without understanding what I posted. The truth (something you're allergic to) is that you just don't want to accept it./COLOR]


unfortunately I know exactly what you are posting and how you are distorting the numbers to make Obama look better than he really is. The question is why do you support the Obama policies and what he is doing?
 
Already have, discouraged workers weren't counted as unemployed after 1994. There was no calculation for U-6 numbers during the Reagan years or prior to 1994

I know what you claim. You claim a lot of things that aren't actually true. What I want to see is the evidence supporting your claim.
 
I have no problem with the U-3 rate except when you make the statement that no Republican President had a better performance than Obama especially when you ignore that the U-3 rate in the 80's was different than the U-3 rate after 1994. how about some intellectual honesty from a liberal? Reagan's unemployment, GDP growth, employment, and revenue growth to the govt. were much better than Obama's and the economy worse

One more time for the reading impaired...

H e ... b r o u g h t ... u p ... t h e ... U3 ... r a t e,.

And after 36 months in office, the U3 rate icreased half a point under Reagan just like it has under Obama.
 
unfortunately I know exactly what you are posting and how you are distorting the numbers to make Obama look better than he really is. The question is why do you support the Obama policies and what he is doing?

Stop lying, I've done no such thing.
 
I know what you claim. You claim a lot of things that aren't actually true. What I want to see is the evidence supporting your claim.

BUMP

No response? Not going to document your claim, Con?

I wonder why?

Maybe it's because the 1994 bls changes actually resulted in a HIGHER unemployment rate relative to the old methodology -- not a lower rate, as you claim?

To gain an understanding of how the revised CPS survey differed from the former CPS, a parallel survey using the new questionnaire was administered to roughly 12,000 households over an 18-month period. The new CPS yielded an overall unemployment rate of 7.3 percent compared with 6.8 percent under the old survey. The new questionnaire also indicated higher unemployment among women, teenagers and the elderly. The unemployment rate for women, for instance, was 7.1 percent under the new survey compared to 6.4 percent under the old CPS.


Employment and unemployment data: dramatic changes of key indicators | Government Finance Review | Find Articles
 
I know what you claim. You claim a lot of things that aren't actually true. What I want to see is the evidence supporting your claim.

No what you want is proof that you will ignore. Research discouraged workers and the U-6 rate, that way you will actually learn something
 
No what you want is proof that you will ignore. Research discouraged workers and the U-6 rate, that way you will actually learn something

Proof I will address. Your unsubstantiated assertions I shall continue to ignore.
 
Proof I will address. Your unsubstantiated assertions I shall continue to ignore.

You will continue to play your games then? Fact, bls did not calculate U-6 numbers prior to 1994 and you cannot find any U-6 numbers for that period of time.That says it all

The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs. Its continuing divergence from the official rate (the “U-3″ unemployment measure) indicates the job market has a long way to go before growth in the economy translates into relief for workers.

The U-6 rate is now the highest since the Labor Department started this particular data series in 1994

Broader U-6 Unemployment Rate Hits 17.5% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
 
Was the GDP higher or lower in 2011 vs. 2010? That question has not been answered. Why is this called the worst recovery from a recession in history?

gdp_large.jpg

This pretty well covers the GDP questions and this covers the other Obama years.Notice where it was when he came into office?Notice where it is now?Nuf said.:2wave:

GDP in 2009,in billions was 14014.80.00

GDP in 2010,in billions was 14551.80.00

US Gross Domestic Product GDP History United States 1950-2010 - Federal State Local Data
 
The Methodology is the same, the numbers after 1994 exclude the discouraged workers whereas they didn't prior. You seem unable to grasp that reality

By the way a very powerful message from someone living through what you are supporting here

The PJ Tatler » Hannan to U.S.: Stop Trying to Catch Up with the EU

That is bull****, as the link I already provided proved. In fact they calculated pre-1994 employment using the old and new methods and the current, post-'94 methodology resulted in a HIGHER unemploment rate. Why? Because there were many changes in the methodology -- not just changes to discouraged workers, as you imply.
 
That is bull****, as the link I already provided proved. In fact they calculated pre-1994 employment using the old and new methods and the current, post-'94 methodology resulted in a HIGHER unemploment rate. Why? Because there were many changes in the methodology -- not just changes to discouraged workers, as you imply.

no, that isn't Bull**** except to point out the extreme ignorance of liberals. U-6 is calculated by the BLS and wasn't done prior to 1994. Your loyalty to a liberal economic model is quite telling.
 
Why are you moving the goal post to Europe?The United States isn't good enough for you?Why the hatred for the USA?:shock:

Better question is why would you support a President that is attempting to convert our economy to the European model?
 
Better question is why would you support a President that is attempting to convert our economy to the European model?

One woulda thought that you would wait until the afternoon for the moving of goalpost.Gees...:(
 
no, that isn't Bull**** except to point out the extreme ignorance of liberals. U-6 is calculated by the BLS and wasn't done prior to 1994. Your loyalty to a liberal economic model is quite telling.

You can stop whacking your strawman. I know that U-6 wasn't calculated prior to '94. The point is that the '94 changes to U-3 resulted in a higher unemployment rate relative to the pre-'94 methodology.
 
One woulda thought that you would wait until the afternoon for the moving of goalpost.Gees...:(

in order to see if I have moved the goalposts you at least have to get onto the field which you haven't done
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom