• 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]

Conservative said:
Wow, reviving History is one of your traits. What economic policy did Reagan have in place that caused a recession in July 1981? That was a double dip charged to Carter. What economic policies did Bush have in place in March 2001 that caused that recession or was it due to the dot.com bubble bursting under Clinton?

You have a bad case of BDS as well as the inability to objectively review actual results but would rather blame everything on someone other than a Democrat. The actual facts destroy your credibility
Click to expand...

I gave you the facts and you only gave excuses. The fact is that growth is better under Democrats no matter how you may wish to deny it.

6967377782_b43e4dd02d_z.jpg
 
growth:

America's gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic output — grew 6.8 percent from the April-June quarter of 2009 through the same quarter this year, the slowest in the first three years of a postwar recovery. GDP grew an average of 15.5 percent in the first three years of the eight other comebacks analyzed.
Click to expand...

AP: Economic recovery is weakest since World War II
 
pinqy said:
It doesn't. "Retired" is a response offered in the survey as a reason for not looking for work, but status as "retired" plays no role in any of the calculations.

They're not applying any rate. I don't know how you think the numbers are calculated. How do you think they're applying any kind of rate???

And BLS data clearly shows that labor force participation by those 55+ and 65+ have been increasing. But even so, there are still a lot more older folks as a percent of the population and therefore a lot more in the Not in the Labor Force category
Click to expand...


:shock:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/10/art1full.pdf



Baby Boomers, Not Recession, Behind Drop In Workforce - Forbes

Baby boomers, the generation born between 1946 and 1964, started reaching the conventional retirement age, 65, last year. That would certainly have many of them leaving their jobs and heading toward the doors. It’s their exit from the labor force that could explain why the labor-force participation rate has fallen from 66% at the end of 2007 to near 63.9% today, a group of Barclays Capital economists argue in a new report.
 
iguanaman said:
The mass retirement of the baby boomers has been in the news for years. Another bout of amnesia?
Click to expand...

How about addressing the definition of the U-6 number and acknowledge that retirees aren't counted as discouraged workers or under employed. Still waiting for acknowledging that you continue to try and re-write history in favor of Democrats? what is it about liberalism that creates your kind of loyalty which makes you part of the problem not part of the solution?
 
iguanaman said:
I gave you the facts and you only gave excuses. The fact is that growth is better under Democrats no matter how you may wish to deny it.

6967377782_b43e4dd02d_z.jpg
Click to expand...

Is there something you are trying to show here. Please tell me when Republicans had total control of the Congress?
 
iguanaman said:
I gave you the facts and you only gave excuses. The fact is that growth is better under Democrats no matter how you may wish to deny it.

6967377782_b43e4dd02d_z.jpg
Click to expand...

That assumes that GDP growth is affected in a meaningful way by politics. I for one reject that. It is interesting that the the democrats got luckier than the republicans economically.
 
fmw said:
That assumes that GDP growth is affected in a meaningful way by politics. I for one reject that. It is interesting that the the democrats got luckier than the republicans economically.
Click to expand...

Would love to see the data points used to show 6.3% GDP growth with a Democrat controlled Congress. Not sure Iguana has any idea what party controlled Congress and when. Clinton has a Republican Congress from 1995-2000. Bush had a Republican Congress from 2003 through 2006. Reagan never had a Republican Congress. Liberals love to make up numbers. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
iguanaman said:
I gave you the facts and you only gave excuses. The fact is that growth is better under Democrats no matter how you may wish to deny it.

6967377782_b43e4dd02d_z.jpg
Click to expand...

Cannot help but notice how liberals run when challenged as they cannot even defend their phony positions on any issue. Keep running iguana!!
 
pinqy said:
Because you don't like the idea of the labor market getting better under Obama?
Click to expand...

The labor market of 155.2 is better than what? You think the loss of millions of jobs and a labor force not keeping up with population growth is an improving economy?
 
pinqy said:
Because you don't like the idea of the labor market getting better under Obama?
Click to expand...
Or maybe because it's obviously untrue.
 
Conservative said:
Would love to see the data points used to show 6.3% GDP growth with a Democrat controlled Congress.
Click to expand...
I think what he's trying to tell everyone is that the GOP would do a lot better growing the economy if they concentrated more on mobilizing for World Wars.
 
Conservative said:
The labor market of 155.2 is better than what?
Click to expand...
153,623,000 in June 2010.

You think the loss of millions of jobs and a labor force not keeping up with population growth is an improving economy?
Click to expand...
There's been a steady gain of jobs sinc Feb 2010. And the labor force participation rate has been declining since 2000.
 
pinqy said:
153,623,000 in June 2010.


There's been a steady gain of jobs sinc Feb 2010. And the labor force participation rate has been declining since 2000.
Click to expand...

And 154 million in December 2007, you telling me that a 1.2 million increase in 5 plus years is an improving economy? Seems that the new normal is an improvement over terrible numbers. Do you realize that a declining labor force participation rate isn't good economic news? What is it about liberalism that creates your kind of loyalty? An improving labor participation rate is what we want to see as that means more people working not less.
 
pinqy said:
Why on Earth would you think that's a good idea? (though I'm not sure what you mean by "tabulation" model...it's not a phrase generally used).
Surely you don't think that was a more accurate measure?
Click to expand...

I will ask you again.

Are you saying that the present C-CPI-U model for determining the CPI is a more accurate measure of inflation in America then the CPI model was back in 1980?

Yes or no, please?


And remember, I am saying 'inflation' - NOT 'cost of living'.
 
pinqy said:
Feel free to present the "real" number, with explanation, then.
Click to expand...
No thanks. I'm not being paid to be your teacher.

Maybe you could look it up yourself?
 
Do you know what 165,000 new jobs is? That is an absolute disaster.

It is now late spring and 165,000 new jobs means that some towns in the United States find that additional lawnmowers are now hired because the grass is now growing.

It is the shame and disaster of Obama. Utterly disgusting.
 
pinqy said:
153,623,000 in June 2010.


There's been a steady gain of jobs sinc Feb 2010. And the labor force participation rate has been declining since 2000.
Click to expand...

Yes - it has.

But, the LFPR (Labor Force Participation Rate) reached a high of 67.3% in Jan. 2000.

Nine years later - when Obama took over - it had dropped to 65.7%...a drop of 1.6%.

Today, it sits at 63.3%...a drop of 2.4%.


So, the LFPR has dropped 50% more during Obama's first 52 months in office then it had during the previous 108 months.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000


And please save the 'Americans are retiring faster and that is the reason' nonsense.

Even the Fed has stated that (in essence) at most, 50% of those that are leaving the work force are doing so due to retirement.

PLUS, they do not even specify how many of those did so prematurely because they could not find work.


Have a nice day.
 
BTW - The 'real' unemployment rate (the U-6) actually went up in April...from 13.8 to 13.9%.

Always look below the headlines for the real story.
 
j-mac said:
It would paint a far different picture if actual numbers were being used instead of massaging stats to mislead the American people.
Click to expand...
Stop.
 
DA60 said:
BTW - The 'real' unemployment rate (the U-6) actually went up in April...from 13.8 to 13.9%.

Always look below the headlines for the real story.
Click to expand...
The U-6 is a measure of underutilization, not employment. It includes millions of individuals who are currently working.
 
American said:
It gotten to where few trust the BLS anymore. Trust is lost when it appears that turd polishing has replaced honest analysis.
Click to expand...
Of course this in no way reflects upon the methodology and integrity of the BLS, but to the paranoia born of partisanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom