• 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]

Sure pal...the U-6 unemployment rate is not an unemployment rate at all.

:rolleyes:

Keep spinning...it seems to be what you do best.


Have a nice day.
It's a measure of utilization. A metric that includes over 10 million individuals who are employed cannot be rightly labeled an unemployment rate.
 
It's a measure of utilization. A metric that includes over 10 million individuals who are employed cannot be rightly labeled an unemployment rate.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...oyment-falls-7-5-april-23.html#post1061771569

I realize you (and many Dems/Obama administration workers) believe that someone who needs 40 hours a week of work to support his/her family, but because they cannot find such a job are forced to (out of desperation) take a 20 hour a week job at McDonald's - are 'employed' in your eyes.

Many of us do not share that opinion.

Including many respected 'economists'/organizations.


So, by your standards, if the entire nation were working 12 hours a week at a minimum wage job...then America would have total employment.

Noted.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
I realize you (and many Dems/Obama administration workers) believe that someone who needs 40 hours a week of work to support his/her family, but out of desperation takes a 20 hour a week job at McDonald's - is 'employed' in your eyes.

Many of us do not share that opinion.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. A metric that includes 10 million employed individuals is not an unemployment rate. Never has been, never will be.

There isn't an actual debate here. Opinions don't come into play at all.
 
And once more, conservatives run from the facts when they are challenged. It's really simple.

Before Obama: 7.8% unemployment and rising - After Obama: 7.5% and falling
Before Obama: 598,000 jobs lost - After Obama: 165,000 jobs gained
Before Obama: First time jobless claims streaking to record heights - After Obama: first time jobless claims at 5 year low
Before Obama: Dow Jones 7449.38 - After Obama: 14,973.96

You can't argue with any of that. You're not even trying. You keep trying to bring in irrelevant information, but it will not change the fact everything I have posted there is 100% truth. So just admit it, and do as I do. Say "thank you, President Obama".


EDIT: Oh, by the way, Obama officially became a "job creator" back before the election. So not only are you purposefully ignoring the truth, you're not even providing factually accurate counter arguments.
New data shows Obama may be a job creator, after all - Sep. 27, 2012
Obama now job creator - Nov. 2, 2012

You have it right, Obama is lowering the unemployment rate because people are dropping off the roles of the unemployed because of a terrible job market

You are right over a million discouraged workers a month in 2010-2011-2012 aren't unemployed

You are right, 345000 people filing for first time unemployment claims is an excellent number for liberals

And you are right 21.5 million unemployed/discouraged/under employed, millions of small businesses out of business, and over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assisted welfare are all benefiting from that improving stock market.

Amazing how naive, gullible, and poorly informed you are which bodes the question what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
Can't you hear the desperation in his voice as things get better and better? And all without the help of our #1 trading partner for manufactured goods. The eurozone is facing yet another year of austerity induced recession because they had the misfortune of having Conservatives and bankers in charge after the meltdown.
Can you imagine how well we would be doing if Europe wasn't on the ropes?

You have a number of questions that you ran from which means you have a very short selective memory
 
It never ceases to amaze me how desparately Republicans want this country to fail, simply because the Democrat is in office. They care far more about winning the game right now than they do about making the country better. They'd rather the country collapse and blame the Democrats than help make this country stronger and take the credit. It's why I always tell people I'm not a Democrat (nor would I ever be), but I'm mostly anti-Republican.

Just goes to show how much you love your country that is burdened by an additional 6 trillion dollars in debt, record numbers on food stamps, record numbers on disability, and record numbers of businesses out of business. That is the America that you seem to support especially being "anti? Republican. The European model of course is more to your liking as you need a massive central govt. to provide for you
 
Over the course of 2007-2009, sure. In net form and in the time span which Fenton and others claimed? Of course not.


I suggest you look and try to comprehend what the economic numbers today actually show. It only cost 6 trillion added to the debt to get back to the employment, unemployment numbers that Obama inherited. And then of course there is the booming labor market that has grown from 154 million in December 2007 to 155.2 million in April 2013. Do you know what a discouraged worker is? Do you know that in 2010-2011-2012 that number exceeded a million many months? Are those people unemployed and benefiting from the stock market?
 
I suggest you look and try to comprehend what the economic numbers today actually show. It only cost 6 trillion added to the debt to get back to the employment, unemployment numbers that Obama inherited. And then of course there is the booming labor market that has grown from 154 million in December 2007 to 155.2 million in April 2013. Do you know what a discouraged worker is? Do you know that in 2010-2011-2012 that number exceeded a million many months? Are those people unemployed and benefiting from the stock market?
You were incorrect.
 
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. A metric that includes 10 million employed individuals is not an unemployment rate. Never has been, never will be.

There isn't an actual debate here. Opinions don't come into play at all.

So is it your contention that 10 million under employed individuals is a sign that Obama is doing a good job stimulating the private sector to grow, expand, and increase employment? So in other words you have no problem with 10 million under employed Americans?
 
So is it your contention that 10 million under employed individuals is a sign that Obama is doing a good job stimulating the private sector to grow, expand, and increase employment? So in other words you have no problem with 10 million under employed Americans?
strawman1.jpg
 
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. A metric that includes 10 million employed individuals is not an unemployment rate. Never has been, never will be.

There isn't an actual debate here. Opinions don't come into play at all.

If the entire nation was employed part time for 5 hours a week BUT EVERYONE wanted full time work but no full time jobs were available - would you say then that no one in America was unemployed?

Yes or no, please?

And, if 'yes', - then would you call America (in that scenario) at full employment?

Yes or no, please?


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
You were incorrect.

Your opinion noted. Do people like you ever admit when wrong?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2002 to 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
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
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835
 
If the entire nation was employed part time, no exceptions BUT EVERYONE wanted full time work but no full time jobs were available - would you say then that no one in America was unemployed?

Yes or no, please?


Have a nice day.
Sure, but it certainly wouldn't represent a healthy labor market. Under /= un
 
Sure, but it certainly wouldn't represent a healthy labor market. Under /= un

So, if every single American had a 1 hour per week job (but every American wanted full time employment), then you would (based on your answer) consider the unemployment rate at zero.

Noted.


It is because of (no offense) anal retentive attitudes like that that many people consider the U-6 'underemployment rate' (if you will) the 'real' unemployment rate.


Have a nice day.


For everyone else, once again, the U-6 rate (what many call the 'real' unemployment rate) went up last month from 13.8% to 13.9%.

Plus, zero new manufacturing jobs were created PLUS thousands of construction jobs were lost.
 
Last edited:
Not even posting the right statistic. Full on trainwreck.

How about posting the "right" statistic chart for us? I gave you the chart showing discouraged workers which aren't under employed so tell me how that chart isn't accurate?
 
The 'real' unemployment rate - the U-6 - went UP last month from 13.8% to 13.9%.
Before Obama: 14.2% U6 and rising - After Obama: 13.9% and falling

Thank you, President Obama.

Source: Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

But (as I pointed out before) Obama did drop the U-3 rate (from when he took office) from 7.8% to 7.5% today...but it took him 52 months and a 50+% rise in the national debt to do it.
You think everything which has been added to the national debt has totally been on economic policies? Of course it wasn't.

That is not to mention - since he took office - the drop in average home prices
Compared to what, the overinflated market in the years leading up to the crash?

and the 40+% rise in food stamp usage.
You say that like it's a bad thing more people are eating. :shrug:

And btw - I am neither a Dem or a Rep.
That makes two of us.
You have it right, Obama is lowering the unemployment rate because people are dropping off the roles of the unemployed because of a terrible job market

You are right over a million discouraged workers a month in 2010-2011-2012 aren't unemployed

You are right, 345000 people filing for first time unemployment claims is an excellent number for liberals

And you are right 21.5 million unemployed/discouraged/under employed, millions of small businesses out of business, and over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assisted welfare are all benefiting from that improving stock market.
It just KILLS you our country is heading in the right direction, doesn't it? Our country has already passed the level it was at when Obama first took over and is continuing to improve.

Just shows that facts and data have no place in an Obamahater's world as they buy the rhetoric, spin positive information negatively, and then run when challenged. Wonder what it is about conservatism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Just goes to show how much you love your country
Thank you, I very much do. I love my country, I'm proud of the fact we're better off now than we were when Bush left office and I'm happy more and more Americans are better off now than they were when Bush left.

I guess the question becomes, "Why aren't you"?

You were incorrect.

I assure you, that will not matter to him.
 
Before Obama: 14.2% U6 and rising - After Obama: 13.9% and falling

Thank you, President Obama.

Source: Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

You think everything which has been added to the national debt has totally been on economic policies? Of course it wasn't.

Compared to what, the overinflated market in the years leading up to the crash?

You say that like it's a bad thing more people are eating. :shrug:

That makes two of us.

It just KILLS you our country is heading in the right direction, doesn't it? Our country has already passed the level it was at when Obama first took over and is continuing to improve.

Just shows that facts and data have no place in an Obamahater's world as they buy the rhetoric, spin positive information negatively, and then run when challenged. Wonder what it is about conservatism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Thank you, I very much do. I love my country, I'm proud of the fact we're better off now than we were when Bush left office and I'm happy more and more Americans are better off now than they were when Bush left.

I guess the question becomes, "Why aren't you"?



I assure you, that will not matter to him.

So...

1) the U-6 rate dropped 0.3% in 52 months to 13.9%...and you think that warrants a 'thank you' to POTUS Obama.

Noted.


2) Fine, then where is your unbiased factual source that details exactly how much of that added debt did not go towards helping Americans - either directly or indirectly - get back to work?


3) So it is not a 'bad thing' that 40+% more Americans are so poor since Obama took office that they require government assistance so that they do not starve.

Okaaaaay.
 
Last edited:
How about posting the "right" statistic chart for us? I gave you the chart showing discouraged workers which aren't under employed so tell me how that chart isn't accurate?
This entire exchange centered around you doubling down on a obviously wrong, inexcusably stupid claim that we've experienced a loss of 9 million jobs over the course of the past four years. You've managed to copy/paste figures that don't even fit into that category, let alone validate your claim, yet still proclaim victory at every turn. Anywho, here's the raw job figures for the past four years. LMK when you find that net loss of 9 mill.

CES0000000001_86696_1367765564188.gif
 
This entire exchange centered around you doubling down on a obviously wrong, inexcusably stupid claim that we've experienced a loss of 9 million jobs over the course of the past four years. You've managed to copy/paste figures that don't even fit into that category, let alone validate your claim, yet still proclaim victory at every turn. Anywho, here's the raw job figures for the past four years. LMK when you find that net loss of 9 mill.

CES0000000001_86696_1367765564188.gif

I know this escapes you but the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth and further use the right chart to measure the employed and note what it was when the recession began in December 2007 and here we are 3 million jobs less after adding 6 trillion to the debt. You call that an improvement?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146397 146157 146108 146130 145929 145738 145530 145196 145059 144792 144078 143328
2009 142187 141660 140754 140654 140294 140003 139891 139458 138775 138401 138607 137968
2010 138500 138665 138836 139306 139340 139137 139139 139338 139344 139072 138937 139220
2011 139330 139551 139764 139628 139808 139385 139450 139754 140107 140297 140614 140790
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579

Still cannot admit you are wrong, can you?
 
I know this escapes you but the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth and further use the right chart to measure the employed and note what it was when the recession began in December 2007 and here we are 3 million jobs less after adding 6 trillion to the debt. You call that an improvement?


ate
Still cannot admit you are wrong, can you?
Four year time table Rainman. Four. You're using the completely wrong time span and still coming up six million jobs short. This is embarrassing. Have some self respect.
 
Four year time table Rainman. Four. You're using the completely wrong time span and still coming up six million jobs short. This is embarrassing. Have some self respect.

What amazes me is your lack of understanding of population growth, discouraged workers, under employed, and debt service as it impacts even you. BLS Data gives the number, you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

Do you think a 155.2 million labor force in a country of 310 million people is an indication that the Obama economic policies have been successful? Please explain how growing the labor force by 1 million people in four plus years is an example of good economic policies?

Do you think over 800,000 discouraged workers in April 2013 is an indication that the economy is improving under Obama? Did you bother to even look at the discouraged worker chart of 2009?

Do you think under employment of 10 million Americans(your number) is an indication of an improving Obama economy?

Explain why that during the Bush term the labor force grew at 1.3 million per year but under Obama that has been 300,000 per year yet Obama economic performance good, Bush bad?

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
There isn't an actual debate here

LOL!

13.9% of americans are either unemployed or working less than they want

10 million more have given up altogether

large, surprising numbers of the latter are youth, according to the nyt friday

wages are pathetic, net incomes are down

the fed has obligated almost 4T of public trust in mortgage backed garbage

the stimulus was a complete failure, it's become a dirty word, obscene, the s-word

Just don't call it a 'stimulus' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO

Obama wants to boost economy - just don't call it stimulus - CNN

Just Don't Call It a Jobs Stimulus - Washington Post

Barack Obama's economic proposals: Just don't call it stimulus | The Economist

Obama's Next Economic Plan: Don't Call It a Stimulus - TIME

Don't call it a stimulus - Los Angeles Times

why?

keynes is kaput
 
Back
Top Bottom