• 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!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

No I just know they are fudging numbers just like they do with inflation, and that you are an obamabot

You want to believe they are fudging numbers because you have Obama derangement syndrome and can't think independently without your irrational hate for the president.
 
Another interesting fact from the report:

Since Obama took office (January, 2009), there are 4,501,000 more Americans employed.

Sounds great? Well, maybe not so great.

Here is how the various age groups have done during that time (Jan. 2009 to today):

16-19... -686,000
20-24... +771,000
25-54... -1,086,000
55 and up...+5,417,000


Since Obama took office, by my calculations, 1,001,000 less Americans under 55 are employed...but 5,417,000 more Americans over 55 are employed!?!

That is Obama's great recovery?


Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Page 16
 
Another interesting fact from the report:

Since Obama took office (January, 2009), there are 4,501,000 more Americans employed.

Sounds great? Well, maybe not so great.

Here is how the various age groups have done during that time (Jan. 2009 to today):

16-19... -686,000
20-24... +771,000
25-54... -1,086,000
55 and up...+5,417,000


Since Obama took office, by my calculations, 1,001,000 less Americans under 55 are employed...but 5,417,000 more Americans over 55 are employed!?!

That is Obama's great recovery?


Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Page 16


Lol !

All those attempted mitigations of the Labor participation rate by the Presidents supporters wiped out with with a couple of statistics.

I thought these people were retiring in droves.
 
Another interesting fact from the report:

Since Obama took office (January, 2009), there are 4,501,000 more Americans employed.

Sounds great? Well, maybe not so great.

Here is how the various age groups have done during that time (Jan. 2009 to today):

16-19... -686,000
20-24... +771,000
25-54... -1,086,000
55 and up...+5,417,000


Since Obama took office, by my calculations, 1,001,000 less Americans under 55 are employed...but 5,417,000 more Americans over 55 are employed!?!

That is Obama's great recovery?


Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Page 16
Like I said, cherry picking of data. Instead of including the time when he stepped into office during a recession and including the time periods during which we were still losing jobs due to the recession, how about you find the figures since January 1st, 2011? I think that would be a MUCH better indicator of the jobs recovery.
 
Lol !

All those attempted mitigations of the Labor participation rate by the Presidents supporters wiped out with with a couple of statistics.

I thought these people were retiring in droves.

I gotta admit, even I was shocked.

I had no idea the 'recovery' was skewing so far towards over 55's and away from almost everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, cherry picking of data. Instead of including the time when he stepped into office during a recession and including the time periods during which we were still losing jobs due to the recession, how about you find the figures since January 1st, 2011? I think that would be a MUCH better indicator of the jobs recovery.

That would be the definition of cherry picking the data.
 
That would be the definition of cherry picking the data.
No, it wouldn't. Choosing numbers DURING a recession and then claiming they were part of the recovery is false, dishonest and obviously cherry picked. It's a FAR better indicator to use figures from after the recession and its effects have worn off to see how good the recovery has been.
 
You want to believe they are fudging numbers because you have Obama derangement syndrome and can't think independently without your irrational hate for the president.


They can fudge the #'s all they want.

They're preaching to the choir, just "fooling " the people who are willing to be fooled.

The fact is that this economy still has to be propped up with Quantitative easing and our Labor participation rate is still falling.

Its been 6 years.

Corporations have posted record profits by cutting cost, not because they've responded to a increase in demand that would accompany a REAL Economy recovery.

Their sitting on massive piles of money or using their profits to buy back their outstanding shares, NOT putting them back into a Obama economy.
 
I gotta admit, even I was shocked.

I had no idea the 'recovery' was skewing so far towards over 55's and away from almost everyone else.


Wow, given that statistic, it would seem the FED is also less than objective.

Wasn't it Yellen ( Fellow Keynesian ) who claimed the falling Labor participation rate was due to demographics ?
 
Here is how the various age groups have done during that time (Jan. 2009 to today):

16-19... -686,000
20-24... +771,000
25-54... -1,086,000
55 and up...+5,417,000


Since Obama took office, by my calculations, 1,001,000 less Americans under 55 are employed...but 5,417,000 more Americans over 55 are employed!?!

That is Obama's great recovery?


Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Page 16

Like I said, cherry picking of data. Instead of including the time when he stepped into office during a recession and including the time periods during which we were still losing jobs due to the recession, how about you find the figures since January 1st, 2011? I think that would be a MUCH better indicator of the jobs recovery.
Never mind, I'll just do it for you, since I find it highly unlikely you'll be willing to do the objective thing:

16-19: +161,000
20-24: +880,000
25-54: +1,849000
55+: +4,367,000

Total gains since January 2011: 7,277,000

Geez, when you don't falsify data (who in the hell thinks a recession is a recovery anyways?), the numbers look so much better, don't they?
 
Never mind, I'll just do it for you, since I find it highly unlikely you'll be willing to do the objective thing:

16-19: +161,000
20-24: +880,000
25-54: +1,849000
55+: +4,367,000

Total gains since January 2011: 7,277,000

Geez, when you don't falsify data (who in the hell thinks a recession is a recovery anyways?), the numbers look so much better, don't they?



Your data STILL contradicts the narrative that the low labor participation rate is due to a mass of retirees.

So we can add some needed context to your # by posting the 30 year low labor participation rate, right ?
 
Like I said, cherry picking of data. Instead of including the time when he stepped into office during a recession and including the time periods during which we were still losing jobs due to the recession, how about you find the figures since January 1st, 2011? I think that would be a MUCH better indicator of the jobs recovery.

lol...talk about cherry picking!?! The POTUS is responsible for the entire length of his presidency, not just the parts that make him look good (theoretically).

My data included Obama's entire presidency...there is no cherry picking.

My final comment about the recovery might have been 'cherry picking', but the statistics are not. And since you accused my data of cherry picking (not my final comment), your statement is erroneous.

And btw, according to National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession ended in June 2009. That is when the 'recovery' began. You are the one who is trying to Cherry pick statistics.

Great Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



But, let's use stats from the official beginning of the recovery (July, 2009):

16-19...-497,000
20-24...+1,047,000
25-54...+216,000
55 and over...+5,488,000

So, since the 'recovery' has begun (July 2009), 766,000 more Americans under 55 are employed AND 5,488,000 more Americans over 55 are employed.


Thus, during the 63 months of the 'recovery' from the Great Recession, 12,158 more Americans under 55 have found employment per month AND 87,111 more Americans over 55 have found employment per month.

Or, during this 'Obama recovery', (by my calculations), for every one person under 55 that has found new employment, over 7 (7.16) over 55 person's found new employment.


Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf
 
Last edited:
Your data STILL contradicts the narrative that the low labor participation rate is due to a mass of retirees.
How so?

Let's say there are 5 people in the 25-54 age range and 50 in the 55+ range. If 2 people in the 25-54 range get a job and 10 in the 55+ range get a job and 30 in the 55+ range retire...then the labor force participation would still go down, even though the 55+ range experienced a larger increase in jobs.

So, no, it doesn't contradict the narrative at all. All it shows is that, since January 2011, the abnormally large demographic of Baby Boomers has gained over 4 million jobs.

So we can add some needed context to your # by posting the 30 year low labor participation rate, right ?
You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.

So...I guess if you want to add context you can, but be sure to include ALL context, not just the ones which fit your obviously biased agenda.
lol...talk about cherry picking!?! The POTUS is responsible for the entire length of his presidency
A) A recession is not a recovery and anyone who says otherwise is being silly
B) A President is not responsible for a recession which started before he even took office. To say otherwise is silly.

Perhaps you ought to look up the definition of cherry picking data.

My data included Obama's entire presidency...there is no cherry picking.
Including job losses in a recession which occurred before Obama took office and including job losses which occurred before a President's policies could possibly begin having an effect IS cherry picking. It's incredibly dishonest, but you know that already.

And since you accused my data of cherry picking
It is. Just like you always do.

And btw, according to National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession Ended in June 2009. That is when the 'recovery' began. You are the one who is trying to Cherry pick statistics.
Everyone knows the effects of the recession continued, even after the recession technically ended. Saying otherwise is being blatantly dishonest. The economy is not a light switch.

Could you be any more obvious with regards to your bias? For someone who loves to claim you're neither Dem or Rep, you sure do try awfully hard to falsify and/or manipulate data in a dishonest manner to present a fictional narrative against our current President.
 
Your data STILL contradicts the narrative that the low labor participation rate is due to a mass of retirees.

So we can add some needed context to your # by posting the 30 year low labor participation rate, right ?

Exactly.

It's not so much the numbers of jobs created/lost that I find astounding...it's the ratio of over 55 to under 55 (over 7:1) that I find so concerning.


Maybe this should be called the 'Obama seniors recovery'.
 
Last edited:
How so?

Let's say there are 5 people in the 25-54 age range and 50 in the 55+ range. If 2 people in the 25-54 range get a job and 10 in the 55+ range get a job and 30 in the 55+ range retire...then the labor force participation would still go down, even though the 55+ range experienced a larger increase in jobs.

So, no, it doesn't contradict the narrative at all. All it shows is that, since January 2011, the abnormally large demographic of Baby Boomers has gained over 4 million jobs.

You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.

So...I guess if you want to add context you can, but be sure to include ALL context, not just the ones which fit your obviously biased agenda.

A) A recession is not a recovery and anyone who says otherwise is being silly
B) A President is not responsible for a recession which started before he even took office. To say otherwise is silly.

Perhaps you ought to look up the definition of cherry picking data.

Including job losses in a recession which occurred before Obama took office and including job losses which occurred before a President's policies could possibly begin having an effect IS cherry picking. It's incredibly dishonest, but you know that already.

It is. Just like you always do.

Everyone knows the effects of the recession continued, even after the recession technically ended. Saying otherwise is being blatantly dishonest. The economy is not a light switch.

Could you be any more obvious with regards to your bias? For someone who loves to claim you're neither Dem or Rep, you sure do try awfully hard to falsify and/or manipulate data in a dishonest manner to present a fictional narrative against our current President.

Everyone?

'As of this month, the U.S. economy’s recovery from the Great Recession is five years old.'

Recovery from Great Recession is underwhelming | Pew Research Center

You don't agree, take it up with the Pew Research Center


Good day.
 
You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.

Correct.


aging effect.JPG
 
You don't agree, take it up with the Pew Research Center

Most informed people would notice the Great Recession was swiftly mitigated by a series of public policy initiatives. Not just in the U.S., but across the world. China was able to enact a larger (as a percentage of their aggregate output) stimulus package 6 months before the U.S..

Did the labor market respond with haste reminiscent of your average run-of-the-mill economic downturn? Of course not. But only a fool would expect such a recovery.
 


So Corporations are NOT buying back massive amounts of their outstanding shares ?

I believe since 2008, they've devoted 52 cents of every dollar of profit and cash fow to the repurchase of shares.
 
Last edited:
Everyone?

'As of this month, the U.S. economy’s recovery from the Great Recession is five years old.'

Recovery from Great Recession is underwhelming | Pew Research Center

You don't agree, take it up with the Pew Research Center


Good day.
Yes, everyone. The fact you found an article which agrees the recession technically ended in summer 2009 (which even I said was true) doesn't change the fact the EFFECTS from the recession continued on long after.

But thank you for wasting my time with an irrelevant source that simply confirmed what I already agreed to and in no way disputed what I said. Good day.
 
Last edited:

Here is another perspective:

fredgraph.jpg


Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - 55 years and over - FRED - St. Louis Fed
 

Simple is right. Except you are wrong

To the extent that this flock of Scrooge McDucks has done anything with their cash, they’ve used it to buy back their own shares—which increases the value of the outstanding shares, to which CEO salaries and bonuses are happily linked—and increase dividend payments to shareholders. Last year, American corporations set a record for share buybacks—nearly 900 of them opted to purchase their own shares. The 30 companies that are listed in the Dow Jones Industrial Average spent more than $225 billion on such repurchases; the total for all U.S. corporations topped $750 billion. As Jia Lynn Yang reported in The Washington Post, this was more than three times the amount they spent on research and development.
While buybacks were soaring, neither investment nor employee pay was going anywhere. The capital expenditures of the S&P 500 rose by a measly 1.3 percent this year over last. Overall private-sector pay has declined by 0.5 percent since the recovery began in 2009. Cisco bought back shares as it was laying off 5 percent of its workers, and Boeing announced both a share buyback and a dividend increase as it was compelling its workers to surrender their defined benefit pensions for 401k’s.
Investing in Stock Buybacks, Not People
 
Let's say there are 5 people in the 25-54 You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.

Really?

Care to explain this chart then:

fredgraph.jpg
 
Really?

Care to explain this chart then:

fredgraph.jpg

What does that chart have to do with roughly half of the drop in participation rate is due to retirees? Why do you continue to waste time with irrelevant sources?

You may not be Dem or Rep, but you certainly are biased with an agenda.
 
What does that chart have to do with roughly half of the drop in participation rate is due to retirees? Why do you continue to waste time with irrelevant sources?

You may not be Dem or Rep, but you certainly are biased with an agenda.

Ummm...the chart shows that the LFPR of those over 55 has increased since 2000.

How can 1/2 of the drop in the LFPR since 2000 be attributed to seniors when the BLS states that the LFPR of those over 55 has gone up since 2000?

Come on now.
 
Back
Top Bottom