• 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 Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
you are wrong on that. the U3 number only counts those people "in the job market" if everyone stopped looking for work the unemployement rate would be 0% according to the U3 number.

Right..if no one was unemployed the unemployment rate would be zero. That's basic math. DA60 was claiming if no one was EMPLOYED it would also be zero.


you don't understand what you are looking at.
Yes, I do, you just misread.
 
Why do you just make up **** like that? It is not mathematically possible. But go ahead.... make up some numbers and show us your equation. If no one was employed, the UE rate would be 100% Good Lord!, you don't even know how percentages work!!!

Yes, I know, you'll do the math, realize you're wrong, but won't be able to admit it and just insult me.

Oh jeez...calm down.

Okay, so if only one person is working then theoretically the unemployment rate could be zero. So it is one instead of zero (my mistake)...big whoop.

If THEORETICALLY only one person was working but everyone else who is eligible had given up looking for work (but still wanted to work), then the rest would not be counted as part of the labor force. Thus the labor force would be 1 and the number of employed would be 1.

So the U-3 rate would be 0%...would it not?


Yes or no?


And why you are getting so freaked out over this...it's just a chat forum...LIGHTEN UP

:roll:
 
Last edited:
No president can take direct credit for decreasing unemployment unless it's the government doing the hiring. So these questions asking me for specific legislation that leads to an increase in hiring are in and of themselves nonsensical.

So then how can you make the claim that Obama has been good for the economy?

Hell, by your logic, my dog has been good for the economy. Debatepolitics.com has been good the economy. Sushi has been good for the economy. They all had no impact on the unemployment rate either.
 
No president can take direct credit for decreasing unemployment unless it's the government doing the hiring. So these questions asking me for specific legislation that leads to an increase in hiring are in and of themselves nonsensical.

So, your blatant bromance with Obama in your OP was just blowing wind. So what are we supposed to be conceding here? That Obama's winning smile has been good for the economy? That Obama's ability to carry a Motown tune has been good for the economy? That liberals getting a tingle up their leg when Obama enters a room has been good for the economy? Or maybe that the number of separate vacations the first family takes has boosted tourism employment?

So come on, rip off your Obama-girl t-shirt, your Yes we Can shorty shorts, and tell us just what it is we are conceding as your hero's contribution to the economy.
 
So then how can you make the claim that Obama has been good for the economy?

Hell, by your logic, my dog has been good for the economy. Debatepolitics.com has been good the economy. Sushi has been good for the economy. They all had no impact on the unemployment rate either.

Shame on you claiming your dog has improved the economy when we all know Bo Obama has been the true canine stimulus.
 
It has nothing to do with hate. I don't hate Obama. You're asking for people to give him credit for the unemployment rate. I asked you why. What specifically has Obama done to bring the unemployment rate to where it is today? What specific policy did he implement since January of 2009 that resulted in this number?

He refused to embrace Republican economic policies that would see to reducing government spending in the wake of a once in a generation financial crisis. If he were to have followed that path, the U.S. economy would have undoubtedly fallen into a double dip.
 
Oh jeez...calm down.
Why do you think I'm upset?

Okay, so if only one person is working then theoretically the unemployment rate could be zero. So it is one instead of zero (my mistake)...big whoop.
Yes, it is big difference. You completely changed from no one employed (and no mention of how many unemployed) giving 0% unemployment and going to no unemployed.

If THEORETICALLY only one person was working but everyone else who is eligible had given up looking for work (but still wanted to work), then the rest would not be counted as part of the labor force. Thus the labor force would be 1 and the number of employed would be 1.

So the U-3 rate would be 0%...would it not?
But that would be true regardless of the number of employed. All you're saying now is that if no one was unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be zero. Duh. That's true whether there is on or a billion employed.




And why you are getting so freaked out over this...it's just a chat forum...LIGHTEN UP
hahahaha. Do you really want me to quote some of your freak-outs on these boards???
 
and the typical liberal card.

it has nothing to do with Obama except for the crappy job reports that continue to come out since he has been president.
if you look past the headline and actually read the report it is pretty crappy.

who care about 200k part time employed people. people want full time jobs.
ol yea companies run into major financial costs by employing full time people now thanks to Obama.

with all the constant minimum wage hikes going on around the country younger people are being cut out of jobs.
people that are 55 and older still have issues finding work as there is someone else to do it cheaper.

The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 241,000
to 2.7 million in April. The number of long-term unemployed (those
jobless for 27 weeks or more) changed little at 2.5 million, accounting
for 29.0 percent of the unemployed.

In April, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, little changed over the year. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior
12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

this isn't anything to get excited about. the U3 number is a joke of a measure and everyone knows it.

What is exciting is that wages are up 2.2% and will continue to rise as unemployment drops. It is indicative of CONFIDENCE in the economy by corporations. Plus we have Obama/s poll numbers......It looks like Jeb is going to have a difficult time in 2016.

150420212914-obama-economy-poll-exlarge-169.png
 
Why do you think I'm upset?

Yes, it is big difference. You completely changed from no one employed (and no mention of how many unemployed) giving 0% unemployment and going to no unemployed.


But that would be true regardless of the number of employed. All you're saying now is that if no one was unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be zero. Duh. That's true whether there is on or a billion employed.





hahahaha. Do you really want me to quote some of your freak-outs on these boards???

I will take that as a 'yes'.

Which means your precious U-3 is so potentially absurd at reporting the true employment picture of the United States that there could be only one American employed (with tens of millions of other eligible Americans dying for work but discouraged) and yet the ridiculous U-3 would state the unemployment rate of the United States is 0%.


Now I remember why I generally ignore your posts (though I did learn to use 1 person instead of 0 for the above - thanks)...you are just INCREDIBLY touchy when anyone knocks your precious BLS.

Again, lighten up. It's an organization...not your child.

If you want to correct people's mistakes...fine. But freaking out about them does not further your cause.


We are done here.


Good day.
 
Right..if no one was unemployed the unemployment rate would be zero. That's basic math. DA60 was claiming if no one was EMPLOYED it would also be zero.



Yes, I do, you just misread.

no you still don't get it.

in the U3 number if you are not looking for work or are a discouraged worker and haven't looked for work in 4 weeks you are not counted.
even though he is unemployed the U3 number does not count him as unemployed.

DA60 is correct. if everyone stopped looking for work according to the U3 number unemployment would be 0% even though they are still unemployed.
that is why the U3 number is a joke. the U5 and U6 numbers give a much better picture of the unemployment rate than the U3 does.

he is right if no one was employed and not looking for work or were considered discouraged then the U3 would still be 0%.
 
Last edited:
What is exciting is that wages are up 2.2% and will continue to rise as unemployment drops. It is indicative of CONFIDENCE in the economy by corporations. Plus we have Obama/s poll numbers......It looks like Jeb is going to have a difficult time in 2016.

150420212914-obama-economy-poll-exlarge-169.png
He might If he were running against Obama.
 
What is exciting is that wages are up 2.2% and will continue to rise as unemployment drops. It is indicative of CONFIDENCE in the economy by corporations. Plus we have Obama/s poll numbers......It looks like Jeb is going to have a difficult time in 2016.

150420212914-obama-economy-poll-exlarge-169.png

confidence that Obama can't do anymore damage than already done and the confidence that he has shot down any other liberals chance of becoming president.
Obama's poll number overall suck and still suck.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
 
Why don't we make the definition of a 'good' economy in terms of people who want to work full time having a full time job?

If we ever get back to the point where the vast majority of people who want a full time job have a full time job, then I'd call the economy strong. Last I recall we had that situation in the late 90's.
 
Why don't we make the definition of a 'good' economy in terms of people who want to work full time having a full time job?

If we ever get back to the point where the vast majority of people who want a full time job have a full time job, then I'd call the economy strong. Last I recall we had that situation in the late 90's.

then you can't use it for political distortions.
 
I'll give President Obama credit for the unemployment numbers as soon as

A) People on the left give President Bush credit for keeping the U.S. safe from large scale terrorist attacks for the last 14 years.

B) People on the left give President Bush credit for the solid economic performance of the U.S. for the first six years of his administration.
 
Then there's this....
"This" is, in its own ways, a highly misleading way to regard unemployment stats.

If you're going to take U6 unemployment as your measure, it is deceptive to start using that number in 2008. We can go back to 1994:

fredgraph.png


What the author labels as an "anemic recovery" is also 5 years of steady reductions in the unemployment rate, from a level far more severe than any recession in recent history.

He also adds in around 7 million people, apparently because he believes that LFPR ought to be at 66%. That seems a bit odd.

When we're looking at labor force participation rates, we see that LFPR started dropping in 2000, long before the recent recession. He fails to recognize that LFPR is dropping for structural reasons, rather than cyclical ones.

fredgraph.png



We also see something very curious when we split up LFPR by gender:

lfpr2.jpg


Men have been leaving the workforce, and women have been joining the workforce, for decades. Women basically started leaving the workforce around 2000.

And why are people out of the workforce? We aren't sure, but it is likely a combination of several factors:
• People are starting to retire
• More people are going to college than ever before
• More parents are staying at home, as it costs more to pay for day care than what their work provides
• And yes, some people are unable to find work

And of course, LFPR leveled off in early 2014. It's too early know if that's a trend.

Anyway. 3 of these are structural, 1 is cyclical. Thus, presuming that LFPR ought to be at near-peak levels, merely because that's where it was at the start of the recession, doesn't make sense.


Last but certainly not least, U3 / U6 and LFPR rates are only part of the picture. As usual, I recommend Yellen's dashboard for a more complete idea of the health of employment in the US:
Yellen's Dashboard
 
I'll give President Obama credit for the unemployment numbers as soon as

A) People on the left give President Bush credit for keeping the U.S. safe from large scale terrorist attacks for the last 14 years.

B) People on the left give President Bush credit for the solid economic performance of the U.S. for the first six years of his administration.

I see that your ability to accept reality depends on whether people accept your opinion. About the only real thing you can harp on Obama with respect to economic policy is how he caved on spending cuts via the sequester.
 
confidence that Obama can't do anymore damage than already done and the confidence that he has shot down any other liberals chance of becoming president.
Obama's poll number overall suck and still suck.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Did you really want to go there?

RealClearPolitics - Congressional Job Approval

And as to what President Obama has done to improve the economy - he's held the Republicans at-bay, fighting them tooth & nail, using every tool at his disposal, even using executive action & pushing to the edges of constitutional limits.

In 2009 the American people & the world experienced first-hand the catastrophic results of Republican economic policy. This voter will do his best to see we are never subject to that nightmare again.

Why would anyone want to return to Republican economic reign?
 
"This" is, in its own ways, a highly misleading way to regard unemployment stats.

If you're going to take U6 unemployment as your measure, it is deceptive to start using that number in 2008. We can go back to 1994:

fredgraph.png


What the author labels as an "anemic recovery" is also 5 years of steady reductions in the unemployment rate, from a level far more severe than any recession in recent history.

He also adds in around 7 million people, apparently because he believes that LFPR ought to be at 66%. That seems a bit odd.

When we're looking at labor force participation rates, we see that LFPR started dropping in 2000, long before the recent recession. He fails to recognize that LFPR is dropping for structural reasons, rather than cyclical ones.

fredgraph.png



We also see something very curious when we split up LFPR by gender:

lfpr2.jpg


Men have been leaving the workforce, and women have been joining the workforce, for decades. Women basically started leaving the workforce around 2000.

And why are people out of the workforce? We aren't sure, but it is likely a combination of several factors:
• People are starting to retire
• More people are going to college than ever before
• More parents are staying at home, as it costs more to pay for day care than what their work provides
• And yes, some people are unable to find work

And of course, LFPR leveled off in early 2014. It's too early know if that's a trend.

Anyway. 3 of these are structural, 1 is cyclical. Thus, presuming that LFPR ought to be at near-peak levels, merely because that's where it was at the start of the recession, doesn't make sense.


Last but certainly not least, U3 / U6 and LFPR rates are only part of the picture. As usual, I recommend Yellen's dashboard for a more complete idea of the health of employment in the US:
Yellen's Dashboard

With years of low interest rates, Trillions in new debt, unprecedented Monetary Stimulus and now low energy prices we're still struggling to maintain 2 percent GDP growth and apparently there's almost NO growth according to the last GDP #s.

Homeowner-ship rates are at a 20 year low and have dropped every year since 2008 and thats WITH years of record low interest rates.

Corporations are hoarding Trillions and using large percentages of their profits to buy back shares and Banks are chosing to earn nothing on Trillions of dollars in excess reserves instead of investing it back into the economy.

Prior to 2008 Banks never let excess liquidity sit around earning nothing. It was pushed out into the economy where it could earn profits and create new jobs.

Investors would rather speculate on a Equities market propped up with QE and ZIRP or invest in over seas markets rather than risk thier principle by investing it in the American economy.

Wealth disparity is growing while median household income levels have yet to catch up to 2007 levels and entitlement spending is through roof.

So where's the " recovery " ?
 
With years of low interest rates, Trillions in new debt, unprecedented Monetary Stimulus and now low energy prices we're still struggling to maintain 2 percent GDP growth and apparently there's almost NO growth according to the last GDP #s.

Homeowner-ship rates are at a 20 year low and have dropped every year since 2008 and thats WITH years of record low interest rates.

Corporations are hoarding Trillions and using large percentages of their profits to buy back shares and Banks are chosing to earn nothing on Trillions of dollars in excess reserves instead of investing it back into the economy.

Prior to 2008 Banks never let excess liquidity sit around earning nothing. It was pushed out into the economy where it could earn profits and create new jobs.

Investors would rather speculate on a Equities market propped up with QE and ZIRP or invest in over seas markets rather than risk thier principle by investing it in the American economy.

Wealth disparity is growing while median household income levels have yet to catch up to 2007 levels and entitlement spending is through roof.

So where's the " recovery " ?

This is your standard reply to anyone who provides valid data analysis to support the point that the U.S. economy is the global beacon of light. Normative rantings that lack positive support will continue to fail.
 
I'll give President Obama credit for the unemployment numbers as soon as

A) People on the left give President Bush credit for keeping the U.S. safe from large scale terrorist attacks for the last 14 years.

B) People on the left give President Bush credit for the solid economic performance of the U.S. for the first six years of his administration.
Have you considered not bartering, but giving credit where credit's due?
 
He refused to embrace Republican economic policies that would see to reducing government spending in the wake of a once in a generation financial crisis. If he were to have followed that path, the U.S. economy would have undoubtedly fallen into a double dip.

So you can't list a single Obama policy that led to the drop in unemployment either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom