The 9.4 TRILLION was the amount added to the debt. now why would anyone in govt. spend money not to improve the economy and labor market
But you were claiming ALL of that 9.4 Trillion was the cost of improving the labor market. Which is odd considering you are using the change in total debt, not just public debt.
Why would you guess that? And it was 16.765 million unemployed, discouraged, or part time for economic reasons in October 205 and 16.6 million in November. The speculation is the extent to which it affected the election.
So let me get this straight. In October 2012, there were 21.1 million unemployed plus discouraged plus part time for economic reasons. And that wasn't enough for people to vote their pocket books and vote for Romney. But once it dropped down to 17.8 million, that's when people blamed Obama and voted democrats out of Congress. And there were no other issues or concerns at all.
huh.
But back to the topic:
But you refuse to defend your point. The U-3 shows that in December 2007, just before the recession started, 5% of those available and trying to work were not working. By January 2009, it was up to 7.8%, and reached its max of 10% in October 2009, after which it started to go down. By Jan 2013, the start of Obama's 2nd term, it was down to 8%, and at the end of his term, in Jan 2017, it was 4.8%
In contrast, the U-6 shows the percent of those working, looking for work and likely to start looking soon who were not working as much as they wanted was 8.8% in Dec 2007, 14.2% in January 2009, reached its max of 17.2% in April 2010, and then started to go down. By Jan 2013, it was 14.5%, and in Jan 2017, it was 9.4%.
The only difference is that the U-3 peaked in October 2009, and the U-6 didn't start to drop until 6 months later. So, to me, that means that while it started becoming easier for people to find jobs after October 2009, EITHER fewer people were confident enough to reenter the labor force yet, OR many people had to work reduced hours (either because hours were cut or couldn't find full time work) OR some combination. We don't know which.
Your turn. BUT....we're ONLY comparing the two data sets, neither of which involves any particular person, policy, or money. Facts, not opinions. If I just want to know how tight or loose the labor market is, which number do I look at and why?
You're going to ignore it again, aren't you?
