Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bush also used "slight of hand" and moved 10+ million workers to the not in labor force group to get those temporary good rates, which didn't last. And he didn't have Boomers retiring!!!Bush had really good employment rates at one point.
Not hardly constant!If you retire, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.
If you become a stay at home mom, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.
If you go to school, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.
The 3 scenarios you point to are constants and to be expected. There is one that you left out: when now stops looking for work due to no jobs. The discouraged worker is an economic term and stat used in tracking health of the job market.
And Bush's actual UE was over 25%.As has been explained on this board dozens of times....and as everyone knows..... the reason the Unemployment Rate has been dropping is for the WRONG REASON.
It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.
In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.
The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.
Here is a visual:
View attachment 33535
Who's fooled? Certainly not me.
UE is actually at around 12%.
There is a Republican House since 2010 so if UE sucks it must be them!...with a Republican congress.Once again, you post a chart that shows that things were best, if this is a measure, under Clinton.
If by "jumped higher" you mean DROPPED by close to 1 million then you would be right, otherwise you are wrong.So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.
That's just wishful thinking with no hard data to support it.Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.
And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.
The Right lies about everything so they ASSUME everyone is a liar like them.Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.
And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?
Bush used the U-3 rate after moving 10+ million workers into the "not on labor force" group.That's a non answer. What specifically are you claiming Obama has done that would constitute "sleight of hand," and what specifically are you claiming he has done to make the count of unemployed smaller?Ok, let's talk about this thread. Your claim is that "Obama has used slight of hand....he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller. How has he done that? Are you saying that, under another President, the same survey results would have shown more unemployed but Obama has done something contrary to previous practice?Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.
That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.
The survey is conducted. The answers are aggregated. What exactly do you think Obama has to do with that process?
He's come from the same Ivy League schools that have promulgated that bullshit!!!! He's too stupid, as are most liberal economists....to question the whole methodology!
I've got to run but are you seriously asking me how Obama has mislead the public on the state of the economy and jobs???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The truth is hidden behind the U-3 numbers. The U-3 number is misleading!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He goes out and trumpets the misleading stat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good Lord.
What stat did Bush use?
The Right just makes this shit up!Why is the UE3 lower yet a lower percentage of workers participate? Because Obama made it easy to apply for Social Security.
It was St Ronnie who relaxed relaxed the standards for disability, long before Obama.No one outside the specific program office at BLS has any kind of access to the raw or pre-release data of that program. There are strict rules and laws governing the handling of statistical data.Ah see, classic derangement.
Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.
Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.
No, both sides skated, but Obozo is abusing the letter of the law by monkeying with the system.
He hasn't done anything to the 'system'. The BLS operates on its own.
And you must believe in Unicorns as well.
What "monkeying" are you claiming and what is your evidence?When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.
I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.
No, that has changed.
Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?
From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.
Ah see, classic derangement.
Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.
Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.
No, both sides skated, but Obozo is abusing the letter of the law by monkeying with the system.
Relaxing standards for disability for one.
I do wish you would pay attention.
When Bush left there were 115,818,000 FT jobs and 26,377,000 PT jobs.Really? how many full time jobs do we have versus part time jobs?It's still a better employment scene than 2008-09
Down from Bush's 25% to 30%.I invite the OP to develop her own formula for determining the actual unemployment rate. Put it here and plug in the numbers.
Then...we will use it to determine that the unemployment rate is lower now than it was in. January of 2009. And...that it was higher in January 2009 than it was in January 2000.
The only question left will be whether or not the OP admits her abject failure.
It's between 12 and 13%, dolty.
Is it really that hard to figure out?
As has been explained on this board dozens of times....and as everyone knows..... the reason the Unemployment Rate has been dropping is for the WRONG REASON.
It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.
In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.
The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.
Here is a visual:
View attachment 33535
Retirement age is 65, NOT 55.Over 40% aged 55 or older are working or looking for work
The Right knows exactly what you posted and they quoted the SAME projections when they wanted to privatize Social Security at the start of Bush's second term!Since I was in my 30's, people have been talking about the declining birth rate and what will happen when the Baby Boomers retire and predicting that with increased longevity, we could reach a point where there would be more people retired than working. Well, the Boomers are retiring, in droves, and the population bulge that is the Baby Boomers, which has skewed the demographics numbers throughout its lifetime, is now reducing the numbers of people working.
This wasn't unexpected, but trust Fox and other conservatives outlets to act like this hasn't been predicted for 30 years and oh woe is us - it's all Obama's fault! You have to be dumber than a sack of hammers to swallow the notion that this President, or any President for that matter, is responsible for the declining percentage of people working.
But then we are talking about conservatives - the gang who swallowed the Birther story whole.
BABY BOOMER the word you love to use so muchRetirement age is 65, NOT 55.Over 40% aged 55 or older are working or looking for work
Why More Americans Are Working Past Age 65 - US News
The proportion of people age 65 and older in the workforce grew to 16.1 percent by 2010, up from 12.1 percent in 1990, according to a recent Census Bureau report.
Where is your god damn link shit stain.Valid linkCarla you are a danger to yourselfAs has been explained on this board dozens of times....and as everyone knows..... the reason the Unemployment Rate has been dropping is for the WRONG REASON.
It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.
In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.
The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.
Here is a visual:
View attachment 33535
Can you say "Baby Boomers?"
How many baby boomers didn't retire and how many had to return to the work force?
17%.
You're welcome.
Do you remember what you told me the last time I asked you for a link?
If by "jumped higher" you mean DROPPED by close to 1 million then you would be right, otherwise you are wrong.So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.
That's just wishful thinking with no hard data to support it.Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.
And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.
