So How Many Times Were There More Jobs Than People During The Obama Years?

[Harpy Eagle]

doesn't apply to sampling?????????? are you a complete fool? that is all it has to do with, the size of the sample and the size of the population being sampled. You are either quite stupid or a bald faced liar, or both.

the pollsters do claim validity for their tiny samples by claiming that they proportionately include every demographic in the sample. that is even more ridiculous when you see that most of the polls are taken from people in NY and Cal.

No, it does not apply to sampling, I gave you a fucking link to what statistically significant means, and you still choose to remain ignorant.

Sampling is a different step in the process and one does not use statistical significance when creating a sample.

Determining sample size is a totally different formula that takes into account a Confidence level and a Confidence interval. Statistical significance has nothing to do with sampling.

And no, no pollster ever claimed to include every possible demographic, just the ones that are relevant to the poll.

You really should get back to your fires before they burn.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why won't you answer the question?

How much change has tRump actually made in the unemployment numbers?

From like 4% under Obama to like 3% under Trump? For Obama when he started as president in his first month it grew to 10%. That’s what bush and the GOP handed him.

4.8 to 3.9.

0.9%.

and 0.9% of 330,000,000 is ?????

It’s not .9% of anything, that’s not how percentages work.

4.8% of 159,718,000 minus 3.9% of 161,776,000 are the actual numbers. Well, the September data have come out so it’s now 3.7% of 161,926,000

The unemployment rate is not percent of the total population...it’s percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rate
Labor Force level

yes, and the labor force is a fluid number. It is not a constant. The facts are that under Trump the UE is at record lows, especially for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. We also know that people who stopped looking for work were removed from the calculation under Obama, I don't know is that has been corrected or not.

The formula for determining the UE has not changed under Trump just as it did not change under Obama.

 

[Redfish]

From like 4% under Obama to like 3% under Trump? For Obama when he started as president in his first month it grew to 10%. That’s what bush and the GOP handed him.

4.8 to 3.9.

0.9%.

and 0.9% of 330,000,000 is ?????

It’s not .9% of anything, that’s not how percentages work.

4.8% of 159,718,000 minus 3.9% of 161,776,000 are the actual numbers. Well, the September data have come out so it’s now 3.7% of 161,926,000

The unemployment rate is not percent of the total population...it’s percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rate
Labor Force level

yes, and the labor force is a fluid number. It is not a constant. The facts are that under Trump the UE is at record lows, especially for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. We also know that people who stopped looking for work were removed from the calculation under Obama, I don't know is that has been corrected or not.

The formula for determining the UE has not changed under Trump just as it did not change under Obama.

wrong, it was changed under Obama, as I said, I don't know if they fixed it, probably not since it has become a political football.

 

[Faun]

Why won't you answer the question?

How much change has tRump actually made in the unemployment numbers?

From like 4% under Obama to like 3% under Trump? For Obama when he started as president in his first month it grew to 10%. That’s what bush and the GOP handed him.

4.8 to 3.9.

0.9%.

and 0.9% of 330,000,000 is ?????

It’s not .9% of anything, that’s not how percentages work.

4.8% of 159,718,000 minus 3.9% of 161,776,000 are the actual numbers. Well, the September data have come out so it’s now 3.7% of 161,926,000

The unemployment rate is not percent of the total population...it’s percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rate
Labor Force level

yes, and the labor force is a fluid number. It is not a constant. The facts are that under Trump the UE is at record lows, especially for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. We also know that people who stopped looking for work were removed from the calculation under Obama, I don't know is that has been corrected or not.

It’s at record lows only because the unemployment rate has been trending down for the last 9 years after peaking at 10% and was not much higher than record lows when Obama left office. Credit to trump for keeping the trend going.

 

[Faun]

4.8 to 3.9.

0.9%.

and 0.9% of 330,000,000 is ?????

It’s not .9% of anything, that’s not how percentages work.

4.8% of 159,718,000 minus 3.9% of 161,776,000 are the actual numbers. Well, the September data have come out so it’s now 3.7% of 161,926,000

The unemployment rate is not percent of the total population...it’s percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rate
Labor Force level

yes, and the labor force is a fluid number. It is not a constant. The facts are that under Trump the UE is at record lows, especially for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. We also know that people who stopped looking for work were removed from the calculation under Obama, I don't know is that has been corrected or not.

The formula for determining the UE has not changed under Trump just as it did not change under Obama.

wrong, it was changed under Obama, as I said, I don't know if they fixed it, probably not since it has become a political football.

It did not change under Obama. I’ve already proven that to you in the past. Now stop lying.

 

[Muhammed]

So now Obama comes back from vacation to brag about how this is his economy? The Trump economic wonder was created by him?
Really? Does anyone ever recall a time during that 8 year horror when we hit 20,000 in the stock market and we had 7 million job openings?

Lol, how many points has tRump dropped the unemployment rate?

Trump's Numbers - FactCheck.org

That was kinda my point. He hasn't even knocked a full point off of it. And his job creation numbers are lagging behind as well.

The average unemployment rate under Obama was 7.2%. Much higher than Bush 43 or Trump.

 

[Redfish]

doesn't apply to sampling?????????? are you a complete fool? that is all it has to do with, the size of the sample and the size of the population being sampled. You are either quite stupid or a bald faced liar, or both.

the pollsters do claim validity for their tiny samples by claiming that they proportionately include every demographic in the sample. that is even more ridiculous when you see that most of the polls are taken from people in NY and Cal.

No, it does not apply to sampling, I gave you a fucking link to what statistically significant means, and you still choose to remain ignorant.

Sampling is a different step in the process and one does not use statistical significance when creating a sample.

Determining sample size is a totally different formula that takes into account a Confidence level and a Confidence interval. Statistical significance has nothing to do with sampling.

And no, no pollster ever claimed to include every possible demographic, just the ones that are relevant to the poll.

You really should get back to your fires before they burn.

your link addressed a specific case where different groups were being sampled and they were trying to determine if the groups were "significantly" similar so that the differences could be ignored in the sampling. You should actually read links that you post, rather than look foolish when they have nothing to do with the topic being discussed, to wit: the mathematics of statistics and sampling.

other posters have uncovered your lies on other topics and your background claims, might be time for you to find a kiddie forum to post on.

 

[danielpalos]

So now Obama comes back from vacation to brag about how this is his economy? The Trump economic wonder was created by him?
Really? Does anyone ever recall a time during that 8 year horror when we hit 20,000 in the stock market and we had 7 million job openings?

We clearly need more Mexicans to come here and fill those job openings.

the right wing is too cheap to raise the minimum wage to attract Labor from other First World economies.

 

[deanrd]

i remember the day when Obama crashed the DOW to about 6600. great job !!!

That was in March, 2009. Over the next 7 years and 10 months, it would triple to 19800.

200% increase under Obama.

Under trump (so far) it was up about 32% during his first year in office. A stellar performance after inheriting Obama’s strong economy. But down about 3% in the 9 months since then.

200% of next to nothing, is still next to nothing my friend!

LOLOLOLOL

From 6600 to 19800 is “next to nothing??”

Name a president who presided over a bigger gain....

You righties crack me up.

I know, right?
And, under Obama, there were over 6 million jobs available. Now there are over 7 million.

So why were so many jobs available under Obama? Compared to under Trump?

Because companies can't find people with the right skills or education. This is a problem under both Presidents. And it all leads back to the GOP. Why?

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Trump budget proposes 40% cut to job training programs

 

[grainbely]

Trump's Numbers - FactCheck.org

That was kinda my point. He hasn't even knocked a full point off of it. And his job creation numbers are lagging behind as well.

I will presume you serve food or work in a kitchen for a living.

all i remember during the Obama recession was about 35% unemployment with over 90 million people unemployed

35% unemployment? Wtf are you smoking?

Conservaganja.

Pass that shii

 

[oreo]

So now Obama comes back from vacation to brag about how this is his economy? The Trump economic wonder was created by him?
Really? Does anyone ever recall a time during that 8 year horror when we hit 20,000 in the stock market and we had 7 million job openings?

The economy started coming back 2 years before Trump showed up. Several months of 200k job growth.

With Trump's tax cuts, that no one needed, injecting a lot of cash into an already growing economy, has caused inflation to raise its ugly head. The Federal reserve chairman--(who Trump has no control over) is now raising interest rates, which inherently slows the economy down. The stock market has become very nervous & erratic along with the Ass Clown's threats of a trade war.

All of this spells the shortest economic boom period in the history of this nation, because of Trump's policies.

ECONOMICS 101

 

[BlindBoo]

How many constitutive months of job growth have we experienced now? Starting how many years ago?

How many tanks of gas per month does Trumpybears tax breaks give the average household now that gas prices have increased?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

doesn't apply to sampling?????????? are you a complete fool? that is all it has to do with, the size of the sample and the size of the population being sampled. You are either quite stupid or a bald faced liar, or both.

the pollsters do claim validity for their tiny samples by claiming that they proportionately include every demographic in the sample. that is even more ridiculous when you see that most of the polls are taken from people in NY and Cal.

No, it does not apply to sampling, I gave you a fucking link to what statistically significant means, and you still choose to remain ignorant.

Sampling is a different step in the process and one does not use statistical significance when creating a sample.

Determining sample size is a totally different formula that takes into account a Confidence level and a Confidence interval. Statistical significance has nothing to do with sampling.

And no, no pollster ever claimed to include every possible demographic, just the ones that are relevant to the poll.

You really should get back to your fires before they burn.

your link addressed a specific case where different groups were being sampled and they were trying to determine if the groups were "significantly" similar so that the differences could be ignored in the sampling. You should actually read links that you post, rather than look foolish when they have nothing to do with the topic being discussed, to wit: the mathematics of statistics and sampling.

other posters have uncovered your lies on other topics and your background claims, might be time for you to find a kiddie forum to post on.

Statistical Significance - What Does It Really Mean?

Statistically Significant

Well, I did try. But you are just too stupid to be educated.

Go back to your fries and remain ignorant for the rest of your life, but do not say we did not try and better you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

4.8 to 3.9.

0.9%.

and 0.9% of 330,000,000 is ?????

It’s not .9% of anything, that’s not how percentages work.

4.8% of 159,718,000 minus 3.9% of 161,776,000 are the actual numbers. Well, the September data have come out so it’s now 3.7% of 161,926,000

The unemployment rate is not percent of the total population...it’s percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rate
Labor Force level

yes, and the labor force is a fluid number. It is not a constant. The facts are that under Trump the UE is at record lows, especially for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. We also know that people who stopped looking for work were removed from the calculation under Obama, I don't know is that has been corrected or not.

The formula for determining the UE has not changed under Trump just as it did not change under Obama.

wrong, it was changed under Obama, as I said, I don't know if they fixed it, probably not since it has become a political football.

Liar.

Provide the link or admit you are as ignorant of this topic as every other one.

 

[Dragonlady]

So now Obama comes back from vacation to brag about how this is his economy? The Trump economic wonder was created by him?
Really? Does anyone ever recall a time during that 8 year horror when we hit 20,000 in the stock market and we had 7 million job openings?

There were 5 million job openings through the last two years of the Obama administration.

The Dow tripled under Obama. Trump’s Dow is stalling and falling.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is the unemployment rate over the last few years with the year lines removed...any of the Trumpsters think they can highlight the big change that took place under Trump?

 

[Redfish]

This is the unemployment rate over the last few years with the year lines removed...any of the Trumpsters think they can highlight the big change that took place under Trump?

View attachment 224964

you guys said it would go up if he won, it didn't, it reached record lows. That's the point here. Got a similar chart on black and Hispanic unemployment? If you do, post them and I think you will find the answer to your question.

 

[Redfish]

doesn't apply to sampling?????????? are you a complete fool? that is all it has to do with, the size of the sample and the size of the population being sampled. You are either quite stupid or a bald faced liar, or both.

the pollsters do claim validity for their tiny samples by claiming that they proportionately include every demographic in the sample. that is even more ridiculous when you see that most of the polls are taken from people in NY and Cal.

No, it does not apply to sampling, I gave you a fucking link to what statistically significant means, and you still choose to remain ignorant.

Sampling is a different step in the process and one does not use statistical significance when creating a sample.

Determining sample size is a totally different formula that takes into account a Confidence level and a Confidence interval. Statistical significance has nothing to do with sampling.

And no, no pollster ever claimed to include every possible demographic, just the ones that are relevant to the poll.

You really should get back to your fires before they burn.

your link addressed a specific case where different groups were being sampled and they were trying to determine if the groups were "significantly" similar so that the differences could be ignored in the sampling. You should actually read links that you post, rather than look foolish when they have nothing to do with the topic being discussed, to wit: the mathematics of statistics and sampling.

other posters have uncovered your lies on other topics and your background claims, might be time for you to find a kiddie forum to post on.

Statistical Significance - What Does It Really Mean?

Statistically Significant

Well, I did try. But you are just too stupid to be educated.

Go back to your fries and remain ignorant for the rest of your life, but do not say we did not try and better you.

stat 101, for a sample to be statistically significant it needs to be at least 5% of the population it is taken from. Its a simple mathematical reality. Spin and insult all you want, praise the crooked pollsters all you want, math is an absolute.

As to fries, never cooked them, but I do make excellent ribs on the grill. also redfish on the half shell and char broiled oysters, and a pretty good gumbo.

I didn't know this was a food forum. But I understand that you get confused easily.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is the unemployment rate over the last few years with the year lines removed...any of the Trumpsters think they can highlight the big change that took place under Trump?

View attachment 224964

you guys said it would go up if he won, it didn't, it reached record lows. That's the point here. Got a similar chart on black and Hispanic unemployment? If you do, post them and I think you will find the answer to your question.

I said that? Feel free to find a post of me saying that.

Here is black unemployment

over the same time frame as above...feel free to highlight the sudden change under Trump.

And this Hispanic unemployment over the same time frame. Same goes, show me where the Trump change is on here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

stat 101, for a sample to be statistically significant it needs to be at least 5% of the population it is taken from.

then provide the link that supports this claim.

As to fries, never cooked them, but I do make excellent ribs on the grill. also redfish on the half shell and char broiled oysters, and a pretty good gumbo.

I didn't know this was a food forum. But I understand that you get confused easily.

Don't be shy, we all know that someone as stupid as you could not do anything more than be a fry cook at Wendy's. It is ok, nature is just not fair sometimes.