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.
The LPR was declining under Bush from 67.2% when he started to 65.7% when he left, and he didn't have Boomers retiring.The current monthly unemployment rate is low, but this is because the labor force participation rate has dramatically declined from 66% under Bush to now just 62.4% under Obama. At least half of this is do to the Baby Boom retirement but there are also people who have left the work force because they were unable to find work. If the labor force participation rate were to rise back to 66% under Bush, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10% because the current economy is not generating enough jobs to handle a labor force participation rate that high.
There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
but as we see there are plenty of them in this country
good grief.
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?
Someone is lying about the worker participation rate anyway. This idea that there are close to 100 million out of the labor force doesn't add up. The US population is 320 million. 149 million working and 8 million knowingly unemployed. That leaves 163 million. There are 45 million retirees so that brings the number down to 118 million, although there is a small percentage of retirees who still do work. There are about 70 million children under the age of 16 who cannot be counted into the labor force. So now we are down to 48 million. What we have not accounted for are the disabled, full-time college students who do not work, stay at home moms/dads, and anyone who chooses not to work becuase they don't have to.
The labor force participation rate in Bush's last year in office was 66%. The current labor force participation rate is 62.4%. That is the lowest the labor force participation rate has been in 38 years. The current economy under Obama would not be able to support a labor force participation rate of 66% and maintain the current unemployment rate. The unemployment rate would dramatically rise if the labor force participation rate were at 66% again.
In other words: If there were more unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher. Not exactly deep analysis.There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
but as we see there are plenty of them in this country
good grief.
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?
There are millions who are no longer looking for work, or have decided to go ahead and retire. If those groups were still in the labor market looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 10%.
Again you are being deceptive about your obsession with labor force participation rateCan't wait for Obama to officially pass the great Reagan
We already know he is a better President
Its not clear yet that he will past Reagan, and if he does its because the labor force participation rate has dramatically dropped since Obama has been in office.
Obama has done some good things, but he is probably the worst President of the past 40 years, but he still has 15 months to go so not everything is in yet to fully decide on that.
You are correct, Reagan did have more jobs gains in his second term than Carter...finda president who in 4 years screwed up the country so bad.Find a president who created more jobs in 4 years than Carter?still the biggest clown on that list is Jimmy Carter. Ford handed him over a pretty good economy and the moron blew it.
Truman and johnson had everybody fighting a war, that's why their numbers are low
Have to give Carter some credit, He burned the country down in only 4 yrs
besides reagan's second term created more jobs than Carter
Imagine how many he could have created in the first if Carter hadn't given him such a screwed up economy
I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??After 78 months in office...The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 7.92%
Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.92%
641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%
There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.
The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.
Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%
Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.
Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.
Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!
Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 7.92%
Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.92%
641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%
There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.
The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.
President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had
No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office
Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.
Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 8.86%
Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%
The only way that's true is if 100% of the people in that group were unable to find work. I look forward to you proving that ridiculous statement....The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 7.92%
Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.92%
641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%
There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.
The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.
I'm not even going to get into this because we already know many of the reasons for this and this has been projected for a long time. What I want to know is what cons really believe, because I'm so tired of them talking out their ass all the time and being so hypocritical. See, cons tell us that the unemployment rate is actually much higher and that everyone has stopped looking for work because there just aren't any jobs out there due to the horrible economy. On the flip side, cons tell us that people are lazy and just want to suck off the government by collecting welfare because they are too lazy to get a job. Well which one is it? Are they just too lazy to work or are there no jobs for them in the first place? You can't have it both ways, but of course cons do want it both ways, because they think it makes them sound intelligent or something. So tell us, is the economy as bad as you say or are people just lazy?
The current monthly unemployment rate is low, but this is because the labor force participation rate has dramatically declined from 66% under Bush to now just 62.4% under Obama. At least half of this is do to the Baby Boom retirement but there are also people who have left the work force because they were unable to find work. If the labor force participation rate were to rise back to 66% under Bush, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10% because the current economy is not generating enough jobs to handle a labor force participation rate that high.
Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):You're a fucking retard. You think I should believe you and not the NBER???As always, you prove to be too retarded to make a cogent argument. First off all, you're referencing nominal figures, not real figures. Too fucking stupid.So "recessions" are just like water faucets. You turn on a faucet water comes out. Recession starts immediately... is that your perception?
For totally ignorant people about the economy the prime basis for determining a "recession" is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition Investopedia
NOW you extremely economics illiterate................
The official start of the 2001 recession started according to the following FACT:
year Qtr GDP in billions
2000 I 9,629.4
2000 II 9,822.8
2000 III 9,862.1
2000 IV 9,953.6 downturn....
2001 I 10,024.8 UP!
2001 II 10,088.2 UP!
2001 III 10,096.2 UP!
2001 IV 10,193.9 UP!
View attachment 47703
The U.S. Recession of 2001-2002You don't use nominal figures because you like them better than real numbers.
Secondly, for some bizarre reason, you put the word, "downturn," next to a quarter indicating growth. Just how stupid are you to think you can magically alter history if you just type a misplaced word?
And lastly, the recession started in March, 2001, and there's nothing on this planet you can use to change that. In fact, there might not have even been a recession if not for 9.11.
And like a little kid you think "hmm Recession starts March 1, 2001 because that's when the NBER said so."
Recessions are not like water faucets. They don't just magically start on a specific date.
Need I remind you? When referencing GDP, you used nominal figures, not real figures. Even worse for you, you posted the word, "downturn," next to a quarter showing growth.
We learned two things from this exercise...
1... you're batshit insane.
2... the 2001 recession started in March, 2001.
So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started. The GDP immediately dropped below zero.
Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%
2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.
2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 8.86%
Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%
Hmmmm.....could that be because Dubya left a flaming pile of shit at Obama's doorstep when he left office?
History does matter, Repug lightweight. Fuck it, you're an idiot.
yup, to bad he couldn't translate that into votes, cause he got his ### handed to himYou are correct, Reagan did have more jobs gains in his second term than Carter...finda president who in 4 years screwed up the country so bad.Find a president who created more jobs in 4 years than Carter?still the biggest clown on that list is Jimmy Carter. Ford handed him over a pretty good economy and the moron blew it.
Truman and johnson had everybody fighting a war, that's why their numbers are low
Have to give Carter some credit, He burned the country down in only 4 yrs
besides reagan's second term created more jobs than Carter
Imagine how many he could have created in the first if Carter hadn't given him such a screwed up economy
Carter ..... 10,345,000
Reagan ... 10,795,000
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
With a larger population, Reagan edged Carter out by 4%.
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 8.86%
Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%
Hmmmm.....could that be because Dubya left a flaming pile of shit at Obama's doorstep when he left office?
History does matter, Repug lightweight. Fuck it, you're an idiot.
THIS IS THE HISTORY --- IDIOT!!!
NOT ONE President in history ever had this many earth changing events in one presidency! NEVER!
Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion
The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World
SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!
$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground
THESE events OCCURRED! Because of all this economic and personal disasters...
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302
2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?
So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..
The U..S population is around 320 million. Subtract all those who face substantila barriers in working or changing jobs: the military, children under 16, people in prison, and those in institutions (such as mental institutes, old age homes, and other long term care). That leaves us with 251,325,000 which is the Population used by BLS. Labor force is employed plus unemployed = 156,715,000 which gives a participation rate of 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4% And 251,325,000 - 156,715,000 = 94,610,000 not in the labor force.There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
but as we see there are plenty of them in this country
good grief.
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?
Someone is lying about the worker participation rate anyway. This idea that there are close to 100 million out of the labor force doesn't add up. The US population is 320 million. 149 million working and 8 million knowingly unemployed. That leaves 163 million. There are 45 million retirees so that brings the number down to 118 million, although there is a small percentage of retirees who still do work. There are about 70 million children under the age of 16 who cannot be counted into the labor force. So now we are down to 48 million. What we have not accounted for are the disabled, full-time college students who do not work, stay at home moms/dads, and anyone who chooses not to work becuase they don't have to.
disabled, students, stay at homes, retirees, etc are Not in the Labor Force (if they're not working or looking for work).
You are too fucking retarded.Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):You're a fucking retard. You think I should believe you and not the NBER???As always, you prove to be too retarded to make a cogent argument. First off all, you're referencing nominal figures, not real figures. Too fucking stupid.
Secondly, for some bizarre reason, you put the word, "downturn," next to a quarter indicating growth. Just how stupid are you to think you can magically alter history if you just type a misplaced word?
And lastly, the recession started in March, 2001, and there's nothing on this planet you can use to change that. In fact, there might not have even been a recession if not for 9.11.
And like a little kid you think "hmm Recession starts March 1, 2001 because that's when the NBER said so."
Recessions are not like water faucets. They don't just magically start on a specific date.
Need I remind you? When referencing GDP, you used nominal figures, not real figures. Even worse for you, you posted the word, "downturn," next to a quarter showing growth.
We learned two things from this exercise...
1... you're batshit insane.
2... the 2001 recession started in March, 2001.
So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started. The GDP immediately dropped below zero.
Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%
2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.
2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts
Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
Obama's years
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1
Real figures are use to determine recessions, not nominal figures.
Yes he did, and deservingly so. But not because of jobs, which as you were shown, was as strong as Reagan. Even stronger if you factor in the size of the population.yup, to bad he couldn't translate that into votes, cause he got his ### handed to himYou are correct, Reagan did have more jobs gains in his second term than Carter...finda president who in 4 years screwed up the country so bad.Find a president who created more jobs in 4 years than Carter?still the biggest clown on that list is Jimmy Carter. Ford handed him over a pretty good economy and the moron blew it.
Truman and johnson had everybody fighting a war, that's why their numbers are low
Have to give Carter some credit, He burned the country down in only 4 yrs
besides reagan's second term created more jobs than Carter
Imagine how many he could have created in the first if Carter hadn't given him such a screwed up economy
Carter ..... 10,345,000
Reagan ... 10,795,000
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
With a larger population, Reagan edged Carter out by 4%.
You are too fucking retarded.Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):You're a fucking retard. You think I should believe you and not the NBER???And like a little kid you think "hmm Recession starts March 1, 2001 because that's when the NBER said so."
Recessions are not like water faucets. They don't just magically start on a specific date.
Need I remind you? When referencing GDP, you used nominal figures, not real figures. Even worse for you, you posted the word, "downturn," next to a quarter showing growth.
We learned two things from this exercise...
1... you're batshit insane.
2... the 2001 recession started in March, 2001.
So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started. The GDP immediately dropped below zero.
Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%
2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.
2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts
Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
Obama's years
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1
First of all, those numbers don't even match the numbers you posted earlier. So where did you get those earlier numbers from since they obviously didn't come from the BEA?
Secondly, you expose your ignorance by posting nominal figures.
Thirdly, you've once again exposed yourself as a complete nutjob who doesn't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
And lastly, the recession began in March, 2001. Nothing you've posted changes that fact. All you've done is reveal you're disconnected from reality.
You are too fucking retarded.Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):You're a fucking retard. You think I should believe you and not the NBER???
Need I remind you? When referencing GDP, you used nominal figures, not real figures. Even worse for you, you posted the word, "downturn," next to a quarter showing growth.
We learned two things from this exercise...
1... you're batshit insane.
2... the 2001 recession started in March, 2001.
So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started. The GDP immediately dropped below zero.
Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%
2000q1 1.2
2000q2 7.8
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3
2001q4 1.1
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls
And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.
2008q1 -2.7
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts
Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11 3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
2008q4 -7.7
Obama's years
2009q1 -4.5
2009q2 -1.2
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1
First of all, those numbers don't even match the numbers you posted earlier. So where did you get those earlier numbers from since they obviously didn't come from the BEA?
Secondly, you expose your ignorance by posting nominal figures.
Thirdly, you've once again exposed yourself as a complete nutjob who doesn't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
And lastly, the recession began in March, 2001. Nothing you've posted changes that fact. All you've done is reveal you're disconnected from reality.
First you ignorant lazy dick-head I did provide the source ,dumb f...KK!
HERE it is AGAIN from the post that showed the numbers YOU dispute!!! ---------- US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
READ closer dumb f..k because almost every time I use any numbers I source them!
But YOU f...king idiots never do so. You spout some numbers with NO substantiation!
YOU know your credibility is SO questionable because YOU don't source YOUR idiotic statement for example: "Recession began in March 2001"!
WHERE IS YOUR link? Your supporting proof that "Recession began in March 2001"?
Especially when the primary source that evidently YOU come with states the below rationale for their non-government definition!
Where is your proof because EVEN when the group that YOU think are the experts and said so and here is the LINK dumb f...k that shows THEY are subjective!!
And it is this non-government group that the MSM uses in reporting recessions even though the financial press refuses their "expertise"
as the definition of a recession is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);
although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia
So dumb f...k, above with the SOURCE is the classic accepted definition of recession which is 2 consecutive quarters used by the financial press!
The NBER may or not accept 2 quarters...depending on who is in office!!!
NOW idiot, here is the source for NBER's definition -------> The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions
The Business Cycle Dating Committee's general procedure for determining the dates of business cycles
Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.
In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.
Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.
NOT the government though! They simply report the increase or decrease of the GDP!
Which is what I was reporting!
Using the Federal government reporting then from this source dummy!!! ----------> BEA National Economic Accounts
and USING GDP percent change based on chained 2009 dollars (Again which you disputed my original submission!!!)
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
2001q1 -1.1 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q2 2.1
2001q3 -1.3 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2001q4 1.1
2002q1 3.7
2002q2 2.2
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.3
2003q1 2.1
2003q2 3.8
2003q3 6.9
2003q4 4.8
2004q1 2.3
2004q2 3.0
2004q3 3.7
2004q4 3.5
2005q1 4.3
2005q2 2.1
2005q3 3.4
2005q4 2.3
2006q1 4.9
2006q2 1.2
2006q3 0.4
2006q4 3.2
2007q1 0.2
2007q2 3.1
2007q3 2.7
2007q4 1.4
2008q1 -2.7 So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?
2008q2 2.0
2008q3 -1.9
2008q4 -8.2 NOW THIS IS THE BEGINNING of a "recession " i.e. 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP!!!
2009q1 -5.4
2009q2 -0.5
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
2010q1 1.7
2010q2 3.9
2010q3 2.7
2010q4 2.5
2011q1 -1.5
2011q2 2.9
2011q3 0.8
2011q4 4.6
2012q1 2.7
2012q2 1.9
2012q3 0.5
2012q4 0.1
2013q1 1.9
2013q2 1.1
2013q3 3.0
2013q4 3.8
2014q1 -0.9
2014q2 4.6
2014q3 4.3
2014q4 2.1
2015q1 0.6
2015q2 3.9
Big big difference btw Reagan and Obama's U.R. calculation method. Slick Willie's administration revised the calculation method and removed essentially the long term unemployed or as they call them the people who stop looking! Obama's labor market has the the lowest labor participation rate in decades.The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 7.92%
Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.92%
641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%
There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.
The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.
President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had
No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office
Big big difference btw Reagan and Obama's U.R. calculation method. Slick Willie's administration revised the calculation method and removed essentially the long term unemployed or as they call them the people who stop looking! Obama's labor market has the the lowest labor participation rate in decades.The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
Barrack Obama: 7.92%
Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:
01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.92%
641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%
There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.
The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.
President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had
No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
