The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[edthecynic]

Remember, the economy must create 200,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. So it is not enough to simply create jobs every month. You have to be creating jobs beyond a certain level to make a dent in the unemployment rate and the long term unemployment rate.

The labor force Participation rate is currently 62.8%. That is the lowest it has been since 1977! If the labor force Participation rate were still at 66% like under Bush, the unemployment rate would be 10% rather than 6.1%.

That is pure BS! The fact is birth rates are down and Boomers are retiring and leaving the workforce in greater numbers than those entering the labor force. It is estimated that we need only about 50,000 to 80,000 new workers to keep up with population growth, and that is due mainly to immigrants.

And if Bush had kept his LPR at the 67.2% it was when he started instead of the 65.7% it was when he left the UE rate when he left would have been 15% rather then 7.8%.

Its not about birth rates or Boombers, but POPULATION GROWTH overall! The largest number of births in the United States EVER IN HISTORY occurred in 2007. All those kids born in 2007 won't graduate High School until 2025. So the number of new people entering the work force for the first time will continue to increase for the next 10 years, at a minimum, and if the economy eventually does improve, immigration will increase as well.

As for Boomers leaving the workforce, many have had to postpone retirement because they have had their savings wiped out. 2011 was the FIRST YEAR, that people born in 1946, the start of the boomer generation, turned 65. So the vast majority of the decline in the labor force participation rate has been due to the economy and people unable to find work, and not the boomer retirement phase. Boomers were born from 1946 through 1963. The vast majority of boomers have not reached retirement age yet. Most also plan to work beyond the official retirement age as well.


Also, for most of the Bush administration the labor force participation rate was 66%. Going from 67.2% participation rate and 4.2% unemployment, would not mean a labor force participation rate of 65.8% would really mean 15% unemployment if it had held at 67.2%. Not even close. Again, the worst decline in the labor force Participation rate under any President In history is BARACK OBAMA. A full 3 percentage points.

Finally, the fact that the boomer wave of retirement is about to start may mean its good for individual workers entering the labor market for the first time, but for the country as a whole, any decline in the labor force participation, regardless of the reason, is not a good thing and one should be engaged in trying to get policies that will prevent the decline.

It is pure BS that population growth alone that affects the LPR, it is the ratio of workers leaving the workforce to those entering. And early retirement age starts at 62 years old.


http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art3full.pdf

A number of factors are responsible for the downward
pressure on participation rates. These factors affect the
rates in various ways.
Demographic and structural changes. The aging of the U.S
population is a prime example of a demographic change
that will affect the labor force participation rate and,
hence, the labor force itself. As the baby-boom generation
has aged and moved from the prime age group, with high
participation rates, to the older age groups, with significantly lower labor force participation rates, the overall labor force participation rate has declined. This trend is expected to continue and even accelerate in the 2010–2020
timeframe.
The demographic composition of the population directly affects the demographic composition of the labor
force. In 1990, 11.9 percent of the labor force was 55 years
and older. (See table 1.) Over the 1990–2000 timeframe,
the share of the older labor force increased to 13.1 percent. In 2010, the share increased again, to 19.5 percent.
BLS projects that the share of the 55-years-and-older labor force will increase to 25.2 percent in 2020. In 2000,
baby boomers were ages 36 to 54 and all of them were
in the prime age group of 25 to 54 years—the group
with the highest participation rates. With the passage
of every year after 2000, a segment of the baby-boom
population has moved from the prime age group, with
a high participation rate of 82.2 percent in 2010, to the
55-years-and-older age category, with a much lower
participation rate of 40.2 percent in 2010, causing the
overall participation rate to drop. (see table 3.) In other
words, the U.S. labor market is currently experiencing a
negative demographic effect in which a large segment of
the population is moving from an age group with higher
participation rates to an older age group with lower participation rates, resulting in a slowdown in the growth of
the labor force. In addition, the baby bust is reinforcing
this slowdown because fewer people are entering the labor force from that age cohort.
With the aging of the baby-boom generation, the older
age cohorts are expected to make up a much larger share
of both the population and the labor force. Because age
is a major factor in the labor supply, the aging of the U.S.
population will affect the growth of the labor force by
lowering labor force participation rates.
Two long-term labor force projections have been published by BLS since 2000.12 Even before the impact of the
most recent recession was felt, both of these studies projected slower growth of the labor force participation rate
and, consequently, the labor force. The increasing shares
of workers in the 55-years–and-older age group is a structural force that will continue over the 2010–2020 period,
dramatically lowering both the overall participation rate
and the growth of the labor force.

 

[Oldstyle]

So what silly site did you glean all THAT from, little buddy? It must be a "really good one" since you're not attributing a source! Doesn't it suck when people point out how biased your sources are so you can't use them anymore! Don't you just HATE that!

There is a link.

Where?

 

[Dad2three]

So what silly site did you glean all THAT from, little buddy? It must be a "really good one" since you're not attributing a source! Doesn't it suck when people point out how biased your sources are so you can't use them anymore! Don't you just HATE that!

There is a link.

Where?

'is a chart with the full numbers via the Calculated Risk Blog:'


Calculated Risk: Comments on Employment Report

MORE:

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record



June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View

 

[Bfgrn]

So what silly site did you glean all THAT from, little buddy? It must be a "really good one" since you're not attributing a source! Doesn't it suck when people point out how biased your sources are so you can't use them anymore! Don't you just HATE that!

There is a link.

Where?

Will those right wing sources inform you what is in House Republicans rider for the 2012 appropriations bill (H.R. 2584) consisting of items to weaken environmental regulations by cutting funding and rolling back rules?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, THAT'S your source? The one that opined this nonsense?

"This would be an impressive achievement in any month of any year under any president under any conceivable economic circumstances (including the happy 90s). But the fact that this has happened in less than five years from the official end of the worst economic calamity this country has seen since Herbert Hoover is remarkable. And the fact that this has happened as the President has had to swim against a level of obstruction entirely unparalleled in memory by an opposition party looking to harm the economy as a means of hurting the president makes this achievement nearly miraculous.

But this wasn't a miracle, of course. It happened because of a president who embodies perseverance. It happened because of an administration that did not see fixing the American economy as a political weapon but as a patriotic duty. It happened because in the first days of the Obama administration, a Democratic Congress made the most critical investments in American economy and American healthcare. It happened because of a president willing to pay a high political price for believing in the American middle class."

You guys kill me...I knew it was going to be one of THOSE sites and it was even more laughable than most of the others!

I love this from "The People's View" that describes what they're all about...

"This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective, on factual bases and on fair analysis. This site is also deeply zealous about liberal Democratic activism."

Well, hey...at least they're honest about being biased.

 

[Oldstyle]

So the Obama Administration sees fixing the American economy as it's "patriotic duty"? Funny how they haven't had an economic plan to fix the economy since Larry Summers left four YEARS ago! That's some REALLY amusing stuff!

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, THAT'S your source? The one that opined this nonsense?

"This would be an impressive achievement in any month of any year under any president under any conceivable economic circumstances (including the happy 90s). But the fact that this has happened in less than five years from the official end of the worst economic calamity this country has seen since Herbert Hoover is remarkable. And the fact that this has happened as the President has had to swim against a level of obstruction entirely unparalleled in memory by an opposition party looking to harm the economy as a means of hurting the president makes this achievement nearly miraculous.

But this wasn't a miracle, of course. It happened because of a president who embodies perseverance. It happened because of an administration that did not see fixing the American economy as a political weapon but as a patriotic duty. It happened because in the first days of the Obama administration, a Democratic Congress made the most critical investments in American economy and American healthcare. It happened because of a president willing to pay a high political price for believing in the American middle class."

You guys kill me...I knew it was going to be one of THOSE sites and it was even more laughable than most of the others!

I love this from "The People's View" that describes what they're all about...

"This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective, on factual bases and on fair analysis. This site is also deeply zealous about liberal Democratic activism."

Well, hey...at least they're honest about being biased.

The statistics come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why can't you get past that FACT? Instead you want to use obfuscation.

 

[TooTall]

Probably Obama, after Bush shit the bed and left town.

Bush has one of the best average unemployment rates since World War II at 5.27%. Something Obama, despite being in office two full terms, will never be able to achieve.

The Bush dummy was handed an UE rate of about 4% and passed on a rate of about 8%. Obama is cutting Bush's 8% down to about 6%. Only a complete idiot would argue that a president that increases unemployment by 100% is better than a president that decreases unemployment by 25%.

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bush has one of the best average unemployment rates since World War II at 5.27%. Something Obama, despite being in office two full terms, will never be able to achieve.

The Bush dummy was handed an UE rate of about 4% and passed on a rate of about 8%. Obama is cutting Bush's 8% down to about 6%. Only a complete idiot would argue that a president that increases unemployment by 100% is better than a president that decreases unemployment by 25%.

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

The cause of the housing crisis was private lenders outside government lending practices.

Even the Wall Street Journal says:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

 

[Oldstyle]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

 

[edthecynic]

Bush has one of the best average unemployment rates since World War II at 5.27%. Something Obama, despite being in office two full terms, will never be able to achieve.

The Bush dummy was handed an UE rate of about 4% and passed on a rate of about 8%. Obama is cutting Bush's 8% down to about 6%. Only a complete idiot would argue that a president that increases unemployment by 100% is better than a president that decreases unemployment by 25%.

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

Try 4.2% to 7.8% and skyrocketing. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate, Obama has brought Bush's 7.8% down to 6.1% and falling. Only the Right considers a president who doubled the UE rate better on the economy than a president who cuts the UE rate!

 

[edthecynic]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

Yeah, Bush "warned" there was a problem but blocked any reform. Barney Frank was a powerless minority congressman incapable of blocking anything the GOP controlled House wanted to pass.

 

[TooTall]

The Bush dummy was handed an UE rate of about 4% and passed on a rate of about 8%. Obama is cutting Bush's 8% down to about 6%. Only a complete idiot would argue that a president that increases unemployment by 100% is better than a president that decreases unemployment by 25%.

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

Try 4.2% to 7.8% and skyrocketing. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate, Obama has brought Bush's 7.8% down to 6.1% and falling. Only the Right considers a president who doubled the UE rate better on the economy than a president who cuts the UE rate!

Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

 

[TooTall]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

Yeah, Bush "warned" there was a problem but blocked any reform. Barney Frank was a powerless minority congressman incapable of blocking anything the GOP controlled House wanted to pass.

The Democrats in the Senate filibustered any change to housing. You do know what a filibuster is do you not?

 

[edthecynic]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

Yeah, Bush "warned" there was a problem but blocked any reform. Barney Frank was a powerless minority congressman incapable of blocking anything the GOP controlled House wanted to pass.

The Democrats in the Senate filibustered any change to housing. You do know what a filibuster is do you not?

Bullshit! You do know what bullshit is do you not?

In order to filibuster a bill the GOP senate leader must bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The one reform bill, HR 1461, that got out of the House over Barney Frank's objections was killed in the GOP senate without a vote to filibuster! The GOP controlled Senate sent it to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to die without a vote.

 

[edthecynic]

The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%. So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years. The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.

Try 4.2% to 7.8% and skyrocketing. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate, Obama has brought Bush's 7.8% down to 6.1% and falling. Only the Right considers a president who doubled the UE rate better on the economy than a president who cuts the UE rate!

Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

You do know that the vast majority of people working part-time ONLY want to work part-time, do you not?

 

[pinqy]

Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Since it's only July, I have no idea which August your quote refers to. And it's clear off the bat the the author does not know what s/he's talking about. Even in 2009, there were about 46 million hires in the U.S. (there were 51 million separations for a net loss of jobs in the year). So I can't trust the analysis of anyone who doesn't know the difference between a hire and a net change in jobs.

 

[Dad2three]

Oh, THAT'S your source? The one that opined this nonsense?

"This would be an impressive achievement in any month of any year under any president under any conceivable economic circumstances (including the happy 90s). But the fact that this has happened in less than five years from the official end of the worst economic calamity this country has seen since Herbert Hoover is remarkable. And the fact that this has happened as the President has had to swim against a level of obstruction entirely unparalleled in memory by an opposition party looking to harm the economy as a means of hurting the president makes this achievement nearly miraculous.

But this wasn't a miracle, of course. It happened because of a president who embodies perseverance. It happened because of an administration that did not see fixing the American economy as a political weapon but as a patriotic duty. It happened because in the first days of the Obama administration, a Democratic Congress made the most critical investments in American economy and American healthcare. It happened because of a president willing to pay a high political price for believing in the American middle class."

You guys kill me...I knew it was going to be one of THOSE sites and it was even more laughable than most of the others!

I love this from "The People's View" that describes what they're all about...

"This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective, on factual bases and on fair analysis. This site is also deeply zealous about liberal Democratic activism."

Well, hey...at least they're honest about being biased.

So ALL you have is ad homs? NOTHING else?

Are their numbers wrong? Flawed in some way? Inaccurate? PLEASE let me believe you have SOMETHING other than ad homs against WHERE it came from (which is BLS numbers BTW)

10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010. MARCH 2010? HMM ISN'T THAT THE TIME OBAMACARES WAS PASSED?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Dad2three]

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices? Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations. I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession. It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.

Yeah, Bush "warned" there was a problem but blocked any reform. Barney Frank was a powerless minority congressman incapable of blocking anything the GOP controlled House wanted to pass.

The Democrats in the Senate filibustered any change to housing. You do know what a filibuster is do you not?

GOT A LINK PLEASE?

GOP HAD THE SENATE RIGHT? Please give me the bills that were filibustered

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt

2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!



The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street




Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded GOP Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again


Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie



STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".


And here's what the House Republican Mike Oxley (R), Chairman of the House Financial Services committee said


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R) , now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, Bush "warned" there was a problem but blocked any reform. Barney Frank was a powerless minority congressman incapable of blocking anything the GOP controlled House wanted to pass.

The Democrats in the Senate filibustered any change to housing. You do know what a filibuster is do you not?

Bullshit! You do know what bullshit is do you not?

In order to filibuster a bill the GOP senate leader must bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The one reform bill, HR 1461, that got out of the House over Barney Frank's objections was killed in the GOP senate without a vote to filibuster! The GOP controlled Senate sent it to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to die without a vote.

Well actually it made it out of committee on party line votes, BUT THE GOP SENATE REFUSED TO BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE. He didn't have enough Repugs to get it passed

WHY?

Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage giant


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005 | Fox News


BUT despite right wing myths, F/F didn't cause Dubya's subprime crisis

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown


Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast