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.
But that will never stop them from rationalizing that the banks were justified in selling what they knew was worthless crap.Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
But that will never stop them from rationalizing that the banks were justified in selling what they knew was worthless crap.Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
December 07, 2011
RUSH: But these financial houses were selling what they knew was worthless because they had been forced to make these loans by government in the first place, and they were selling worthless paper for high prices
And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.
Go figger
Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.
More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.
And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.
Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.
The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.
And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.
Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.
No part of me could possibly agree with that since it's nonsense. According to you, Carter (6.5) did a better job than Reagan (7.5) and you seem to think it doesn't matter that Reagan lowered the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 5.4%.Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.It was 5.27%
Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.
But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.
In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.
So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.
Look, its common sense that we would not base your record in school on the grades from your first month of classes and the last month. GPA takes into consideration all the grades you posted and averages them.
If you are going to accurately assess any President you need to look at each individual month and not just where things happened start in January 2001 and ended in December 2008. January 2001 and December 2008 don't tell you what happened during the Bush administration. You can't make an assessment of any President simply based on two months out of 96. It does not matter if you are talking about the economy, foreign policy, national security, education etc. In order to look at the entire record, your going to have to look beyond January 2001 and December 2008.
Part of you agrees, even if you won't admit it, since you continue to participate in this thread.
As far as applying your GPA analogy to Bush, he might have a good GPA (because started with a good GPA) but then he flunked high school and failed to graduate.
And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.
Go figger
Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.
More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.
And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.
Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.
The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.
And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.
Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.
The misery index is an excellent indicator of what main street America is experiencing. 10% unemployment is bad, but add in 10% inflation or more and its DOUBLE the horror for main street America. No jobs and rising prices, that's what Americans had to deal with in the late 70s and early 80s. While unemployment has been a problem since 2009, inflation has not been a problem at all. In fact, Inflation is the one economic indicator that Obama does the best in VS past Presidents.
No, it's not an indicator of the health of the economy. Case in point ... the economy in the 50's and 60's was better than the economy in the 70's and early 80's. But you wouldn't know that by the labor force participation rate which was considerably lower in the 50's and 60's. The lfpr measures the portion of Americans who are either working or looking for work. It offers no indication of how healthy the economy is, nor is it designed to. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"
Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.
But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.
The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post
No, it's not an indicator of the health of the economy. Case in point ... the economy in the 50's and 60's was better than the economy in the 70's and early 80's. But you wouldn't know that by the labor force participation rate which was considerably lower in the 50's and 60's. The lfpr measures the portion of Americans who are either working or looking for work. It offers no indication of how healthy the economy is, nor is it designed to. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
Again, I disagree with you. The misery index is a horrible indicator. In my opinion, it's not an indicator at all as it doesn't indicate the health of the economy. Keep in mind that I'm an Obama supporter and the misery index, at 6.36, is the lowest it's been since the 1990's. I could easily tout it as a plus for Obama but I don't because it's not a good indicator. It more like a broken clock, which is right twice a day. For example, at the height of the Great Recession, when GDP was -8.3 percent and 700,000+ jobs were being lost in a single month, the misery index was just one point higher than it is now.The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.
Go figger
Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.
More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.
And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.
Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.
The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.
And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.
Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.
The misery index is an excellent indicator of what main street America is experiencing. 10% unemployment is bad, but add in 10% inflation or more and its DOUBLE the horror for main street America. No jobs and rising prices, that's what Americans had to deal with in the late 70s and early 80s. While unemployment has been a problem since 2009, inflation has not been a problem at all. In fact, Inflation is the one economic indicator that Obama does the best in VS past Presidents.
No, it's not an indicator of the health of the economy. Case in point ... the economy in the 50's and 60's was better than the economy in the 70's and early 80's. But you wouldn't know that by the labor force participation rate which was considerably lower in the 50's and 60's. The lfpr measures the portion of Americans who are either working or looking for work. It offers no indication of how healthy the economy is, nor is it designed to. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
It's not an economic indicator, so no, it never indicates the health of the economy. And the only reason anyone has been talking about it over the last few years is because as the economy grows stronger under Obama, rightwingers are finding fewer and fewer things to attack him with. And a dropping lfpr is a falling number, so that's what they cling to. Same thing with averaging out the unemployment rate. Those are two measurements the right never used until now. Hell, the lfpr began dropping while Bush was president ... I don't recall the right ever talking about it.And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"
Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.
But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.
The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post
That does not mean the labor force participation rate is NEVER ever an indication of the health of the economy! It has been shown and cited many times by economist over the past several years to show that people often do not participate in the regular job market because of little or no opportunity at the time.
Finally, the first of the Baby Boom generation did not turn 65 until 2011. That's right, the Baby Boom starts in 1946 and the first Boomers did not reach retirement age until the year 2011. So any decrease in the participation rate prior to 2011 has little to do with Baby Boomers retiring.
. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.
What George Bush will be remembered for is inheriting the lowest unemployment rate any president inherited since Eisenhower and leaving with the highest unemployment rate since Hoover. What you do by averaging it out, which is by design, is to policies and events which help drive the unemployment rate. For example, pointing out how Obama has the highest average conceals the fact that he inherited the worst economy. Averaging out Bush's conceals the fact that the housing boom of the 2000's lowered Bush's average -- but that led to the worst economy since the Great Depression. Averaging out Carter and Reagan conceals what a crappy job Carter did and conceals what a great job Reagan did.No part of me could possibly agree with that since it's nonsense. According to you, Carter (6.5) did a better job than Reagan (7.5) and you seem to think it doesn't matter that Reagan lowered the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 5.4%.Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.
Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.
But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.
In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.
So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.
Look, its common sense that we would not base your record in school on the grades from your first month of classes and the last month. GPA takes into consideration all the grades you posted and averages them.
If you are going to accurately assess any President you need to look at each individual month and not just where things happened start in January 2001 and ended in December 2008. January 2001 and December 2008 don't tell you what happened during the Bush administration. You can't make an assessment of any President simply based on two months out of 96. It does not matter if you are talking about the economy, foreign policy, national security, education etc. In order to look at the entire record, your going to have to look beyond January 2001 and December 2008.
Part of you agrees, even if you won't admit it, since you continue to participate in this thread.
As far as applying your GPA analogy to Bush, he might have a good GPA (because started with a good GPA) but then he flunked high school and failed to graduate.
Again, your continued participation in this thread shows that part of you agrees with the points I have made. For the four years that Carter was President, main street America suffered LESS unemployment on average than they did when Reagan was President. That is an indisputable FACT! Its also an indisputable Fact that the President with the worst Average Unemployment rate since after World War II continues to be BARACK OBAMA as of January 29, 2015.
Oh and if Bush Flunked High School than Obama dropped out of school in the 7th grade. Obama will NEVER come close to matching Bush's average monthly unemployment rate of 5.27% That's an indisputable FACT! The Job market on average was one of the Best in the countries history under Bush. Bush had one of the lowest monthly average unemployment rates of any President in history. In fact, the President with the most months of unemployment below 6% in United States history is GEORGE BUSH!
By and large, the families with two cars in the 80's were double income families, which were not nearly as common in the 1950's.No, it's not an indicator of the health of the economy. Case in point ... the economy in the 50's and 60's was better than the economy in the 70's and early 80's. But you wouldn't know that by the labor force participation rate which was considerably lower in the 50's and 60's. The lfpr measures the portion of Americans who are either working or looking for work. It offers no indication of how healthy the economy is, nor is it designed to. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
Could the current job market support a labor force participation rate of 66%? Answer: Hell No! You would need to be able to give a sudden additional 8 million people jobs.
Let me ask you this, would you rather live in the 1950s or the 1980s? The poverty rate in America was far higher in the 1950s than it was in the 1980s. Your average American household in the 1980s could afford two cars rather than just the one they had in the 1950s. Plus the 1980s economy was able to support a much higher labor force participation rate than the one in the 1950s.
Finally I said that the labor force participation rate CAN be an indicator of the health of the economy. That's very different from your point of view which claims that it is NEVER an indicator of the health of the economy under any circumstances.
Is that more or less ignorant than the imbecile who said 11.2 is 40% higher than 8.4; and that people who work, are unemployed?. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.
stupid stupid stupid liberal!! U6 unemployment is 11.2%, about 40% higher than before recession, and income is down!!
See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Wrong, as usual. Early retirement starts at age 62, which would start in 2008.Finally, the first of the Baby Boom generation did not turn 65 until 2011. That's right, the Baby Boom starts in 1946 and the first Boomers did not reach retirement age until the year 2011. So any decrease in the participation rate prior to 2011 has little to do with Baby Boomers retiring.
And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.As Republicans fumble over unemployment
Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)
The labor force participation rate
You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.
But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.
No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.
The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.
The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!
Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.
There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.
This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.
Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.
Never was.
It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.
. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.
stupid stupid stupid liberal!! U6 unemployment is 11.2%, about 40% higher than before recession, and income is down!!
See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
