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

[U2Edge]

Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%.

Obama is the only President since World War II where the labor force participation rate has dropped so steeply and heavily over a 6.5 year period. By the time Obama leaves office, the labor force Participation rate will probably be at 62%, a 4% nose dive during one administration. A first in history.

 

[pinqy]

Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%..

And if you used the labor force participation rate from December 1954, the UE rate now would be -2.1%. Yes, that's a negative sign. Does your operation really make sense if it allows a negative UE rate?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

Actually, U6 is 10.5% which is horrible. U3 looks good at 5.3% because Barry found Americans so many jobs at Walmart and flipping burgers!!

 

[Faun]

Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point

Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?

Well at this point, the labor force participation rate was 65.5% with Reagan. With Obama the labor force Participation rate is 62.6%. If Obama's labor force participation rate was 65.5%, his unemployment rate would be over 9%. So economically speaking, the economy was providing for more jobs for the population as a whole in the summer of 1987 under Reagan than it is under Obama in 2015.

The current labor force participation rate has not been this low since October 1977!

The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.

 

[Faun]

Obama took u.from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%.

Obama is the only President since World War II where the labor force participation rate has dropped so steeply and heavily over a 6.5 year period. By the time Obama leaves office, the labor force Participation rate will probably be at 62%, a 4% nose dive during one administration. A first in history.

He's also the president during the period where baby boomers are hitting retirement age at about 10,000 per day -- every day.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.

of course it is you idiot!! Yellen just mentioned it as a huge concern in Fed policy. U6 and LFPR both reflect high unemployment

 

[Faun]

The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.

of course it is you idiot!! Yellen just mentioned it as a huge concern in Fed policy. U6 and LFPR both reflect high unemployment

You're too demented for words, Crazy Eddie.The labor forcec participation rate does not measure unemployment. So it's not capable of measuring "high unemployment." For example, unemployment was lower throughout most of the 1950's yet the labor force participation rate was lower then than it is now.

You're fucking crazy.

 

[rightwinger]

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%

Oh nooooo's ..... after 77 months in office .......

Ronald Wilson Reagan: 8.0%
Barack Hussein Obama: 8.0%

Oh no......Reagan is TOAST

Time for Republicans to change their meme

But....but......what about labor participation rate?

 

[bripat9643]

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%

Oh nooooo's ..... after 77 months in office .......

Ronald Wilson Reagan: 8.0%
Barack Hussein Obama: 8.0%

Oh no......Reagan is TOAST

Time for Republicans to change their meme

But....but......what about labor participation rate?

Obama is a loser

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But....but......what about labor participation rate?

yes what about it?? Why are Fed economists so concerned that working age population is not working? Perhaps because the Fed's mandate is to reduce unemployment?
Isn't thinking fun??

 

[U2Edge]

Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%..

And if you used the labor force participation rate from December 1954, the UE rate now would be -2.1%. Yes, that's a negative sign. Does your operation really make sense if it allows a negative UE rate?

There is always a natural rate of unemployment which will prevent the number from dropping too low. Technically you could have zero unemployment but you would never have a negative percentage. If the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.6% to 58.1% next month, the unemployment rate would drop to near zero, but it would NOT be a negative number. But if the labor force participation rate sky rocketed to 70%, you would have dramatic rise in unemployment as the number of potential employees would vastly exceed the number of jobs available. Technically, if the labor force shrinks enough while the demand for employees does not change, everyone participating in the labor force gets a job meaning there is no unemployment. Participating employees who can't find jobs raises the unemployment level. But if the number of participating employees drops enough relative to the number of job openings, you could have a situation where the unemployment rate is near zero. It will never actually be zero because there are always people who are between jobs.

 

[U2Edge]

Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point

Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?

Well at this point, the labor force participation rate was 65.5% with Reagan. With Obama the labor force Participation rate is 62.6%. If Obama's labor force participation rate was 65.5%, his unemployment rate would be over 9%. So economically speaking, the economy was providing for more jobs for the population as a whole in the summer of 1987 under Reagan than it is under Obama in 2015.

The current labor force participation rate has not been this low since October 1977!

The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.

Wrong, it is always a factor and is sited by economist every month.

 

[U2Edge]

Obama took u.from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%.

Obama is the only President since World War II where the labor force participation rate has dropped so steeply and heavily over a 6.5 year period. By the time Obama leaves office, the labor force Participation rate will probably be at 62%, a 4% nose dive during one administration. A first in history.

He's also the president during the period where baby boomers are hitting retirement age at about 10,000 per day -- every day.

Exactly! The retirement of the babyboomers is helping Obama when it comes to the unemployment rate. It helps him hide the relative weakness of the current economy. Older workers retiring means more job openings for those still in the labor force or just entering it for the first time.

 

[U2Edge]

The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.

of course it is you idiot!! Yellen just mentioned it as a huge concern in Fed policy. U6 and LFPR both reflect high unemployment

You're too demented for words, Crazy Eddie.The labor forcec participation rate does not measure unemployment. So it's not capable of measuring "high unemployment." For example, unemployment was lower throughout most of the 1950's yet the labor force participation rate was lower then than it is now.

You're fucking crazy.

A lower labor force participation rate helps to drop unemployment. Its with a higher labor force participation rate where you get higher levels of unemployment which is why only a STRONG economy can support a high labor force participation rate.

 

[Faun]

Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point

Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?

Well at this point, the labor force participation rate was 65.5% with Reagan. With Obama the labor force Participation rate is 62.6%. If Obama's labor force participation rate was 65.5%, his unemployment rate would be over 9%. So economically speaking, the economy was providing for more jobs for the population as a whole in the summer of 1987 under Reagan than it is under Obama in 2015.

The current labor force participation rate has not been this low since October 1977!

The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.

Wrong, it is always a factor and is sited by economist every month.

It is not. Only rightwingers even look at that number and even then, that's only since Obama's been president. You claim "econmists" cite it every month ... show several months where that occurred while Bush was president.......

 

[Faun]

Obama took u.from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!

You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%.

Obama is the only President since World War II where the labor force participation rate has dropped so steeply and heavily over a 6.5 year period. By the time Obama leaves office, the labor force Participation rate will probably be at 62%, a 4% nose dive during one administration. A first in history.

He's also the president during the period where baby boomers are hitting retirement age at about 10,000 per day -- every day.

Exactly! The retirement of the babyboomers is helping Obama when it comes to the unemployment rate. It helps him hide the relative weakness of the current economy. Older workers retiring means more job openings for those still in the labor force or just entering it for the first time.

The number of older folks retiring exceeds the number of younger folks entering the workforce. Yet another reason for the declining labor force participation rate; which would have fallen regardless who was president.

 

[Faun]

The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.

of course it is you idiot!! Yellen just mentioned it as a huge concern in Fed policy. U6 and LFPR both reflect high unemployment

You're too demented for words, Crazy Eddie.The labor forcec participation rate does not measure unemployment. So it's not capable of measuring "high unemployment." For example, unemployment was lower throughout most of the 1950's yet the labor force participation rate was lower then than it is now.

You're fucking crazy.

A lower labor force participation rate helps to drop unemployment. Its with a higher labor force participation rate where you get higher levels of unemployment which is why only a STRONG economy can support a high labor force participation rate.

The labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the strength of the economy. Case in point, the 1950's had a strong economy and yet had a lower labor force participation rate than we have today. All that measures is how much of the population is either working or looking for work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The number of older folks retiring exceeds the number of younger folks entering the workforce. Yet another reason for the declining labor force participation rate; which would have fallen regardless who was president.

When people aren't interested in the truth, but use facts for their own silly fighting games, it's best to let them just get on with it. Anyone who thinks that Bush's wars didn't have a massive impact on where the economy was going is a fool. Anyone who looks at recession data since, well, forever, will see that when recessions this big hit, they take a long time to recover. The estimates for this recession in 2008 were anywhere between 7-8 years and 10-12 years before they got back to pre-recession levels.

 

[Faun]

Back to the thread topic ... worst unemployment average .... after 77 months in office ....

Reagan .... 8.0
Obama ..... 8.0

 

[bedowin62]

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES. Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.