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

[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.

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.......

The labor force participation rate was above 66% most of the time Bush was in office and unemployment rate averaged 5.2% for that time period. High labor force participation and low unemployment. The impact of the labor force participation rate was not noticeably felt until after Obama entered office. That's when you start to see large numbers of people leave the labor force for good because of the poor job market.

 

[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.

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.

Same point I made. The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years. The economy under Obama is weaker. It takes a stronger economy to support a higher labor force participation rate while maintaining a low unemployment rate.

 

[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.

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.

The labor force participation rate PLUS the unemployment rate IS an indicator of the strength of the economy. It takes a stronger economy to support a larger labor force at a lower unemployment rate.

 

[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.

Exactly my point. If a methodology of calculating an alternate unemployment can result in a negative number, then there's something wrong with the methodology.

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.

Please show your math. I'm curious what calculations you're doing. By my math...the population has been increasing at a rate of around .09% So assume a population of 250,885,000...if the Labor Force is 58.1%, what's the Unemployment rate?

The UE rate could go up or down or stay the same under your scenario depending on how you define the decline.

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.

Yes, that's Econ 101. My point is that taking the LFPR and saying what the UE rate would be is a bullshit operation that requires unwarranted assumptions.

The unemployment rate is a fraction of those participating in the labor force. When the labor force expands, but economic conditions remain the same, unemployment rises. When the labor force participation rate drops but the economic conditions remain the same, unemployment falls. Unemployment can fall to zero if the labor force participation rate drops enough. So start with these figures:

Potential labor force: 250,000,000

Participation rate: 60% (150,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 5% (7,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

Labor Force Participation rate goes up to 80% without change in jobs available
Participation rate: 80% (200,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs.
Unemployment rate: 28.75% (57,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

OR

Labor Force Participation rate declines to 40% without change in jobs available
Participation rate 40% (100,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 0 (zero workers unemployed) 100,000,000 with jobs, 42,500,000 jobs unfilled.

 

[edthecynic]

The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.

Bush was handed a 67.2% LPR and a steady 4.2% U-3 rate and in 8 years turned it into a 65.7% LPR and a 7.8% U-3 rate and skyrocketing. If you want to call that a strong economy you are nuts!

 

[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?

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.

Exactly my point. If a methodology of calculating an alternate unemployment can result in a negative number, then there's something wrong with the methodology.

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.

Please show your math. I'm curious what calculations you're doing. By my math...the population has been increasing at a rate of around .09% So assume a population of 250,885,000...if the Labor Force is 58.1%, what's the Unemployment rate?

The UE rate could go up or down or stay the same under your scenario depending on how you define the decline.

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.

Yes, that's Econ 101. My point is that taking the LFPR and saying what the UE rate would be is a bullshit operation that requires unwarranted assumptions.

The unemployment rate is a fraction of those participating in the labor force. When the labor force expands, but economic conditions remain the same, unemployment rises. When the labor force participation rate drops but the economic conditions remain the same, unemployment falls. Unemployment can fall to zero if the labor force participation rate drops enough. So start with these figures:

I find it odd that you seem to be talking like changes in employment or unemployment are an effect of a changing participation rate. It's not that "the labor force drops and unemploymnt falls" but what really happens is that unemployment falls and if that results in an overall drop in the labor force, then the participation rate will go down. The labor force is just employed plus unemployed.

Potential labor force: 250,000,000

What the rest of us call the adult civilian non-institutional population, or just "the population."

Participation rate: 60% (150,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 5% (7,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

Labor Force Participation rate goes up to 80% without change in jobs available
Participation rate: 80% (200,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs.
Unemployment rate: 28.75% (57,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

"Jobs available?" what does that mean?
So in this scenario...the population stays static, the number of people employed stays static, and 50 million people, who had not been trying to work and most of whom had said they didn't want a job suddenly start looking for work and no one gets a job. That's a little odd.

And I'm not sure of the point. The labor force participation rate goes up is the percent change in the labor force goes up by more than that of the population. It doesn't matter if employment goes up or down or unemployment goes up or down. They can both go up. They can't both go down unless the population drops.

Labor Force Participation rate declines to 40% without change in jobs available
Participation rate 40% (100,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 0 (zero workers unemployed) 100,000,000 with jobs, 42,500,000 jobs unfilled.

ummm if employed = 100,000 and unemployed = 0, then the Labor force = 100,000 because it's defined as employed plus unemployed. I have no idea what you think "jobs unfilled" means or how it could be part of the labor force. There's just no such thing as "jobs unfilled" The closest to that would be "jobs openings" and those are not used in any employment or unemployment statistics.

For the drop in LFPR...that occurs when the percent change in the labor force does not go up by as much as the population. employed can go up or down and unemployed can go up or down, or they could both go down or both go up as long as the population goes up by more.

So we CANNOT in any way tell by looking at the participation rate if the unemployment rate has gone up or down.[/quote]

 

[U2Edge]

The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.

Bush was handed a 67.2% LPR and a steady 4.2% U-3 rate and in 8 years turned it into a 65.7% LPR and a 7.8% U-3 rate and skyrocketing. If you want to call that a strong economy you are nuts!

You are only looking at the first month and the last month of a 96 month presidency. Two months does not tell you what it was like for the 96 months the President was in office. You need to know the AVERAGE of those 96 months to get the feel of what it was really like. Bush's average was about 66% participation with around 5% unemployment for those 96 months. The only President in history that has done better when considering the average of those two variables is Bill Clinton.

 

[evince]

until the whole thing came apart under bush

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Exactly my point. If a methodology of calculating an alternate unemployment can result in a negative number, then there's something wrong with the methodology.

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.

Please show your math. I'm curious what calculations you're doing. By my math...the population has been increasing at a rate of around .09% So assume a population of 250,885,000...if the Labor Force is 58.1%, what's the Unemployment rate?

The UE rate could go up or down or stay the same under your scenario depending on how you define the decline.

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.

Yes, that's Econ 101. My point is that taking the LFPR and saying what the UE rate would be is a bullshit operation that requires unwarranted assumptions.

The unemployment rate is a fraction of those participating in the labor force. When the labor force expands, but economic conditions remain the same, unemployment rises. When the labor force participation rate drops but the economic conditions remain the same, unemployment falls. Unemployment can fall to zero if the labor force participation rate drops enough. So start with these figures:

I find it odd that you seem to be talking like changes in employment or unemployment are an effect of a changing participation rate. It's not that "the labor force drops and unemploymnt falls" but what really happens is that unemployment falls and if that results in an overall drop in the labor force, then the participation rate will go down. The labor force is just employed plus unemployed.

Potential labor force: 250,000,000

What the rest of us call the adult civilian non-institutional population, or just "the population."

Participation rate: 60% (150,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 5% (7,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

Labor Force Participation rate goes up to 80% without change in jobs available
Participation rate: 80% (200,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs.
Unemployment rate: 28.75% (57,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

"Jobs available?" what does that mean?
So in this scenario...the population stays static, the number of people employed stays static, and 50 million people, who had not been trying to work and most of whom had said they didn't want a job suddenly start looking for work and no one gets a job. That's a little odd.

And I'm not sure of the point. The labor force participation rate goes up is the percent change in the labor force goes up by more than that of the population. It doesn't matter if employment goes up or down or unemployment goes up or down. They can both go up. They can't both go down unless the population drops.

Labor Force Participation rate declines to 40% without change in jobs available
Participation rate 40% (100,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 0 (zero workers unemployed) 100,000,000 with jobs, 42,500,000 jobs unfilled.

ummm if employed = 100,000 and unemployed = 0, then the Labor force = 100,000 because it's defined as employed plus unemployed. I have no idea what you think "jobs unfilled" means or how it could be part of the labor force. There's just no such thing as "jobs unfilled" The closest to that would be "jobs openings" and those are not used in any employment or unemployment statistics.

For the drop in LFPR...that occurs when the percent change in the labor force does not go up by as much as the population. employed can go up or down and unemployed can go up or down, or they could both go down or both go up as long as the population goes up by more.

So we CANNOT in any way tell by looking at the participation rate if the unemployment rate has gone up or down.

[/QUOTE]

What I expressed is very simple and explains why economist often note that the drop in unemployment was do more to people simply leaving the workforce than economic strength. Obama's unemployment levels have improved thanks in large part to a decline in the labor force participation rate. If Obama currently had a labor force participation rate of 66% with the current number of jobs, the unemployment level would be over 10%.

At any given time there are a finite number of jobs available, whether they are filled or unfilled. There is a finite number of people that are filling or could fill those jobs.

Yes, in the 2nd part, the labor force is 100,000,000. Never said anything to the contrary. If 42.5 million people suddenly left their jobs regardless of reason, you would have only 100 million employees and 142.5 million jobs. In that scenario the labor force becomes 100 million and there are jobs for all of them. Employers are missing 42.5 million employees.

Take a room of 100 people, 10 of whom are unemployed. There are 90 people working 90 jobs and 10 that are not. If 50 employed people get up and leave the room and those jobs, there will be 50 people in the room and all of them will have jobs, but there will be 40 jobs available with no one to work them. The labor force has shrunk in half which easily allows everyone in the labor force to have a job. Unemployment has shrunk to ZERO in the room because the size of the labor force declined relative to the number of jobs.

These are general simplified examples which show how sudden changes in the labor force participation rate can impact the unemployment level.

What has happened with Obama, is that the decline in the labor force participation rate, the largest sustained decline in recorded history, has been beneficial to those that remain in the labor force. When the labor force shrinks relative to the number of jobs there are, naturally unemployment among that labor force will decline whether its a labor force that shrinks from 100 million to 80 million, or a room where the labor force in that room declines from 100 to 80.

The labor force participation rate drop while Obama has been President has obviously not been so dramatic as the examples above, but it is in line with those examples. Whether its people retiring or leaving for other reasons, the remaining employees in the labor force benefit. This is the benefit of having a smaller number of employees competing for the same number of jobs rather than a significant increase in jobs relative to the number of employees.

While Clinton was President, the Job market expanded at a much faster rate than the increasing labor force participation rate could keep up with. There were severe job shortages in several sectors of the economy in the Spring and Summer of 2000 despite record levels of labor force participation rate. Many employers offered special employment opportunities to Europeans to fill seasonal summer labor requirements that would otherwise not be met during the summer of 2000.

 

[edthecynic]

The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.

Bush was handed a 67.2% LPR and a steady 4.2% U-3 rate and in 8 years turned it into a 65.7% LPR and a 7.8% U-3 rate and skyrocketing. If you want to call that a strong economy you are nuts!

You are only looking at the first month and the last month of a 96 month presidency. Two months does not tell you what it was like for the 96 months the President was in office. You need to know the AVERAGE of those 96 months to get the feel of what it was really like. Bush's average was about 66% participation with around 5% unemployment for those 96 months. The only President in history that has done better when considering the average of those two variables is Bill Clinton.

An AVERAGE hides the DIRECTION the economy went over that period. Bush took a great economy and destroyed it. The fact that the Clinton economy was so strong that it took Bush 8 years to destroy it does not mean that Bush had a good economic policy.

 

[U2Edge]

The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.

Bush was handed a 67.2% LPR and a steady 4.2% U-3 rate and in 8 years turned it into a 65.7% LPR and a 7.8% U-3 rate and skyrocketing. If you want to call that a strong economy you are nuts!

You are only looking at the first month and the last month of a 96 month presidency. Two months does not tell you what it was like for the 96 months the President was in office. You need to know the AVERAGE of those 96 months to get the feel of what it was really like. Bush's average was about 66% participation with around 5% unemployment for those 96 months. The only President in history that has done better when considering the average of those two variables is Bill Clinton.

An AVERAGE hides the DIRECTION the economy went over that period. Bush took a great economy and destroyed it. The fact that the Clinton economy was so strong that it took Bush 8 years to destroy it does not mean that Bush had a good economic policy.

Over a 96 month period, economies don't go one direction or the other. There is constant change on an annual basis. Unemployment going down, then up, then down again. Unemployment went up slightly in Bush's first term to 6.3%, but then was brought down to 4.4% in the second year of the second term. In February of 2008, with less than a year to go in office, the unemployment rate was 4.8%. The unemployment rate during this time, first 7 years averaged 5% with a high of 6.3% at one point and a low of 4.4%. That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!

Remember, Bush was re-elected President by the American people in 2004 partly because the economy while he was in office his first term generally remained very good! If you are going to accurately assess a Presidency you must look at everything the President succeeded at or failed at every month while they were in office. Looking at just the first month and the last month of a Presidency that is 96 months long tells you VERY LITTLE!

 

[pinqy]

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.

Exactly my point. If a methodology of calculating an alternate unemployment can result in a negative number, then there's something wrong with the methodology.

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.

Please show your math. I'm curious what calculations you're doing. By my math...the population has been increasing at a rate of around .09% So assume a population of 250,885,000...if the Labor Force is 58.1%, what's the Unemployment rate?

The UE rate could go up or down or stay the same under your scenario depending on how you define the decline.

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.

Yes, that's Econ 101. My point is that taking the LFPR and saying what the UE rate would be is a bullshit operation that requires unwarranted assumptions.

The unemployment rate is a fraction of those participating in the labor force. When the labor force expands, but economic conditions remain the same, unemployment rises. When the labor force participation rate drops but the economic conditions remain the same, unemployment falls. Unemployment can fall to zero if the labor force participation rate drops enough. So start with these figures:

I find it odd that you seem to be talking like changes in employment or unemployment are an effect of a changing participation rate. It's not that "the labor force drops and unemploymnt falls" but what really happens is that unemployment falls and if that results in an overall drop in the labor force, then the participation rate will go down. The labor force is just employed plus unemployed.

Potential labor force: 250,000,000

What the rest of us call the adult civilian non-institutional population, or just "the population."

Participation rate: 60% (150,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 5% (7,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

Labor Force Participation rate goes up to 80% without change in jobs available
Participation rate: 80% (200,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs.
Unemployment rate: 28.75% (57,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

"Jobs available?" what does that mean?
So in this scenario...the population stays static, the number of people employed stays static, and 50 million people, who had not been trying to work and most of whom had said they didn't want a job suddenly start looking for work and no one gets a job. That's a little odd.

And I'm not sure of the point. The labor force participation rate goes up is the percent change in the labor force goes up by more than that of the population. It doesn't matter if employment goes up or down or unemployment goes up or down. They can both go up. They can't both go down unless the population drops.

Labor Force Participation rate declines to 40% without change in jobs available
Participation rate 40% (100,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 0 (zero workers unemployed) 100,000,000 with jobs, 42,500,000 jobs unfilled.

ummm if employed = 100,000 and unemployed = 0, then the Labor force = 100,000 because it's defined as employed plus unemployed. I have no idea what you think "jobs unfilled" means or how it could be part of the labor force. There's just no such thing as "jobs unfilled" The closest to that would be "jobs openings" and those are not used in any employment or unemployment statistics.

For the drop in LFPR...that occurs when the percent change in the labor force does not go up by as much as the population. employed can go up or down and unemployed can go up or down, or they could both go down or both go up as long as the population goes up by more.

So we CANNOT in any way tell by looking at the participation rate if the unemployment rate has gone up or down.

What I expressed is very simple and explains why economist often note that the drop in unemployment was do more to people simply leaving the workforce than economic strength. Obama's unemployment levels have improved thanks in large part to a decline in the labor force participation rate.

Again, you have still not shown a connection. You're picking one partcular way the LFPR could go up (if unemployment goes up) and one particular way the LFPR could go down (if Unemployment goes down) But there are so many other possibilities.

If the LFPR goes from 65% to 60%, has the UE rate gone up or down? There's no way to know from just that.

If Obama currently had a labor force participation rate of 66% with the current number of jobs, the unemployment level would be over 10%.

All you're saying is that if there were more unemployed, but no more employed, then the uneployment rate would be higher. That's not really an insight.

Take a room of 100 people, 10 of whom are unemployed. There are 90 people working 90 jobs and 10 that are not. If 50 employed people get up and leave the room and those jobs, there will be 50 people in the room and all of them will have jobs, but there will be 40 jobs available with no one to work them.

Real life doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as "unfilled jobs."

 

[rdean]

Which president was given the worst mess?

Which president had an entire political party try to bring him down even before he was sworn in?

Hint, it was the same one that gave him the worst mess.

 

[bedowin62]

Which president was given the worst mess?

Which president had an entire political party try to bring him down even before he was sworn in?

Hint, it was the same one that gave him the worst mess.

which president has legions of left-wing losers making idiotic excuses for him?

hint: the same one still blaming bush more than halfway through his 7th year

 

[bedowin62]

Which president was given the worst mess?

Which president had an entire political party try to bring him down even before he was sworn in?

Hint, it was the same one that gave him the worst mess.

which president has legions of left-wing losers making idiotic excuses for him?

hint: the same one still blaming bush more than halfway through his 7th year

 

[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.......

The labor force participation rate was above 66% most of the time Bush was in office and unemployment rate averaged 5.2% for that time period. High labor force participation and low unemployment. The impact of the labor force participation rate was not noticeably felt until after Obama entered office. That's when you start to see large numbers of people leave the labor force for good because of the poor job market.

What?? The labor force participation rate began dropping at a faster pace when Obama became president? No way! What happened in 2008-2009 besides Obama becoming president that affects the labor force participation rate...? Oh... that's right.... a massive recession and baby boomers started hitting the retirement age of 62.

Oh... and the labor force participation rate still does not indicate the health of the job market.

 

[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.

The labor force participation rate PLUS the unemployment rate IS an indicator of the strength of the economy. It takes a stronger economy to support a larger labor force at a lower unemployment rate.

No, it's not. The unemployment rate alone measures the health of the job market. There are other indicators which do as well, such as new unemployment benefit filers; but the labor force participation rate does not. The labor force participation rate measures how much of the population wants to work.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The labor force participation rate measures how much of the population wants to work.

most importantly it measures how much of the working age population drops out of the workforce because of stupid libsocialist policies that make finding work very difficult.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What happened in 2008-2009 besides Obama becoming president that affects the labor force participation rate...? Oh... that's right.... a massive recession and baby boomers started hitting the retirement age of 62.

dear, LFPR and U6 are still sky high after 7 years of FDR/Obama. What a surprise!!

 

[Faun]

The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.

Bush was handed a 67.2% LPR and a steady 4.2% U-3 rate and in 8 years turned it into a 65.7% LPR and a 7.8% U-3 rate and skyrocketing. If you want to call that a strong economy you are nuts!

You are only looking at the first month and the last month of a 96 month presidency. Two months does not tell you what it was like for the 96 months the President was in office. You need to know the AVERAGE of those 96 months to get the feel of what it was really like. Bush's average was about 66% participation with around 5% unemployment for those 96 months. The only President in history that has done better when considering the average of those two variables is Bill Clinton.

If you average it out over the first 77 months, which is how long Obama's been president, you get...

Reagan: 8.0%
Obama: 8.0%



Now what??? You need more qualifiers!!!