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

[Faun]

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.

It does not, ya moron. When it went up in the 70's, was that from conservative policies?

 

[Faun]

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!!

Like anyone cares what the retard who said it hasn't been higher in 20 years, thinks.

 

[bedowin62]

liberals are complete idiots

older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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!!!

stupid subject since we have a Constitutional democracy, not a monarchy.

 

[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.

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.

Which is exactly why the cultists average it out.

 

[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!!

Like anyone cares what the retard who said it hasn't been higher in 20 years, thinks.

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

liberals are complete idiots

older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers

not to mention that LFPR is sky high among working age population!!

 

[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!!!

stupid subject since we have a Constitutional democracy, not a monarchy.

So it's our form of government which has led to both Barack Obama AND Ronald Reagan to have an average of 8% unemployment over the course of their first 77 months in office??

 

[Faun]

liberals are complete idiots

older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers

You're fucking retarded. Baby boomers are indeed retiring in record numbers.

 

[bedowin62]

Does anybody know when obamas' watch actually starts?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Like anyone cares what the retard who said it hasn't been higher in 20 years, thinks.

U6 has not been higher in 20 years than now thanks to Barry's socialist policies, except of course at the bottom his never ending "stimulus" "cash for clunkers recession."

 

[bedowin62]

liberals are complete idiots

older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers

You're fucking retarded. Baby boomers are indeed retiring in record numbers.

no they aren't leftard

the number is steady; has been years

 

[bedowin62]

5 Reasons Older Workers are Delaying Retirement - US News
money.usnews.com/.../5-reasons-older-workers-are-delaying-retirement
Jan 28, 2011 · 5 Reasons Older Workers are Delaying Retirement Employees age 60 and over say they are not ready to retire.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

liberals are complete idiots

older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers

You're fucking retarded. Baby boomers are indeed retiring in record numbers.

most importantly Labor force participation is way down among working aged population while unemployment is way up at 10.3% (u6). Worst recovery since Great Depression?

 

[bedowin62]

Older workers delay retirement by necessity and choice ...
money.cnn.com/.../retirement/older_workers_delay_retirement/index.htm
Sep 28, 2010 · Many older workers are working well ... The number of workers 65+ who are choosing to keep working ... Even the wealthy are reluctant to retire from ...

 

[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.

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!

The unemployment rate came down in the middle of Bush's presidency because of the housing boom. I thought you rightards credited Barney Frank for that? You saying Barney Frank gets the credit for low unemployment figures back then?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does anybody know when obamas' watch actually starts?

hey, just like they declared the Great Depression a great success they will declare Barry's 2% GDP and 10.3% unemployment a great success!!

 

[edthecynic]

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!

The 7 year stretch was only because of a bubble created by Bush, which he burst his last year.

 

[Faun]

Older workers delay retirement by necessity and choice ...
money.cnn.com/.../retirement/older_workers_delay_retirement/index.htm
Sep 28, 2010 · Many older workers are working well ... The number of workers 65+ who are choosing to keep working ... Even the wealthy are reluctant to retire from ...

Imbecile (and that's being polite) .... I didn't deny many baby boomers aren't putting off their retirement .... I said you are fucking retarded for denying that baby boomers aren't retiring in record numbers.

Holyfuckingshit!

Do ya need to jump start your brain?

 

[Vigilante]