The unemployment rate is meaningless

[francoHFW]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

Thanks GOP


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview

- More taxes, less take-home pay
- increased regulation, legal liability and egregious bloat abs reach of unions all add up to higher prices and fewer jobs during that time period.

I thought all these tax cuts 4 the rich Would float all boats, super Duper dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

...The job creation numbers have flattened out during tRump's *presidency*. The numbers for 2017 are lower than 2016. So yes, the unemployment rate continues to drop, but at a slower pace than in the previous administration.

That's probably good enough for most folks, simply saying what the numbers are w/o looking at them. Some of us like checking what bls.gov actually says:

Now, I like lower taxes and less gov't interference, so if there's a problem showing up in the employment/unemployment numbers I sure don't see it.

So what do you think will be the GOP corrupt bubble and bust this time around?

 

[Meathead]

Gas prices are at a 3 year high. Stock market is 3K points lower since Jan. We’re basically in a trade war. Farms set to close. The poor are paying for tax cuts that benefit billionaires. Nazis and KKK are more emboldened. POC are being targeted as threats. Tired of winning yet?

NO! The economy's rocking and America has a chance to be much greater than the "affirmative action" years. I want that to continue.

 

[LeftofLeft]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

Thanks GOP


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview

- More taxes, less take-home pay
- increased regulation, legal liability and egregious bloat abs reach of unions all add up to higher prices and fewer jobs during that time period.

I thought all these tax cuts 4 the rich Would float all boats, super Duper dupe.

Rising tide raises all ships as JFK would say. The problem with modern day Democrats is that they have been bent harder on socialism they want to move in that direction which will make your numbers worse. You will still blame Reagan, Bush and the GOP as your policies erode a middle class. How can a middle class grow if they can’t have decent take-home pay or jobs?

 

[francoHFW]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

Thanks GOP


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview

- More taxes, less take-home pay
- increased regulation, legal liability and egregious bloat abs reach of unions all add up to higher prices and fewer jobs during that time period.

I thought all these tax cuts 4 the rich Would float all boats, super Duper dupe.

Rising tide raises all ships as JFK would say. The problem with modern day Democrats is that they have been bent harder on socialism they want to move in that direction which will make your numbers worse. You will still blame Reagan, Bush and the GOP as your policies erode a middle class. How can a middle class grow if they can’t have decent take-home pay or jobs?

Dupe, the GOP has dominated tax rates and policy 4 35 years now. WTH are you talking about? What democratic policy? Only on your imaginary propaganda planet...

 

[francoHFW]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

Thanks GOP


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview

- More taxes, less take-home pay
- increased regulation, legal liability and egregious bloat abs reach of unions all add up to higher prices and fewer jobs during that time period.

I thought all these tax cuts 4 the rich Would float all boats, super Duper dupe.

Rising tide raises all ships as JFK would say. The problem with modern day Democrats is that they have been bent harder on socialism they want to move in that direction which will make your numbers worse. You will still blame Reagan, Bush and the GOP as your policies erode a middle class. How can a middle class grow if they can’t have decent take-home pay or jobs?

Look at the statistics again, super dupe. That is the GOP way, obviously duh.

 

[pinqy]

...no one has said why they think the unemployment rate is useless. Of course, my guess is that if anyone does, it will be a complaint that the UE rate is useless at measuring something it's not designed to measure.

Sounds like you're not happy w/ this thread and you're still hanging around. Me too. Looks like we're both idiots.

Nah, I’m just a fool.

Let's get to work here and do some good. We should have common ground; like, most of us say that the American people are good and their well being is important, and that we should consult on reasonable policy choices. For those lurking who don't see it that way consider what Thomas Paine once said--

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead...”​

So if we care about America's economic well-being then we want to use the tools we got to fix what's broke and keep what's not broke. My take is this thread's for deciding if the UE's a good tool for knowing what's broke or not, and there are some who say the UE tells us the U.S. econ's in great shape. Let's you and I say "maybe".

Well, I’d say the UE rate tells us very little about the overall economy. The Soviet Union had almost zero unemployment and Mexico usually had a lower UE rate than the US. Neither ever had a better economy. The UE rate measures one facet of the labor market, and while IF you had to choose only one labor market indicator the U-3 is the best, it’s always better to look at a lot of the different factors.

Let's also say that we got lots of metrics and they all got uses. We should also agree that there are too many morons that hang thier hat on the UE and twist it any way they want.

I can absolutely agree with you on that.

 

[LeftofLeft]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

Thanks GOP


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview

- More taxes, less take-home pay
- increased regulation, legal liability and egregious bloat abs reach of unions all add up to higher prices and fewer jobs during that time period.

I thought all these tax cuts 4 the rich Would float all boats, super Duper dupe.

Rising tide raises all ships as JFK would say. The problem with modern day Democrats is that they have been bent harder on socialism they want to move in that direction which will make your numbers worse. You will still blame Reagan, Bush and the GOP as your policies erode a middle class. How can a middle class grow if they can’t have decent take-home pay or jobs?

Dupe, the GOP has dominated tax rates and policy 4 35 years now. WTH are you talking about? What democratic policy? Only on your imaginary propaganda planet...

You are not complaining about the GOP sustaining egregious spending. Your change will yield more spending and more attacks on middle class income.

 

[pinqy]

Humm, I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that the unemployment rate (the standard rate: the U-3) was meaningless.

Did you not read the title of this thread?

I do recall people pointing out that the U-6 unemployment rate, which even Bernie Sanders admitted is a better measurement of the employment picture, was still unusually high. Under Trump, the U-6 rate has dropped by a whopping 1.6 percentage points--from 9.4% to 7.8%, a reduction of 17%.

The U-3 tells us what percent of currently available labor is not being used. The U-6 tells us what percent of current and potentially future labor is not being used to its maximum ability. So the U-6 is broader, but not necessarily better and is far more subjective. Marginally attached and part time for economic reasons are rather subjective categories as they depend on what people say they want, rather than what they're actually doing.

Personally, I found the U-1 to be more important in the last few years. In the chart below, the blue line is the percent of the labor force unemployed for fewer than 15 weeks, and the red line is the percent who had been unsuccessfully looking for work for 15 or more weeks. As you can see, long term unemployment had never ever been greater than short term until 2009, and then stayed greater for almost five years. That's not a good sign.

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks GOP


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview

- More taxes, less take-home pay
- increased regulation, legal liability and egregious bloat abs reach of unions all add up to higher prices and fewer jobs during that time period.

I thought all these tax cuts 4 the rich Would float all boats, super Duper dupe.

Rising tide raises all ships as JFK would say. The problem with modern day Democrats is that they have been bent harder on socialism they want to move in that direction which will make your numbers worse. You will still blame Reagan, Bush and the GOP as your policies erode a middle class. How can a middle class grow if they can’t have decent take-home pay or jobs?

Dupe, the GOP has dominated tax rates and policy 4 35 years now. WTH are you talking about? What democratic policy? Only on your imaginary propaganda planet...

You are not complaining about the GOP sustaining egregious spending. Your change will yield more spending and more attacks on middle class income.

You're quite mad. The ridiculously bloated rich are they only one Democrats want to tax more, to invest in the middle class and the working class who have been screwed for 35 years, not to mention our infrastructure. Reagan tripled the debt, W bush doubled it and left Obama a World depression, cost us about 8 trillion to fix.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

15 times?

Where do you buy your crack?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Gentle reminder we're fucking slaves.

YOU are a slave. I was smart enough to carve out my own place and income. It was YOUR choice to become a 9 to 5er.

 

[francoHFW]

Gentle reminder we're fucking slaves.

YOU are a slave. I was smart enough to carve out my own place and income. It was YOUR choice to become a 9 to 5er.

None the less, you are part of the GOP screwing of the non-rich, your clientele, super dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

They are loaded up with debt because they bit off more than they could chew. Many see borrowing as the new income that will propel their lifestyle.

You chumps are so proud that the GOP is raping everyone except the rich. Idiot dupes...

 

[otto105]

Trump is making it much harder for Americans to take care of their families. His policies are driving 2% wage growth and 64% Obamacare premium growth.

It’s now call trumpcare and he could care less.

 

[francoHFW]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

What does any of that have to do with the unemployment rate? The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of available labor not being used. That's it. That's all it's for. Absolutely nothing to do with quality of life.

The new BS GOP's arguments that Obama's unemployment rates were a scam still hold true. The Statistics above continue to get worse for the non rich. And the GOP continues to cut services for them. Great job, scumbags GOP and silly dupes...

 

[francoHFW]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

15 times?

Where do you buy your crack?

Don't doubt it... Americans are living the dream by borrowing now. Great job, GOP!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump is making it much harder for Americans to take care of their families. His policies are driving 2% wage growth and 64% Obamacare premium growth.

Anybody with a decent job is not on Obamacare.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Some CEOs make 1,000 times more than their workers

They are worth 1000 times more than their workers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...The unemployment rate dropped for almost all of President Obama's administration...

Exactly --and it was a long slow gradual tapering off dragging on for 8 years giving us a record high average at 7.4%. Reality: dropping is good, but it's not enough. Normally a recovery is just that, the economy recovers. A long slow drop in the U6 is limp and underachieving.

Fine; let's get back on topic. The title of this thread is--

The unemployment rate is meaningless ​

--and a lot of folks might point out here that the limp underachieving non-recovery we had for 8 years also saw a huge drop in the work force participation rate along w/ an unacceptable shift from full time to part time employment.

imho those things have to mean something too.

You do realize that President Obama's job numbers were better than tRump's consistently right? When he *took office* the numbers dropped off.

When you get closer to full employment, the numbers have to drop, unless you are one of those idiots who believe in greater than 100% employment.