Barack Obama: The jobs president that Republicans were looking for?

a reply to: Indigo5

In sheer numbers we've gained jobs, but losing a job that pays $80,000/year plus benefits and vacation time only for it to be replaced by a job that gains $16,000 with no benefits or vacation isn't really breaking even on jobs. Quality counts for a lot and job quality has declined sharply.

The "official" unemployment rate (U-3) Is a manipulated metric.

The seasonally-adjusted Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated "long-term" discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That is those that have given-up looking for work. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-3 unemployment, which includes "short-term" discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Unemployment Data Series

The SGS Unemployment Rate (factoring in long-term discouraged workers) for October 2015 is 22.8%. (The SGS rate in 2008 was 15%)

The U-6 rate is 10%
The U-3 rate is 5%

www.shadowstats.com...

Yes, Obama has been just wonderful for the economy and "American" workers. /s

The OP is a a prime example of how someone like obama gets elected in the first place. The clueless electorate.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Indigo5

LOL 100 million people of working age not working?? That's almost 1/3 of the population.

No...Not 100 Million...92 Million
No...Not "working age"...16 and older and not participating in the workforce.
Put another way it includes every nursing and retirement home in the country.
80 Million of the US Population in 2012 was over 55...and life spans are still growing.
The "elderly population" being the fastest growing demographic and all.

So you seem to be bemoaning that 85 year old woman down the street can't find work? Or demanding she is a mooch for not doing so? Entitlements and all?

U definitely need to get a new source other than government propaganda.

I'll stick with math as my source and you can stick with Fox News...

originally posted by: VVV88



The U-6 rate is 10%
The U-3 rate is 5%

Yes, Obama has been just wonderful for the economy and "American" workers. /s

The OP is a a prime example of how someone like obama gets elected in the first place. The clueless electorate.

And the above is a prime example of what happens when you combine arrogance and ignorance?..

U-6 on top
U-3 on bottom

Both rates dropping like a stone (good thing by the way) after Pres. Obama takes office.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
The U.S. unemployment rate can be manipulated because the benefits only last so long and people can drop off of it and no longer be counted if they can't find a job before the benefits run out.

A more accurate way to measure job growth or the lack thereof is by looking at our employment rate.

Article 1
^This is a link to an economic research page by the federal reserve bank of St. Louis. It shows the United States rate of employment crashing in 2008 and not recovering since then.

.

Your first evidence was BS...so I will stop there...
Going to your link you cite the "employment rate"...which has in fact recovered some even though you claim it hasn't..your link shows otherwise...

AND the "Employment rate" includes...Retired, Disabled and stay at home parents..again...This idea that you must include people not actually looking or even capable of working seems a desperate dishonesty.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Indigo5

Hilarious nice picture. ..Obama and Bush are both terrible...but folks that serve their propaganda are worse

Math...You are mad at math...You can dislike President Obama, you can even hate him..but all I did was post numbers. Rational people would figure out a way to reconcile their "feelings" with "facts"...you can have both you know. You don't have to abuse your thinking centers or be dishonest or cite vague employment measures with the hope no one will actually look up what those measures measure.

Hey...I thought Pres. Bush was a complete wreck of a POTUS, but he also did some good things. He did more to battle the Aids epidemic (when such a thing was unpopular) than probably any world leader.

Honest facts can co-exist even if they provoke different "feelings"

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.

Let me guess, you look around your town to determine if climate change is a hoax, as well?

You can't just simply ignore all data, facts, and numbers and opt, instead, to look out your window and go with your gut feeling.

What sort of employment is everyone allegedly finding according to all those fancy numbers, facts, and data? Nothing much in the way of full-time let alone benefits, and that's assuming we aren't talking about temporary work. Nearly everyone I know is still pretty screwed. Well, screwed in the American sense. Obamacare is a bust too. I can't speak for the entire country, but I never did have a problem getting affordable health coverage until our current administration came into power. Now it's either join the welfare state, go broke getting medical health insurance, or pay the penalty for not getting the insurance which happens to be the slightly less costly route. If your data, facts, and numbers show something better, then please point me in the right direction. Where are all these noteworthy jobs? Otherwise, as someone already stated, open those eyes and look around. What do you see? Regardless of what city and state, what does practically everyone see? Do the facts, data, and numbers reflect reality, or are they indicative of propaganda?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: peskyhumans
The U.S. unemployment rate can be manipulated because the benefits only last so long and people can drop off of it and no longer be counted if they can't find a job before the benefits run out.

A more accurate way to measure job growth or the lack thereof is by looking at our employment rate.

Article 1
^This is a link to an economic research page by the federal reserve bank of St. Louis. It shows the United States rate of employment crashing in 2008 and not recovering since then.

.

Your first evidence was BS...so I will stop there...
Going to your link you cite the "employment rate"...which has in fact recovered some even though you claim it hasn't..your link shows otherwise...

AND the "Employment rate" includes...Retired, Disabled and stay at home parents..again...This idea that you must include people not actually looking or even capable of working seems a desperate dishonesty.

That data comes from a federal reserve bank. All the links I provided came from good sources.

If our population was decreasing I would agree the number of employed people should be dropping. However the United States population is increasing. How is a dropping rate of employment a good thing? There simply aren't enough retirees to account for this.

You would rather believe our unemployment rate - a system that doesn't track people who can't find a job and drop off of the program. Who is really being dishonest?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: dogstar23

LOL really,where's that? DC?

Just the observed situation in a "working class" suburb of Chicago. Point being, what i observe around town isn't a microcosm of the nation as a whole any more than your observations are.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Indigo5

LOL 100 million people of working age not working?? That's almost 1/3 of the population.

Just a heads up, people aged 65 and older make up 14.5% of the population of 318,857,056 which comes out to 46,234,273 people. Which is roughly half of that number.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

I see, so you can personally vouch for all those people. Not one of them would like to work?

I can personally vouch for 4 of those people being counted.

I am currently 59 yrs old, I retired on March 30, 2005 at the age of 48 and have NOT looked for work since. My wife, age 58, has never worked outside the home and is also NOT looking for work.

My older brother, age 60, retired from his job three years ago. He and his wife, age 58, are also NOT looking for work.

That's 4 of us that I know are being counted as given up on looking for employment and that's just in my immediate family.

All of us are currently classified as "unemployed," none of us are old enough to collect Social Security and none of us are on public assistance of any kind.

How's that for an example?

O.P a lot of folks here already made up their minds that Obama is a complete failure and the worst President everrr!!! even before January 20, 2009 . so no matter the news good or bad they are ready with bucks of cold water to dump on him,
For me personally he is a mixed bag at worst, I like others had expected more but then our expectations were very high we judged him for not what he had accomplished but what he hadn't.

originally posted by: Flatfish
All of us are currently classified as "unemployed," none of us are old enough to collect Social Security and none of us are on public assistance of any kind.

That's the thing about unemployment. If you aren't collecting an unemployment check you aren't classified as unemployed by the unemployment office. Your family isn't even being counted by the system.

a reply to: Indigo5

You are forgetting that being over 55 does not automatically mean you are retired or not working. The retirement age is being pushed back further and further. In my industry people are having to put off retirement due to a skills gap and an inability to find people trained to replace them.

originally posted by: peskyhumans



You would rather believe our unemployment rate - a system that doesn't track people who can't find a job and drop off of the program. Who is really being dishonest?

Put bluntly...Either yourself or the media you are relying on is being dishonest.

They do in fact track people who can't find a job and stop looking...and most every other category.

Those numbers do not serve the right wing media well, so they pretend they do not exist and then construct false claims in that false absence.

Among the marginally attached, there were 665,000 discouraged workers in October, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.

The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in October had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Other data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 271,000 in October.

...

Employment in professional and business services increased by 78,000 in October

...

Employment in retail trade rose by 44,000 in October,

...

Food services and drinking places added 42,000 jobs in October. Over the year, the industry has added 368,000 jobs.

...

Construction employment increased by 31,000 in October

...

www.bls.gov...

It's all there...

a reply to: Indigo5

Who cares? The graph shows jobs were created. That is not the rub. The rub is that they are low quality low paying jobs. Are you denying that? We can do all sorts of mental gymnastics but you have yet to address quality except falsely declare that full time employment has risen when I sourced you an article using the governments own data that says quite frankly the opposite. My source was the world socialist website so hardly a right leaning hit piece.

Actually the jobs cure is a year behind the projected one. He can claim if he wants but he really has no control just like any other prez. He has killed off a lot of good paying skilled jobs so he wants to raise the minimum wage and that will hit everything hard.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Indigo5

You are forgetting that being over 55 does not automatically mean you are retired or not working. The retirement age is being pushed back further and further. In my industry people are having to put off retirement due to a skills gap and an inability to find people trained to replace them.

No idea what you are getting at.

The inability to find people with skills to replace them increases salary and wages for those people. There is a segment of the workforce that would otherwise retire, but choose to keep working because a low unemployment rate and changing landscape of talent means that their skills are in increased demand. Those older workers find themselves with rates of pay that are too good to pass up and choose to continue to work, because as you put it there is an "inability to find people trained to replace them" and they are able to demand a higher rate of compensation.

I see it all the time in my work. Calling in contractors that are in their 60's or early 70's who are otherwise retired but mildly bored and can't pass up an opportunity to make some generous extra-money.

How is that a bad thing?

originally posted by: Indigo5
Put bluntly...Either yourself or the media you are relying on is being dishonest.

They do in fact track people who can't find a job and stop looking...and most every other category.

They're tracked but not usually part of the numbers quotes for unemployment. The unemployment rate usually quotes one rate (U2 I think it is? Not sure on the name) while a more complete picture is one of the other rates.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Indigo5

Who cares? The graph shows jobs were created. That is not the rub. The rub is that they are low quality low paying jobs. Are you denying that? We can do all sorts of mental gymnastics but you have yet to address quality except falsely declare that full time employment has risen when I sourced you an article using the governments own data that says quite frankly the opposite. My source was the world socialist website so hardly a right leaning hit piece.

You are repeatedly moving the goal-posts as different claims fail.

While the "world socialist website" you cited is certainly not a "right leaning hit piece"...but I care not. It is undoubtedly an anti-capitalist website with associated agenda. I don't look for "Left" or "Right" to assign credibility...Just the opposite...I look for data, numbers, math and facts absent spin.

Sorry...I can't take an article from "world socialist website" as data. It is a toxic brew full of agenda.

If you think it had numbers worth examining, please direct me to the source of those numbers with explanation of what you think is relevant.