95,102,000 Americans not working, up 18% under Obama

[jimnyc]

Actually, it is not. You are using a right-wing website with typically distorted news. Why not use an independent source? Keep in mind that Obama was left with the refuse left over by the previous administration, which neglected the domestic economy in order to fight its self-produced "war on terror." http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/oba...r-2016-update/ Since President Barack Obama first took office: The economy has added nearly 10.7 million jobs. Median household income has gone up $1,140, or 2 percent. The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent. Median sales prices of existing single-family homes are up 23 percent. The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm; job openings are at a 15-year high. Corporate profits and stock prices have both soared to record highs. The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 16.5 million. The murder rate is down nearly 5 percent, despite an increase in 2015. The number of unauthorized immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. is down, according to demographers.

I suggest you learn how to read and comprehend and worry less about sources that rely on government information. You are the stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board, whether trolling or unsuccessfully trying to add to a discussion.

[gabosaurus]

I suggest you learn how to read and comprehend and worry less about sources that rely on government information. You are the stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board, whether trolling or unsuccessfully trying to add to a discussion.

What is there to read and comprehend? The story you posted was intentionally misleading and factually incorrect. And as long as you and NT are here, I will never be the "stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board."

[Elessar]

Actually, it is not. You are using a right-wing website with typically distorted news. Why not use an independent source? Keep in mind that Obama was left with the refuse left over by the previous administration, which neglected the domestic economy in order to fight its self-produced "war on terror." http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/oba...r-2016-update/ Since President Barack Obama first took office: The economy has added nearly 10.7 million jobs. Median household income has gone up $1,140, or 2 percent. The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent. Median sales prices of existing single-family homes are up 23 percent. The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm; job openings are at a 15-year high. Corporate profits and stock prices have both soared to record highs. The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 16.5 million. The murder rate is down nearly 5 percent, despite an increase in 2015. The number of unauthorized immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. is down, according to demographers.

Your statistics are bullshit.
Murder rates by black thugs shot up.
Racial tension increased under Obama. He did nothing to quell it.
Illegal possession of firearms shot up.
Obama pledged 'shovel ready jobs' which did not happen.
My taxes as middle class went up 20%.
My income decreased annually with Obama.
Corporations moved overseas under Obama.

[NightTrain]

What is there to read and comprehend? The story you posted was intentionally misleading and factually incorrect. And as long as you and NT are here, I will never be the "stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board."

Is that what the friendly family of muzzies across the street in California told you?

[NightTrain]

Beyond those silly numbers, debt to GDP went from 48% to 75% under Bambam's watch. Middle class Americans have the same spending power as the mid-90s.

[gabosaurus]

The facts are the facts and are stated as such. You can deny them all you want. My income and that of my husband increased under Obama. Crime and illegal gun sales went up because the gun nut lobby is out of control.

[fj1200]

Your statistics are bullshit.
Murder rates by black thugs shot up.
Racial tension increased under Obama. He did nothing to quell it.
Illegal possession of firearms shot up.
Obama pledged 'shovel ready jobs' which did not happen.
My taxes as middle class went up 20%.
My income decreased annually with Obama.
Corporations moved overseas under Obama.

How are they BS? They're either true or not. Anecdotes are hearsay.

[jimnyc]

How are they BS? They're either true or not. Anecdotes are hearsay.

That's kind of what I was stating the other day about unemployment numbers. Sure, some can find ways to make it sound differently, and a lot of hand wrangling is done to make the numbers sound better than they are. Like someone working part time once per week making $100 for example. And some just losing unemployment. A lot of folks will factor the unemployment in various ways, even if we all know they may be further from the truth or reality.

[fj1200]

That's kind of what I was stating the other day about unemployment numbers. Sure, some can find ways to make it sound differently, and a lot of hand wrangling is done to make the numbers sound better than they are. Like someone working part time once per week making $100 for example. And some just losing unemployment. A lot of folks will factor the unemployment in various ways, even if we all know they may be further from the truth or reality.

There are plenty of different rates calculated by BLS but they're pretty much done the same way and immune from political fiddling AFAIK. I would think U6 covers your example.

Current data:

Measure	Not seasonally adjusted			Seasonally adjusted
Dec. 2015	Nov. 2016	Dec. 2016	Dec. 2015	Aug. 2016	Sept. 2016	Oct. 2016	Nov. 2016	Dec. 2016
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force	2.1	1.8	1.9	2.1	1.9	2.0	2.0	1.8	1.9
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force	2.4	2.1	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.5	2.3	2.2	2.3
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)	4.8	4.4	4.5	5.0	4.9	4.9	4.8	4.6	4.7
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers	5.2	4.8	4.8	5.4	5.3	5.3	5.1	5.0	5.0
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force	5.9	5.6	5.5	6.1	5.9	6.0	5.9	5.8	5.7
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force	9.8	9.0	9.1	9.9	9.7	9.7	9.5	9.3	9.2
NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[jimnyc]

There are plenty of different rates calculated by BLS but they're pretty much done the same way and immune from political fiddling AFAIK. I would think U6 covers your example.

Current data:

But my point was the reporting of unemployment, and how folks can debate over it and come up with different answers (one says good and one bad) and how they can even come up with different numbers. What you point out is correct and what I was speaking of for that one portion. But I was simply stating, that as per debating - folks tend to come up with numbers all over the place - but at the end of the day, there is really one "correct" answer.

For example, the image you just posted - folks will run with various portions of that and swear the number THEY like is the current unemployment rate, or whatever. Others grab a different number. But both can't be correct, at least not when using all the same factors.

[fj1200]

But my point was the reporting of unemployment, and how folks can debate over it and come up with different answers (one says good and one bad) and how they can even come up with different numbers. What you point out is correct and what I was speaking of for that one portion. But I was simply stating, that as per debating - folks tend to come up with numbers all over the place - but at the end of the day, there is really one "correct" answer.

For example, the image you just posted - folks will run with various portions of that and swear the number THEY like is the current unemployment rate, or whatever. Others grab a different number. But both can't be correct, at least not when using all the same factors.

For example U3 and U6 are both correct, they just measure different things; Which I think is what you said. As far as debating one just needs to be consistent in using numbers to compare over time.

[jimnyc]

For example U3 and U6 are both correct, they just measure different things; Which I think is what you said. As far as debating one just needs to be consistent in using numbers to compare over time.

I agree about consistency. And I also agreed when you said sort of about folks able to come up with various factors on both sides. But like we're talking here, someone out there may claim something, anything about the unemployment. And while technically I guess that there can in fact be various stances that are all true - IMO, there should only be one standard. I've seen folks range anywhere at times from say 5% - 15% (made that up), depending on their argument. In my lame and humble opinion - U6 is more accurate. Running with lower numbers doesn't tell the whole unemployment story, IMO.

[jimnyc]

One can choose numbers from either side to make their case.

FJ, btw, this is all I meant all along, in regards to this comment. I wasn't being a dick, just pointing out that while the debates from both sides DO choose numbers that make their case - IMO, there are only "correct" numbers. Most want to run with U4, which is a decent standard, but IMO, the U6 need to be recognized as well, even if one doesn't want to state that the rate is higher. For example, one can state that "the unemployment rate is at 4.9% - but keep in mind that 5% of the unemployed switched to a few part time days per month, or that some popped off the rolls after time.... various reasons. Some will swear by the higher numbers, some will swear by the lower numbers (Like Obama has), and refuse to acknowledge that the number doesn't fully reflect everyone.

[fj1200]

... U6 is more accurate. ...

There is always a difference between U3 and U6 so they tell the same story IMO unless you see a difference than is greater than normal. In the early BO years the spread was higher, which could tell us that his recovery was slower which you and I don't disagree with I think, but I don't know how that ranks historically.

But I think we're pretty much on the same page.

[jimnyc]

There is always a difference between U3 and U6 so they tell the same story IMO unless you see a difference than is greater than normal. In the early BO years the spread was higher, which could tell us that his recovery was slower which you and I don't disagree with I think, but I don't know how that ranks historically.

But I think we're pretty much on the same page.

Yeps, we are. I think we were all along, but misread one another. The indicators of unemployment are all over the map, hence folks being able to find things to support their position from either side. But in the end, there's really only one correct answer - and that's the rate - and keeping the other stats in mind along with it.