GDP growth rate has jumped over 7% under Obama - still not good enough for haters.

[TNHarley]

liar

May be true. I know of 2 people whos unemployment run out. Sure there are more. Weird thing is, I know 9 that lost their job...

 

[Oldstyle]

There is a substantial number of people who are no longer in the "work force", people that are no longer being counted when we figure the unemployment number. When our population is steadily growing yet the number of people working declines...that ISN'T a sign that things are getting better.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And trending down!

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

10/28/2012 7.1%
10/27/2012 7.2%
10/26/2012 7.3%
10/25/2012 7.3%
10/24/2012 7.3%

Gallup is not a government agency.
Trending?...Wishful thinking.
This weekend we will see a White House plant story about increased activity in the housing and contracting areas...Sure....The hurricane had NOTHING to do with that. As we have seen, Obama will take credit for that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is a substantial number of people who are no longer in the "work force", people that are no longer being counted when we figure the unemployment number. When our population is steadily growing yet the number of people working declines...that ISN'T a sign that things are getting better.

The only legitimate employment statistic is U-6...This counts ALL unemployed people.
Not just the ones the government wants people to know about.
In fact, I have no clue as to why the BLS uses U-3...It's a fake number.
And that applies to whomever occupies the White House.

 

[pinqy]

There is a substantial number of people who are no longer in the "work force", people that are no longer being counted when we figure the unemployment number. When our population is steadily growing yet the number of people working declines...that ISN'T a sign that things are getting better.

The only legitimate employment statistic is U-6...This counts ALL unemployed people.
Not just the ones the government wants people to know about.
In fact, I have no clue as to why the BLS uses U-3...It's a fake number.
And that applies to whomever occupies the White House.

This should be fun: Please give explanations for all 6 alternative measures, including definitions, and then why you prefer the U6. I'm especially interested in why you think the U3 is fake, and why you think the U6 includes more unemployed than the U5.
I'm reallllly curious as to what you consider the proper definition of unemployed.

Note to everyone else: No I don't expect him to give any definitions, but there's always hope....and stranger things have happened.

 

[edthecynic]

And trending down!

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

10/28/2012 7.1%
10/27/2012 7.2%
10/26/2012 7.3%
10/25/2012 7.3%
10/24/2012 7.3%

liar

You're right! Gallup just updated it to 7.0%

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

10/31/2012 7.0%

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is a substantial number of people who are no longer in the "work force", people that are no longer being counted when we figure the unemployment number. When our population is steadily growing yet the number of people working declines...that ISN'T a sign that things are getting better.

The only legitimate employment statistic is U-6...This counts ALL unemployed people.
Not just the ones the government wants people to know about.
In fact, I have no clue as to why the BLS uses U-3...It's a fake number.
And that applies to whomever occupies the White House.

This should be fun: Please give explanations for all 6 alternative measures, including definitions, and then why you prefer the U6. I'm especially interested in why you think the U3 is fake, and why you think the U6 includes more unemployed than the U5.
I'm reallllly curious as to what you consider the proper definition of unemployed.

Note to everyone else: No I don't expect him to give any definitions, but there's always hope....and stranger things have happened.

Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others. Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?
So I went to the BLS.gov website..Just to make YOU happy.
Here...Fucking read it for yourself.
How the Government Measures Unemployment

Too bad for you, the inescapable truth is that there are over 23 million people who would like to work, are eligible to work but cannot find a fucking job in this Obama economy.

I highlighted why U-3 is a fake number.
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over..
An HOUR per week?...That is no employed. And while the Obama campaign would call that a "job", you know one of the 5 million he claims to have created all by himself, anyone with a couple brain cells bashing together knows that is not a job.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of politicians who claim they created jobs. Government DOES NOT create jobs. The only time when government action results in the number of full time jobs going up is when government gets the hell out of the way of the private sector.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

 

[edthecynic]

The only legitimate employment statistic is U-6...This counts ALL unemployed people.
Not just the ones the government wants people to know about.
In fact, I have no clue as to why the BLS uses U-3...It's a fake number.
And that applies to whomever occupies the White House.

This should be fun: Please give explanations for all 6 alternative measures, including definitions, and then why you prefer the U6. I'm especially interested in why you think the U3 is fake, and why you think the U6 includes more unemployed than the U5.
I'm reallllly curious as to what you consider the proper definition of unemployed.

Note to everyone else: No I don't expect him to give any definitions, but there's always hope....and stranger things have happened.

Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others. Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?
So I went to the BLS.gov website..Just to make YOU happy.
Here...Fucking read it for yourself.
How the Government Measures Unemployment

Too bad for you, the inescapable truth is that there are over 23 million people who would like to work, are eligible to work but cannot find a fucking job in this Obama economy.

I highlighted why U-3 is a fake number.
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over..
An HOUR per week?...That is no employed. And while the Obama campaign would call that a "job", you know one of the 5 million he claims to have created all by himself, anyone with a couple brain cells bashing together knows that is not a job.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of politicians who claim they created jobs. Government DOES NOT create jobs. The only time when government action results in the number of full time jobs going up is when government gets the hell out of the way of the private sector.

You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.

Why should people who are not even looking for work be counted as both part of the workforce and as unemployed? Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.

 

[pinqy]

You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.

Oh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.

Why should people who are not even looking for work be counted as both part of the workforce and as unemployed?

They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.

Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.

You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases atre stopped looking because couldn't work; at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).

 

[pinqy]

Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others.

No, since there are 6, I was curious as to why exactly you consider the U6 to be the best. Arguments could be made for the U4 or U5 as better indicators than the U6 or the U3.

Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?
So I went to the BLS.gov website..Just to make YOU happy.
Here...Fucking read it for yourself.
How the Government Measures Unemployment

Oh, I'm very familiar with that....though usually I read the more technical papers, not the simplified for people who don't understand statistics versions.

Too bad for you, the inescapable truth is that there are over 23 million people who would like to work, are eligible to work but cannot find a fucking job in this Obama economy.

You're not being accurate. Out of that 23 million, about 8 million are part time for economic reasons, meaning they did find a job, just not working as many hours as they like, most of whom are working less due to slow business, not inability to find full time work.

I highlighted why U-3 is a fake number.
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate),

Where'd you get the "seeking full tiem work" qualification from? About 1.7 million people are classified as unemployed seeking part time work.

but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week.

The definition of Employed is the same in the U6...minimum of 1 hour work for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm. The U6 pays attention to those working less than 35 hours involuntarily (due to slow business or inability to find full time work) but that still leaves people voluntarily working as little as an hour a week. I've had 2 jobs in my life where I voluntarily worked less than 5 hours a week when I was a student who just needed some extra cash.

So there's the issue with considering part time for economic reasons as "unemployed" (which technically the U6 does not do). If you're saying the numerator of the U6 are all "unemployed" then you're classifying someone who normally works 35 hours a week who has been temporarily cut down to 30 hours as unemployed, but classifying someone who voluntariy works 4 hours a week as employed. Does that make good sense to you?

And think about the consequences of setting a minimum number of hours...how would you classify the people working less? They're not Unemployed, they have jobs.

And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work.

But not limited to that. Most of the Marginally Attached stopped working for personal reasons.

Here's the thing, and seriously, think about it and don't just dismiss it. What are you trying to measure, exactly? The U3 is trying to measure how hard it is to actually get a job. If someone actively looks for work, tries to get a job, and is unsuccessful, we know there's a problem if that's happening to a large number of people. We know that as a fact.

But what about Discouraged? Do we know for a fact that they couldn't get a job, or do we know it's their Belief that they couldn't get a job? Do they really want a job or are they just making excuses? We can't tell. It's too subjective. It doesn't tell us what's Actually happening in the job market.

Marginally Attached are good to look at because they are Potential workers/job seekers. But they're not trying, so we don't Know if they'd succeed or not. We KNOW that the Unemployed cannot get a job because they tried and failed. We don't know about the Marginally Attached so they're not useful in finding out how hard it actually is to get a job.

Part time for economic reasons are Employed. They're working, they have jobs. We're talking up to 34 hours/week. I don't see how anyone could reasonably call someone working 30 hours a week (which, if Obama has his way would be considered full time for Obamacare purposes) as UNemployed. Especially when you'd be calling someone (voluntarily) working 10 hours a week, 4 hours a week, as Employed.

They're UNDERused because they could be working a lot more, but they're not UNemployed.

 

[edthecynic]

You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.

Oh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.

Why should people who are not even looking for work be counted as both part of the workforce and as unemployed?

They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.

Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.

You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases do preclude working, at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This should be fun: Please give explanations for all 6 alternative measures, including definitions, and then why you prefer the U6. I'm especially interested in why you think the U3 is fake, and why you think the U6 includes more unemployed than the U5.
I'm reallllly curious as to what you consider the proper definition of unemployed.

Note to everyone else: No I don't expect him to give any definitions, but there's always hope....and stranger things have happened.

Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others. Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?
So I went to the BLS.gov website..Just to make YOU happy.
Here...Fucking read it for yourself.
How the Government Measures Unemployment

Too bad for you, the inescapable truth is that there are over 23 million people who would like to work, are eligible to work but cannot find a fucking job in this Obama economy.

I highlighted why U-3 is a fake number.
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over..
An HOUR per week?...That is no employed. And while the Obama campaign would call that a "job", you know one of the 5 million he claims to have created all by himself, anyone with a couple brain cells bashing together knows that is not a job.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of politicians who claim they created jobs. Government DOES NOT create jobs. The only time when government action results in the number of full time jobs going up is when government gets the hell out of the way of the private sector.

You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.

Why should people who are not even looking for work be counted as both part of the workforce and as unemployed? Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.

Simple..They are eligible and SHOULD BE a part of the workforce. But they are not. And because of their circumstances have given up. That DOES NOT mean they suddenly do not exist. These are viable, functioning people capable of full time work who have become disillusioned and simply given up.
THEY ARE WORKING PEOPLE, God dammit....They DO COUNT.
I am not willing to write people off just to make some politician look good. I don't give a fuck what letter he/has after their name. That isn't the point.
This is not political. This is about PEOPLE!

 

[pinqy]

You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.

Oh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.

They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.

Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.

You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases do preclude working, at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."

If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.

I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.

 

[pinqy]

Simple..They are eligible and SHOULD BE a part of the workforce.

Why? Give an actual Economic reason, not some idiotic emotional rant.

And because of their circumstances have given up.

Most of the Marginally Attached did NOT "give up." They stopped looking because of personal reasons...had to look after a family member etc.

That DOES NOT mean they suddenly do not exist. These are viable, functioning people capable of full time work who have become disillusioned and simply given up.

Who is saying they don't exist? They're just not unemployed.

THEY ARE WORKING PEOPLE,

Marginally Attached certainly are not working...that's the whole point. And part time for economic reasons are working, which makes them NOT unemployed.

God dammit....They DO COUNT.
I am not willing to write people off just to make some politician look good. I don't give a fuck what letter he/has after their name. That isn't the point.
This is not political. This is about PEOPLE!

Who is "writing people off?" What effect do you think it has on a person that they're classified as Marginally Attached or Not in the Labor Force instead of Unemployed? What possible difference do you think it makes to a person????

It's NOT about people, it's about measuring the job market.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.

They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.


You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases do preclude working, at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."

If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.

I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.

Well then that begs the question, what week was the reference week?

For example, if they had transportation problems the last 4 weeks they wouldn't be able to accept a job if offered over those 4 weeks, so those 4 weeks could not be the reference week.
So what am I missing?

 

[pinqy]

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."

If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.

I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.

Well then that begs the question, what week was the reference week?

For example, if they had transportation problems the last 4 weeks they wouldn't be able to accept a job if offered over those 4 weeks, so those 4 weeks could not be the reference week.
So what am I missing?

The reference week is the week that contains the 12th and the interviews are the week that contains the 19th. So for September, ithe reference week was the week of the 9th-15th, with interviews Sep 16-22 and for October the week of the 7th-13th with interviews Oct 14-20. And the 4 weeks includes the reference week. So someone classified as Marginally Attached for October has not looked for work since at least September 15th. And availability is ONLY for the reference week.

Example....Alice became Unemployed back in July. She had been looking for work. But then on September 14th, her car broke down and she stopped looking because she had no way to get to a job. When interviewed on Sept 18th, she responds that she had looked for work in the previous 4 weeks and is classified as Unemployed. On September 27th her car is finally fixed, but she doesn't start looking for work yet and so when interviewed on October 16th she is asked if she looked for work in the previous 4 weeks (since Sept 16th). She says no. She's asked if she's looked for work since October 2011 and she says yes. She's asked if she could have started work October 7-13, she says yes (her car has been fixed). She's asked why, she says transportation problems. Classified as Marginally Attached, meaning she might start looking for work, but hasn't yet.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Simple..They are eligible and SHOULD BE a part of the workforce.

Why? Give an actual Economic reason, not some idiotic emotional rant.

And because of their circumstances have given up.

Most of the Marginally Attached did NOT "give up." They stopped looking because of personal reasons...had to look after a family member etc.



Who is saying they don't exist? They're just not unemployed.

THEY ARE WORKING PEOPLE,

Marginally Attached certainly are not working...that's the whole point. And part time for economic reasons are working, which makes them NOT unemployed.

God dammit....They DO COUNT.
I am not willing to write people off just to make some politician look good. I don't give a fuck what letter he/has after their name. That isn't the point.
This is not political. This is about PEOPLE!

Who is "writing people off?" What effect do you think it has on a person that they're classified as Marginally Attached or Not in the Labor Force instead of Unemployed? What possible difference do you think it makes to a person????

It's NOT about people, it's about measuring the job market.

The facts are clear. You are arguing because the facts do not make Obama look good.

 

[jmm124567]

FACT-

The annualized real GDP growth rate in the first quarter of 2009 was -5.3%

FACT-

The annualized real GDP growth rate in third quarter of 2012 was +2.0%.


FACT-

The difference under Obama is %7.3.

What you are saying is kind of misleading people to think Obama's economic numbers are awesome when in fact Obama's economic numbers are nothing to brag about!

Average annual GDP growth rates will tell you more about the overall economy than quarterly growth rates will. Here are Obama's average annual GDP growth rates:

2009: -3.1%
2010: 2.4%
2011: 1.8%
2012: Currently his average annual GDP rate in 2012 is 1.8%

What do these numbers mean:
Well in 2009 the average annual GDP rate was -3.1% which indicates we are in a recession.

In 2010 the average annual GDP rate was at 2.4% which indicates we are out of the recession and in a recovery.

Now in 2011 the average annual GDP rate should have been no lower than the previous annual GDP rate of 2.4% but it was and it was at 1.8% which indicates the economy did not move forward from the previous year but backwards which is bad.

And in 2012 the current average annual GDP rate is again at 1.8% like it was in 2011 which means the economy has stalled at a very low annual growth rate of 1.8%.

FACT: Obama's recovery has failed

GDP is a key economic indicator that tells the health of the economy and according to these numbers Obama has failed to produce a good recovery and when you add in how much he is spending it makes it even worse!

We need average annual GDP growth rates of 3%+ to see a good growing economy. History has shown that the worse a recession is the better an economic recovery will be meaning if there is a horrible recession then the recovery should be very good.

 

[Trajan]

FACT-

The annualized real GDP growth rate in the first quarter of 2009 was -5.3%

FACT-

The annualized real GDP growth rate in third quarter of 2012 was +2.0%.


FACT-

The difference under Obama is %7.3.

Critical thinking fail, epic......

 

[Trajan]

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."

If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.

I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.

Well then that begs the question, what week was the reference week?

For example, if they had transportation problems the last 4 weeks they wouldn't be able to accept a job if offered over those 4 weeks, so those 4 weeks could not be the reference week.
So what am I missing?

How does an unemployed person become employed without being reflected in the data?

What am I missing?