Jobless Rate Rises to 9.9 Percent.

Seriously,these same Hopey Changey dopes used to actually whine incessantly when Bush had 4% Unemployment. They will of course deny it now but they know it's true. I've been going on political message boards for a long time and these dopes used to screech 24/7 about how "The sky is falling" over 4% Unemployment. Now look at them spin their Hopey Changey's disastrous 9.9% Unemployment. Leftists really are pretty disingenuous people for the most part.

Bush never actually saw a 4% unemployment rate.

chart
 
So sorry. 4.5%.

Why is it a success for Obama to oversee a 9.9% U3 rate when the Left was apoplectic about a mid 4%s under Bush?
 
Yeah, let's use a different measure because it will make Obama look bad! And no one is smart enough to catch us!

jeezus



It's the more accurate measure - and one calculated by the BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. If it's not meaningful, why do they bother with it?

U6 includes people who are unemployed but have put looking for a job on hold because there are not jobs in their area or career. 17.1% is not good.

At April's job creation rate, it will take nearly 3 years to recover the jobs lost in the recession. Even more are needed to account for population growth. The monthly job creation rate would have to increase to 400K.

Unemployment drops to 9.7% despite more job losses


231K just means we are continuing to dig a deeper unemployment hole.

When was U-6 ever used as the 'official' headline number?

Answer - never.

Why should we start using it now?

Answer - because it might fool some people into thinking it makes Obama look worse.

Fair enough answers?

Fair enough...but don't limit it to Obama...it would have made nearly EVERY President look bad.
 
The problem is that the economy needs to generate 400K jobs per month for 3 years to recover the lost jobs and handle population growth (119K per month just for the latter).

With the current anti-growth policies of the Obama Administration, GDP growth strong enough to create 400K jobs per month is highly unlikely, excepting the scenario where they use Stimulus funds to create a bunch of temp government jobs (such as the census) to cook the stats for a few months.

290K jobs for April are good start, aren't they?
 
Over 60K of those jobs are temp Census one that go away by the end of July.

The job situation is not improving as quickly as it should; the Obama Big Government policies are dampening economic growth, and needlessly extending the suffering of millions of unemployed people.

It's not a good start. It's a poor excuse.
 
Over 60K of those jobs are temp Census one that go away by the end of July.

The job situation is not improving as quickly as it should; the Obama Big Government policies are dampening economic growth, and needlessly extending the suffering of millions of unemployed people.

It's not a good start. It's a poor excuse.

slow recovery ... It seems the economy recovers very slowly (regardless of policies).
 
The government should get out of the way and let the economy crash on it's own accord.
 
I thought we were out of the recession and everything was looking up????

Can you imagine how bad Bush would be getting hammered right now if the unemployment rate was still this high.... It has been downhill ever since the Democrats took control of Congress... and Obama's policies obviously aren't making it any better.

Jobs up 290,000; jobless rate rises to 9.9 pct. - Yahoo! Finance

Considering it is still part of his legacy, he still should be. Oh, wait, the recession is Obama's fault in teabaggerstan, sorry!
 
So you think somebody who lost a good paying job as, say, a system administrator and then takes a minimum wage job at a fast food place to make ends meet is gainfully employed in a real career?
Where on Earth are you getting that from anything I've said? It is impossible to measure "gainfully employed" or "real career" in any meaningful way. All I'm saying is that the person in your example IS Employed and should be counted as Employed.

On the other hand, are you claiming that in your example s/he is NOT employed at the fast food place? Or that his/her employment is not at all different from not working at all?

You can dissemble all you'd like, but the fact is that the economy is not generating decent private sector jobs. That's what U6 reflects.
No, it doesn't, actually. It in no way reflects your example...the person in your example would be Employed in the U6, unless s/he's working less than 35 hours/week, in which case s/he would be part time for economic reasons, which is only a measure of hours, not loss of good paying job or anything else.
 
Last edited:
Only in Obamanomics is it good for an engineer who used to make $80,000 per year to earn minimum wage at a temp job.

All jobs are not created equal. Someone taking a temp job because he'd rather do some work than go on the dole doesn't obviate having to deal with the fact that the economy is not generating real private sector jobs in sufficient amounts to reduce unemployment and handle population growth. We will need 3 years of 400K net new jobs per month to do that. Obama's anti-growth policies makes such growth nigh impossible.
 
Only in Obamanomics is it good for an engineer who used to make $80,000 per year to earn minimum wage at a temp job.
Please cite where anyone has ever said that that is good. It's not, and no one has said it is.

All jobs are not created equal. Someone taking a temp job because he'd rather do some work than go on the dole doesn't obviate having to deal with the fact that the economy is not generating real private sector jobs in sufficient amounts to reduce unemployment and handle population growth.
The problem is that there is no way to measure the extent of things like that. Plus you have to seperate causes....a former engineer working at a convenience store because he was arrested for a crime, or fired for incompetence etc is not a reflection on the economy. So even if you could come up with a decent definition of underemployed based on skills and former salary, you'd then further have to be able to differentiate economic and non-economic causees.

So two main problems....1. a useful hard definition for what you're talking about.
2. a method of accurately collecting that information.

Neither exists.
 
Only in Obamanomics is it good for an engineer who used to make $80,000 per year to earn minimum wage at a temp job.

All jobs are not created equal. Someone taking a temp job because he'd rather do some work than go on the dole doesn't obviate having to deal with the fact that the economy is not generating real private sector jobs in sufficient amounts to reduce unemployment and handle population growth. We will need 3 years of 400K net new jobs per month to do that. Obama's anti-growth policies makes such growth nigh impossible.

Growth stopped 2 years ago, under Bush. What were his anti-growth policies?
 
Only in Obamanomics is it good for an engineer who used to make $80,000 per year to earn minimum wage at a temp job.

All jobs are not created equal. Someone taking a temp job because he'd rather do some work than go on the dole doesn't obviate having to deal with the fact that the economy is not generating real private sector jobs in sufficient amounts to reduce unemployment and handle population growth. We will need 3 years of 400K net new jobs per month to do that. Obama's anti-growth policies makes such growth nigh impossible.

Growth stopped 2 years ago, under Bush. What were his anti-growth policies?

Letting ACORN function as a not-for-profit, not pushing for revisions to the home buying programs instituted by the Democrats in Congress, allowing NAFTA to continue and being President when an economic cycle was starting a correction phase.
 
Only in Obamanomics is it good for an engineer who used to make $80,000 per year to earn minimum wage at a temp job.

All jobs are not created equal. Someone taking a temp job because he'd rather do some work than go on the dole doesn't obviate having to deal with the fact that the economy is not generating real private sector jobs in sufficient amounts to reduce unemployment and handle population growth. We will need 3 years of 400K net new jobs per month to do that. Obama's anti-growth policies makes such growth nigh impossible.

Growth stopped 2 years ago, under Bush. What were his anti-growth policies?

Letting ACORN function as a not-for-profit, not pushing for revisions to the home buying programs instituted by the Democrats in Congress, allowing NAFTA to continue and being President when an economic cycle was starting a correction phase.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa!!
 
Only in Obamanomics is it good for an engineer who used to make $80,000 per year to earn minimum wage at a temp job.

All jobs are not created equal. Someone taking a temp job because he'd rather do some work than go on the dole doesn't obviate having to deal with the fact that the economy is not generating real private sector jobs in sufficient amounts to reduce unemployment and handle population growth. We will need 3 years of 400K net new jobs per month to do that. Obama's anti-growth policies makes such growth nigh impossible.

Growth stopped 2 years ago, under Bush. What were his anti-growth policies?


In 2008, economic forecasters were predicting that the country would pull out of the recession in the second half of 2009 (in a meaningful way). Compared to prior recoveries, what is happening now is incredibly anemic. Why?

- MASSIVE increase in the size of governement
- More than a tripling of the deficit
- More and more and more debt
- Termination of the Bush tax credits in 2011
- Addition of a huge entitlement, ObamaCare, that will increase the size of the federal government's share of GDP even further.

This is why the private sector is not creating a sufficient jobs.

Greece is a Prequel.

That's what happened.
 

Forum List

Back
Top