The Experts Agree: The Recession is Over.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That. Also, where the hell is that 17 percent number coming from?

It is, I believe, the U-6 unemployment figure. It measures those who have dropped out of the workforce and those who are underemployed.

It was 8%-10% before the crisis, which would have made America's unemployment similar to Europe's official rate of unemployment. Of course, most of the people who quote the 17% now don't realize this.

Yeah, I know. I questioning their usage.

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

 

[Liability]

National Association for Business Economics:

Recovery Soon to Lose "Jobless" Label
November 2009

Reaffirming last month’s call that the Great Recession is over, NABE panelists have marked up their predictions for economic growth in 2010 and expect performance to exceed its long-term trend. “While the recovery has been jobless so far, that should soon change. Within the next few months, companies should be adding instead of cutting jobs,” said NABE President Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University. Panelists predict a relatively sluggish consumer upturn but look for a sizable housing rebound, low inflation, and further rise in stock prices. Importantly, panelists are mostly (though not entirely) optimistic that the Federal Reserve’s policies will not lead to higher inflation. At the same time, NABE panelists are “extremely” concerned about high federal deficits over the next five years.


National Association for Business Economics (NABE)

Thank you for digging us out of Bush's deep hole Mr Obama.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are these the same "experts" at prediction who assured us that if we passed the Bailout and the TARP shit proposed by President Obama (and of course it HAD to be done immediately!) then the Unemployment rate wouldn't get to 10% in the first place?

Yeah.

If they claim that the jobless recovery is actually going to become a job-creating recovery "soon," then of course the recession must just be ovah!



You fucking libtards will buy ANYTHING they peddle!

 

[Polk]

It is, I believe, the U-6 unemployment figure. It measures those who have dropped out of the workforce and those who are underemployed.

It was 8%-10% before the crisis, which would have made America's unemployment similar to Europe's official rate of unemployment. Of course, most of the people who quote the 17% now don't realize this.

Yeah, I know. I questioning their usage.

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

 

[Maple]

National Association for Business Economics:

Recovery Soon to Lose "Jobless" Label
November 2009

Reaffirming last month’s call that the Great Recession is over, NABE panelists have marked up their predictions for economic growth in 2010 and expect performance to exceed its long-term trend. “While the recovery has been jobless so far, that should soon change. Within the next few months, companies should be adding instead of cutting jobs,” said NABE President Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University. Panelists predict a relatively sluggish consumer upturn but look for a sizable housing rebound, low inflation, and further rise in stock prices. Importantly, panelists are mostly (though not entirely) optimistic that the Federal Reserve’s policies will not lead to higher inflation. At the same time, NABE panelists are “extremely” concerned about high federal deficits over the next five years.


National Association for Business Economics (NABE)

Thank you for digging us out of Bush's deep hole Mr Obama.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are these the same "experts" at prediction who assured us that if we passed the Bailout and the TARP shit proposed by President Obama (and of course it HAD to be done immediately!) then the Unemployment rate wouldn't get to 10% in the first place?

Yeah.

If they claim that the jobless recovery is actually going to become a job-creating recovery "soon," then of course the recession must just be ovah!



You fucking libtards will buy ANYTHING they peddle!

Yes, they said it would not go above 8% if they passed the stimulus bill, now they can't tell the American people how many jobs it created. They spent 18 million of this money to design a website in which they could track and report jobs created from this monstrosity and they are reporting jobs created in congressional districts that don't exist. They are also stating jobs created in areas that received no stimulus money. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors and so is this latest report. Rescind the stimulus before all our tax payer money goes down the crapper.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, I know. I questioning their usage.

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

 

[Polk]

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

 

[Maple]

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

Finally a poster who can back it up. Thank You, black men have an unemployment rate of 35%, that's higher than the 25% during the great depression. Not good news for anyone, but until I see people getting jobs, it ain't over, no matter how the government attempts to spin it. In Fact, many are getting tired of this spin, especially when they have their grown children move back home with them in order to live. No one is buying the spin.

We have lost an additional 3 million jobs since Obama took office, he promised after the stimulus bill that he got passed that unemployment would not go above 8% we are now at 10.2% and rising and the real unemployment rate, counting those that have fallen off the count, is somewhere around 17%.

 

[Polk]

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

Finally a poster who can back it up. Thank You, black men have an unemployment rate of 35%, that's higher than the 25% during the great depression. Not good news for anyone, but until I see people getting jobs, it ain't over, no matter how the government attempts to spin it. In Fact, many are getting tired of this spin, especially when they have their grown children move back home with them in order to live. No one is buying the spin.

We have lost an additional 3 million jobs since Obama took office, he promised after the stimulus bill that he got passed that unemployment would not go above 8% we are now at 10.2% and rising and the real unemployment rate, counting those that have fallen off the count, is somewhere around 17%.

Except he didn't back it up. His claim that people with part-time jobs who desired to work full-time were considered unemployed during the Depression is still without any evidence.

 

[Maple]

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Here is a very simple question for you Polk. Do you know anyone who is looking for work? Have they found a job? That's how you judge the economy. I know a whole lot of people looking for work, some for months, and I can't tell you of one person that I know of that has found work.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Well my exact claim was, "It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit." I didn't mention anything about part-time workers specifically. You brought that up. The links I provided proved my claim.

As to holding the previous administrations to the same standard, you're partially right. I didn't hold many of them to the same standard. Allow me to explain why.

Ronald Reagan - I was born in the last year of his term, 1988. I was an infant.

George H.W. Bush - I was an infant for much of this term, and a toddler for the rest of it. Wasn't all that interested in politics at the time, if memory serves.

Bill Clinton - I remained a toddler through some of his administration, and a young child through the rest. Still no discernible interest in politics.

George W. Bush - I was mad that he won the election, but that's because my parents were Democrats. I still had no real interest in politics during much of his administration, until the last few years. When I did start becoming more active Bush was held to the same standards that I hold Obama too.

 

[Maple]

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

Finally a poster who can back it up. Thank You, black men have an unemployment rate of 35%, that's higher than the 25% during the great depression. Not good news for anyone, but until I see people getting jobs, it ain't over, no matter how the government attempts to spin it. In Fact, many are getting tired of this spin, especially when they have their grown children move back home with them in order to live. No one is buying the spin.

We have lost an additional 3 million jobs since Obama took office, he promised after the stimulus bill that he got passed that unemployment would not go above 8% we are now at 10.2% and rising and the real unemployment rate, counting those that have fallen off the count, is somewhere around 17%.

Except he didn't back it up. His claim that people with part-time jobs who desired to work full-time were considered unemployed during the Depression is still without any evidence.

Those people are considered under-employed in today's world and they are not counted as un-employed. The 10.2 % are people still drawing unemployment benefits, the 17% represents those people who no longer qualify or have simply given up looking for work.

 

[saveliberty]

Yeah, I know. I questioning their usage.

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

Obama said he was going to change DC. Hold it to a higher standard. We are simply measuring him by what he claimed. I note many liberals are quick to use Bush as the standard. Now that Obama is using many of the same policies, you switch to Carter. Obama said higher standard not slightly above the zero threadhold. I would suggest distancing yourself from Obama quickly, if you want a viable party.

 

[Maple]

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Well my exact claim was, "It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit." I didn't mention anything about part-time workers specifically. You brought that up. The links I provided proved my claim.

As to holding the previous administrations to the same standard, you're partially right. I didn't hold many of them to the same standard. Allow me to explain why.

Ronald Reagan - I was born in the last year of his term, 1988. I was an infant.

George H.W. Bush - I was an infant for much of this term, and a toddler for the rest of it. Wasn't all that interested in politics at the time, if memory serves.

Bill Clinton - I remained a toddler through some of his administration, and a young child through the rest. Still no discernible interest in politics.

George W. Bush - I was mad that he won the election, but that's because my parents were Democrats. I still had no real interest in politics during much of his administration, until the last few years. When I did start becoming more active Bush was held to the same standards that I hold Obama too.

You have good knowledge for being a relatively young person. I wish more people paid attention as well as you obviously have. You should have been here to see how Reagan turned it around, it was a masterpeice. Cut taxes across the board, creating 20 million new jobs and INCREASED revenue to the government because he developed a larger working pool from which to draw from. I hope to see that again soon.

 

[Polk]

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Well my exact claim was, "It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit." I didn't mention anything about part-time workers specifically. You brought that up. The links I provided proved my claim.

I brought that up because it represents a significant different. I asked you to show that the unemployed were counted in that way because that's the only way the numbers you were throwing around were relevant. The links you provided don't make that point. They say that our current measures underestimate the number of unemployment. You can still believe that's true without the 17 percent number being valid.

When I did start becoming more active Bush was held to the same standards that I hold Obama too.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know you that well and you seem like a good guy. I will say though that a lot of people who are throwing around the numbers you are were old enough to have clearly stated beleifts then and bashed liberals for "talking down the economy" for talking about underemployment using the same measures they consider "real unemployment" today.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Well my exact claim was, "It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit." I didn't mention anything about part-time workers specifically. You brought that up. The links I provided proved my claim.

As to holding the previous administrations to the same standard, you're partially right. I didn't hold many of them to the same standard. Allow me to explain why.

Ronald Reagan - I was born in the last year of his term, 1988. I was an infant.

George H.W. Bush - I was an infant for much of this term, and a toddler for the rest of it. Wasn't all that interested in politics at the time, if memory serves.

Bill Clinton - I remained a toddler through some of his administration, and a young child through the rest. Still no discernible interest in politics.

George W. Bush - I was mad that he won the election, but that's because my parents were Democrats. I still had no real interest in politics during much of his administration, until the last few years. When I did start becoming more active Bush was held to the same standards that I hold Obama too.

You have good knowledge for being a relatively young person. I wish more people paid attention as well as you obviously have. You should have been here to see how Reagan turned it around, it was a masterpeice. Cut taxes across the board, creating 20 million new jobs and INCREASED revenue to the government because he developed a larger working pool from which to draw from. I hope to see that again soon.

Spending also increased under his administration, so that kind of undermines cutting taxes.

 

[Polk]

WikiAnswers - What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression

The Sham of our Current Unemployment Rate Numbers: Lessons from the Great Depression: Part X. Data Mining. » Dr. Housing Bubble Blog

Great Depression Unemployment Didn't Hit 25 Percent Overnight: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

So that's that.

Now onto why I allegedly didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. Do you know for a 100% fact that I did not?

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Here is a very simple question for you Polk. Do you know anyone who is looking for work? Have they found a job? That's how you judge the economy. I know a whole lot of people looking for work, some for months, and I can't tell you of one person that I know of that has found work.

I know several and most of them haven't. Personal tales don't give the real picture though.

 

[Polk]

Finally a poster who can back it up. Thank You, black men have an unemployment rate of 35%, that's higher than the 25% during the great depression. Not good news for anyone, but until I see people getting jobs, it ain't over, no matter how the government attempts to spin it. In Fact, many are getting tired of this spin, especially when they have their grown children move back home with them in order to live. No one is buying the spin.

We have lost an additional 3 million jobs since Obama took office, he promised after the stimulus bill that he got passed that unemployment would not go above 8% we are now at 10.2% and rising and the real unemployment rate, counting those that have fallen off the count, is somewhere around 17%.

Except he didn't back it up. His claim that people with part-time jobs who desired to work full-time were considered unemployed during the Depression is still without any evidence.

Those people are considered under-employed in today's world and they are not counted as un-employed. The 10.2 % are people still drawing unemployment benefits, the 17% represents those people who no longer qualify or have simply given up looking for work.

False. The 17 percent figure represents all the unemployed, discouraged workers, and those working part-time who would rather be working full time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

None of those links prove your claim.
The first one only says that people no longer looking for work were counted then. It says nothing about counting part-time workers.
The second one criticizes how we calculate now, then then talks about the Depression, but doesn't tie the two together.
The third link just says our system undercounts.

You didn't hold previous administrations to the same standard. If you had, you would have mentioned it. Your silence speaks volumes.

Well my exact claim was, "It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit." I didn't mention anything about part-time workers specifically. You brought that up. The links I provided proved my claim.

I brought that up because it represents a significant different. I asked you to show that the unemployed were counted in that way because that's the only way the numbers you were throwing around were relevant. The links you provided don't make that point. They say that our current measures underestimate the number of unemployment. You can still believe that's true without the 17 percent number being valid.

When I did start becoming more active Bush was held to the same standards that I hold Obama too.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know you that well and you seem like a good guy. I will say though that a lot of people who are throwing around the numbers you are were old enough to have clearly stated beleifts then and bashed liberals for "talking down the economy" for talking about underemployment using the same measures they consider "real unemployment" today.

Part-time workers being counted and those workers who have simply given up looking for a job would both be significant and relevant.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, and I'd say you're probably right. Much of the talk is partisan in nature. I, however, am not a Republican or a Democrat.

 

[Polk]

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

Can you source your claim that part-time workers who would prefer full-time work were counted as unemployed during the Depression? And, even if that was the case, why didn't you hold previous administrations to the same standard?

Obama said he was going to change DC. Hold it to a higher standard. We are simply measuring him by what he claimed. I note many liberals are quick to use Bush as the standard. Now that Obama is using many of the same policies, you switch to Carter. Obama said higher standard not slightly above the zero threadhold. I would suggest distancing yourself from Obama quickly, if you want a viable party.

I'd love to see you source this claim that Obama said underemployed workers should be counted as unemployed.

 

[Polk]

You have good knowledge for being a relatively young person. I wish more people paid attention as well as you obviously have. You should have been here to see how Reagan turned it around, it was a masterpeice. Cut taxes across the board, creating 20 million new jobs and INCREASED revenue to the government because he developed a larger working pool from which to draw from. I hope to see that again soon.

Reagan's tax cuts decreased revenue. Revenues increased after Reagan passed a series of tax increases.