The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Faun]

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

The difference is ... when an employee's performance is measured, they are not judged by the performance of others. If your company sets a goal for you, you are judged solely on your own performance of getting that job done.

Whereas Bush benefited from being handed a low unemployment rate from his predecessor -- which is the reason his average is as low as it is.

You seriously believe that an employee's performance is not judged by the performance of others? Good thing you didn't work for me. If your performance is significantly lower than your equally paid counterpart, guess who goes first? Guess who gets promoted first.

Your fantasy obviously is tainted by being a low level worker who is measured by count, rather than by quality. Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

My performance was based on me meeting my goals. Nothing more, nothing less. It had nothing to do with me assuming someone else's goals.

Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

 

[Spare_change]

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

The difference is ... when an employee's performance is measured, they are not judged by the performance of others. If your company sets a goal for you, you are judged solely on your own performance of getting that job done.

Whereas Bush benefited from being handed a low unemployment rate from his predecessor -- which is the reason his average is as low as it is.

You seriously believe that an employee's performance is not judged by the performance of others? Good thing you didn't work for me. If your performance is significantly lower than your equally paid counterpart, guess who goes first? Guess who gets promoted first.

Your fantasy obviously is tainted by being a low level worker who is measured by count, rather than by quality. Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

My performance was based on me meeting my goals. Nothing more, nothing less. It had nothing to do with me assuming someone else's goals.

Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

Own my business?

Actually, I own three businesses ... and have built 4 others. Meet YOUR goals, and you might be employed next week ....meet my goals and you might actually get somewhere.

 

[Faun]

The difference is ... when an employee's performance is measured, they are not judged by the performance of others. If your company sets a goal for you, you are judged solely on your own performance of getting that job done.

Whereas Bush benefited from being handed a low unemployment rate from his predecessor -- which is the reason his average is as low as it is.

You seriously believe that an employee's performance is not judged by the performance of others? Good thing you didn't work for me. If your performance is significantly lower than your equally paid counterpart, guess who goes first? Guess who gets promoted first.

Your fantasy obviously is tainted by being a low level worker who is measured by count, rather than by quality. Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

My performance was based on me meeting my goals. Nothing more, nothing less. It had nothing to do with me assuming someone else's goals.

Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

Own my business?

Actually, I own three businesses ... and have built 4 others. Meet YOUR goals, and you might be employed next week ....meet my goals and you might actually get somewhere.

Thanks anyway,but I'm doin' ok.

 

[Spare_change]

You seriously believe that an employee's performance is not judged by the performance of others? Good thing you didn't work for me. If your performance is significantly lower than your equally paid counterpart, guess who goes first? Guess who gets promoted first.

Your fantasy obviously is tainted by being a low level worker who is measured by count, rather than by quality. Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

My performance was based on me meeting my goals. Nothing more, nothing less. It had nothing to do with me assuming someone else's goals.

Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

Own my business?

Actually, I own three businesses ... and have built 4 others. Meet YOUR goals, and you might be employed next week ....meet my goals and you might actually get somewhere.

Thanks anyway,but I'm doin' ok.

Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

 

[Faun]

My performance was based on me meeting my goals. Nothing more, nothing less. It had nothing to do with me assuming someone else's goals.

Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

Own my business?

Actually, I own three businesses ... and have built 4 others. Meet YOUR goals, and you might be employed next week ....meet my goals and you might actually get somewhere.

Thanks anyway,but I'm doin' ok.

Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

LOL

Thanks again, but I write the software that flips the burgers.

 

[Spare_change]

Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

Own my business?

Actually, I own three businesses ... and have built 4 others. Meet YOUR goals, and you might be employed next week ....meet my goals and you might actually get somewhere.

Thanks anyway,but I'm doin' ok.

Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

LOL

Thanks again, but I write the software that flips the burgers.

That explains it ... I own the engineering and manufacturing firm that tells you what to do. BTW - I've got about 135 code writers, too ... but they're expendable.

 

[Kosh]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Maybe it had something to do with inheriting a godam crash next to the worst one in the nation's history. Have you conveniently forgotten Bush and the absolute crash he had in December before he left office in January?

Another debunked far left drone post using far left religious dogma not supported in reality!

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Show a reliable source which negates one line!

The BLS is a government source and reliable.

Silly far left drone!

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

Own my business?

Actually, I own three businesses ... and have built 4 others. Meet YOUR goals, and you might be employed next week ....meet my goals and you might actually get somewhere.

Thanks anyway,but I'm doin' ok.

Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

LOL

Thanks again, but I write the software that flips the burgers.

That explains it ... I own the engineering and manufacturing firm that tells you what to do. BTW - I've got about 135 code writers, too ... but they're expendable.

Everybody is. My company got bought out last year and they're closing our office next week. They announced it in October. All I did was post my resume online and the very next day I was getting calls from recruiters. Within a week, I got a call from one which panned out and after 2 more weeks of interviews & background checks, they made me an offer. More money, potentially bigger bonus, close to home, a win all the way around. The best part is my current company gave me 6 months severance plus 5 weeks of unused vacation time. I'll be taking in double salary for the next 7 months.

So yeah, we're expendable ... but good Java developers are in big demand. Getting laid off was the best thing to happen for my career this year.

Again, thanks for your generous offer to flip burgers. I'll get back to ya. LOL

 

[Campbell]

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

The difference is ... when an employee's performance is measured, they are not judged by the performance of others. If your company sets a goal for you, you are judged solely on your own performance of getting that job done.

Whereas Bush benefited from being handed a low unemployment rate from his predecessor -- which is the reason his average is as low as it is.

You seriously believe that an employee's performance is not judged by the performance of others? Good thing you didn't work for me. If your performance is significantly lower than your equally paid counterpart, guess who goes first? Guess who gets promoted first.

Your fantasy obviously is tainted by being a low level worker who is measured by count, rather than by quality. Just keep flippin' dem burgers.

My performance was based on me meeting my goals. Nothing more, nothing less. It had nothing to do with me assuming someone else's goals.

Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.

LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.

Like ol' McSweeny said, "You've Got It Made If You Don't Fuck Up!"

 

[U2Edge]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

 

[Dr Grump]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

The president who inherited the worst economy since WWII was....





.....Barack Obama.

Your point is?

 

[U2Edge]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

I better not see you commenting on how Trump is doing after February 20, 2017. You'll need to wait until December 20, 2020 before you can say anything of if he gets re-elected you'll have to wait until December 20, 2024. According to you, only the first month and the last month matter, period. So I'll be looking at your postings in the coming months to see if you really believe that.

I will acknowledge monthly jobs added or lost and compare to Obamas.

I don't give a shit about average

Ah, so you don't care about the monthly unemployment rate eh? I suppose you did not care about your GRADE POINT AVERAGE in school either eh? Do you think schools should do away with that as well?

 

[U2Edge]

Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office. Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office

Well, one could make that same argument about Bush's average UE rate. Was it due to Clinton's steady 4% UE rate that he passed on to Bush who skyrocketed it to 7.4% and rising when he left?

It initially sky rocketed to 6.3% in 2003, but you would not know that if your another one of these people who don't want to look at the monthly unemployment rate. There are 96 months of unemployment rates from Bush's time in office. The best way to evaluate that entire time is to take the average. If you take that 7.4% rate, your only looking at one month of data from December 2008. That does not tell you anything about April 2008 when it was at 4.9% or the years 2006 through 2007 when for nearly 24 months the unemployment rate remained below 5%. But I guess you would credit the unemployment rate in 2007 with a President that left office in January 2001. Hell, I bet you would credit Clinton if the December 2008 figure was below 5% as well. Very telling indeed!

 

[U2Edge]

The only things I saw Bush do was cut tax rates for his rich buds twice and start two wars! Oh wait.....I forgot that he doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. That's what the modern Republican party does, borrows from foreign banks to cover it's spending.

Bush also doubled the unemployed from 6 million to 12 million.

For most of Bush's time in office the monthly unemployment rate was below 5.5%. In fact, the President with the most months of unemployment below 6% is GEORGE W. BUSH. He holds that record. #1.

 

[U2Edge]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Maybe it had something to do with inheriting a godam crash next to the worst one in the nation's history. Have you conveniently forgotten Bush and the absolute crash he had a few weeks before he left office in January?

Well, any President can blame all their problems on the previous President. Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office. Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office which means on average he was close to full employment nearly every month of his time in office and also with an average above 66% in the labor force participation rate. On average it was much easier to get a job or hold job while Bush was in office then it was while Obama was in office. Obama averaged 7.48% Unemployment throughout his time in office(one month left so the figure is not complete).

And the average unemployment rate is so meaningless, that Obama's average is lower than Reagan's; and many on the right consider Reagan a deity when it comes to creating jobs. Even worse, by averaging out the unemployment rate, you can't tell the difference between one president who starts with an unemployment rate of 12% and lowers it 1 point every year and leaves office 8 years later with an unemployment rate of 4% -- with a president who starts with an unemployment rate of 4% and leaves office 4 years later with an unemployment rate of 12%, increasing it by 2 points every year.

Statistically, they would have identical unemployment rate averages; only the former would be considered a jobs czar while the latter would be thrown out of office after 1 term.

8 years is a long time during which unemployment will rise and fall many times. Its a mistake to cherry pick two points in time so far away from each other and declare success or failure just based on that. Are the only important months of your life over the last 96 months, last November and that December from 8 years ago. Are you saying that your success's or failures in anything from 2015 don't matter?

No one cherry picks a students grades his first month in High School and his last month in High School to evaluate how they did. Every month in school or on the job matters and only fool would completely ignore 94 months out of a 96 month Presidency. A 96 month Presidency is enough time for both many economic success's and failures which heavily impact peoples lives but could totally be left out if you only look at month one and month 96.

Would you evaluate Lincolns performance as Commander and Chief or that of his Generals simply by the first month of the war and the last. You would actually completely ignore a battle like Gettysburg. Not a single mention of it, not even a footnote. I suppose World War II should be just about Pearl Harbor and the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan. The fact that the United States fought and defeated Germany in between those two points is not relevant right?

The fact is, if you want to accurately look and evaluate anything, you have to consider ALL THE DATA. Simply looking at the first month of an administration and the last month of an administration does not do that!

No, it's not a mistake. As has been brought to your attention numerous times, a president starting with a high unemployment rate and ending with a low unemployment rate has done a better job than one doing the reverse, going from a low unemployment rate to a high unemployment rate. Even though thet could have the same average.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush's average unemployment rate is due to him starting at a low 4.2% and the housing bubble (which led to the collapse). Bush never got the unemployment rate lower than what he was given.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Clinton created 23 million jobs. Bush created 1 million (and they were all government jobs); yet Bush's average is only slightly higher than Clinton's.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Reagan created 16 million jobs. Obama created 11 million (15 million since the recovery). Bush created 1 million. Yet Bush's average is significantly lower than both Reagan and Obama.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush has the second worst record on job growth recorded in our country's history. He's only the second president (Hoover is the first) recorded to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

Averaging it out conceals that.

So yeah, if your goal is to make Bush's record appear better than it actually was by concealing all of the above since his policies did nothing but hurt the economy, then yes, I can see why it's so important to you to average out the unemployment rate.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Its easy to create jobs after a sudden economic downturn. Keeping the economy in full employment indefinitely is much more difficult and so far in history has proved impossible. Bush kept the labor market at full employment or near full employment for most of the 8 years he was in office. You see that with the average that is taken! Using only two months of data, the first month in office and the last won't tell you that.

WHEN YOU USE ONLY THE FIRST MONTH AND THE LAST MONTH OUT OF A 96 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, YOU ARE CONCEALING 98% OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THAT PERSON WAS PRESIDENT! NINETY EIGHT PERCENT!

So I crown you the KING OF CONCEALMENT since you believe its appropriate to not look at NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of a Presidents time in office. The only thing that matters according to you is the first month and the last month. To hell with the other 94 months.

I take you think students should not have their performance in school judged by Grade Point Average either, right?

 

[rightwinger]

The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

I better not see you commenting on how Trump is doing after February 20, 2017. You'll need to wait until December 20, 2020 before you can say anything of if he gets re-elected you'll have to wait until December 20, 2024. According to you, only the first month and the last month matter, period. So I'll be looking at your postings in the coming months to see if you really believe that.

I will acknowledge monthly jobs added or lost and compare to Obamas.

I don't give a shit about average

Ah, so you don't care about the monthly unemployment rate eh? I suppose you did not care about your GRADE POINT AVERAGE in school either eh? Do you think schools should do away with that as well?

You are not given a failing grade point average in your Freshman year....Obama was

 

[U2Edge]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

The difference is ... when an employee's performance is measured, they are not judged by the performance of others. If your company sets a goal for you, you are judged solely on your own performance of getting that job done.

Whereas Bush benefited from being handed a low unemployment rate from his predecessor -- which is the reason his average is as low as it is.

Clinton left office on January 20, 2001. Bush's time in office, his work, starts after that. But I guess where you work the person who is no longer there continues to get credit for the work you do for years on end. Hell, I bet if the unemployment rate had been below 5% in December 2008, you would say it was because of Clinton. LOL

 

[U2Edge]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

OK... then with GWB we had a recession that officially began 3/1/01... let's blame Clinton if that's how you want to play it!

That was a mild recession which started after Clinton left office and was only a recession because of 9/11.

Yep, if it was something bad it was Bush's fault. If it was something good, you can thank Clinton for it. All the way up through December 2008! LOL

 

[U2Edge]

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

I better not see you commenting on how Trump is doing after February 20, 2017. You'll need to wait until December 20, 2020 before you can say anything of if he gets re-elected you'll have to wait until December 20, 2024. According to you, only the first month and the last month matter, period. So I'll be looking at your postings in the coming months to see if you really believe that.

I will acknowledge monthly jobs added or lost and compare to Obamas.

I don't give a shit about average

Ah, so you don't care about the monthly unemployment rate eh? I suppose you did not care about your GRADE POINT AVERAGE in school either eh? Do you think schools should do away with that as well?

You are not given a failing grade point average in your Freshman year....Obama was

Oh you can be which is why students have to repeat that grade if its High School or drop out of University if were talking about college. Obama gets to remain all four years no matter how bad he does.

 

[Dr Grump]

The only things I saw Bush do was cut tax rates for his rich buds twice and start two wars! Oh wait.....I forgot that he doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. That's what the modern Republican party does, borrows from foreign banks to cover it's spending.

Bush also doubled the unemployed from 6 million to 12 million.

For most of Bush's time in office the monthly unemployment rate was below 5.5%. In fact, the President with the most months of unemployment below 6% is GEORGE W. BUSH. He holds that record. #1.

And like every action there is a reaction. He left the joint in a mess and Obama sewed the seeds of recovery. The US unemployment rate at the moment is 4.9 percent. You can thank Obama for that.

Your analogy is so full of BS it's hard to know where to begin. It's like there's been this massive car accident, and somebody just happens upon it, and you blame them for it.