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

[Faun]

The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.


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

Gerald Ford: 7.77%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.31%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 36 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63%, up from 62.7% in January 2018.

If 4.1% or lower unemployment continues for the next 6 months Trump will reach #1 on this list with the lowest average unemployment rate ever for a US President. But keeping the unemployment rate this low for the rest of his Presidency will be very difficult. The rate will likely rise which may push his position back down on the list even if he does briefly reach #1 this year.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"; in ;this post we see the missing one: A lie by omission.

Ford, Reagan, Obama and Carter all inherited a shit hole economy.

Thus this thread is a damn lie by omission using statistics.

He's been told that repeatedly. Reality is too pesky to interfere with his dementia.

Yet, you keep coming to my thread. Why?

You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

 

[asaratis]

All in the thread "313,000 Jobs"


WTF are you smoking? Who set the bar at 300,000K? 299,999K is “sub-par job growth” in you alternative universe?

#182 #194





Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is still around 40% as we now have over 100 million people who are not working. #77



Unemployment is a totally phony number. #81



The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good. #91



Who’s crying? All I see are folks on the left making fun of folks on the right for trashing Obama’s good numbers as phony; where now suddenly, for some reason, those same numbers are real. #95

You're an idiot. And that's not a lie either.

WTF are you smoking? Who set the bar at 300,000K? 299,999K is “sub-par job growth” in you alternative universe?​

That is not a lie. Someone claimed anything less than 300,000 jobs added per month was "sub-par job growth" and I challenged him/her/whatever on it. What you're idiotically calling a lie is me mistakenly typing "300,000K" instead of either "300,000" or "300K." My intent was clear since I was responding to someone posting about 300K monthly jobs.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is still around 40% as we now have over 100 million people who are not working.​

You're right that 40% unemployment is a lie -- Donald Trump said it was 42% when it was about a point higher than it is now and I was mocking him.

Unemployment is a totally phony number.​

You're right, that is a lie -- Donald Trump said it and I was quoting him.

The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good.​

You're right, that is a lie -- Donald Trump said it and I was quoting him.

Who’s crying? All I see are folks on the left making fun of folks on the right for trashing Obama’s good numbers as phony; where now suddenly, for some reason, those same numbers are real.​

That is not a lie. Folks on the right were calling the falling unemployment rate, "phony numbers." See my Trump quotes above as an example. Now those folks call the unemployment figures real.

Unemployment numbers vary depending on how they are calculated.

What's the 'Real' Jobless Rate? - FactCheck.org

You lied when you posted 300,000K. I would have written it off as a stupid error, but you repeated the same 300,000K in a later post.

You lied when you said all unemployment rate numbers are phony. They are phony. They are calculated in at least 4 different ways.

Then you lied about your own lie by saying the Obama's good numbers were being attacked as phony. Both of these cannot be true.

Spin as you wish. You lied. You lie when it fits your narrative. That is expected of liberals.

You remain an imbecile. Again, I was quoting Trump when I said the unemployment numbers are phony. And there's only one official unemployment rate. And of course Obama's good numbers were attacked as phony -- hence, the Trump quote.

Again, you did not acknowledge that you were quoting anybody. You merely repeated lies. It is you that is the imbecile here. That is scary in that you appear to be among the small group of liberals here that have the higher intellect within the group.

What’s predictable, and not scary, is how you conservatives lie, lie, lie. No wonder the right elected Lyin’ David Dennison.

You claim I didn’t acknowledge I was quoting anyone — but that’s false. That’s just you, lying yet again.

In that same thread you pulled those quotes from... I said, ”I was quoting Donald Trump. He said that.”

Now say you’re sorry.

I'm not sorry. Saying that you are quoting Trump in one post does not translate to quoting Trump in all posts thereafter...and I do believe your claim was after the fact.

 

[U2Edge]

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"; in ;this post we see the missing one: A lie by omission.

Ford, Reagan, Obama and Carter all inherited a shit hole economy.

Thus this thread is a damn lie by omission using statistics.

He's been told that repeatedly. Reality is too pesky to interfere with his dementia.

Yet, you keep coming to my thread. Why?

You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

 

[Faun]

He's been told that repeatedly. Reality is too pesky to interfere with his dementia.

Yet, you keep coming to my thread. Why?

You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

No, it’s a simple number, but breaking it down by presidential terms is meaningless.

And my mother tried, but she failed in that department. I believe in treating idiots like idiots.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He's been told that repeatedly. Reality is too pesky to interfere with his dementia.

Yet, you keep coming to my thread. Why?

You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

 

[U2Edge]

Yet, you keep coming to my thread. Why?

You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

 

[U2Edge]

Yet, you keep coming to my thread. Why?

You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

No, it’s a simple number, but breaking it down by presidential terms is meaningless.

And my mother tried, but she failed in that department. I believe in treating idiots like idiots.

Its what the average man on the street faced in terms of getting a job while a certain person occupied the White House. Its very relevant.

Most mature, honest, professional, and objective people don't engage in name calling. Most left that behind in childhood if they ever engaged in it. It adds nothing to your point of view and if anything weakens it.

 

[Faun]

You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

 

[U2Edge]

Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. Did your mother raise you to behave that way towards other people?

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

 

[Faun]

Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

 

[edthecynic]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

 

[edthecynic]

Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.

So you are saying that the first and last month is just as worthless and incomplete as the average without the overall trend line.
Actually no you are not, you are too STUPID to see the impotance of the overall trend line!

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.


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

Gerald Ford: 7.77%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.30%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 35 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9%, down from 63% in February 2018.

This is the longest period of time that the unemployment rate has been at 4.1% or lower, 6 months now, since the 15 month period it was at that rate or lower during the Clinton administration, October 1999 through December 2000. Before that, you have to go back to the late 1960s and the early 1950s to find unemployment this low for months on end.

 

[Faun]

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.


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

Gerald Ford: 7.77%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.30%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 35 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9%, down from 63% in February 2018.

This is the longest period of time that the unemployment rate has been at 4.1% or lower, 6 months now, since the 15 month period it was at that rate or lower during the Clinton administration, October 1999 through December 2000. Before that, you have to go back to the late 1960s and the early 1950s to find unemployment this low for months on end.

And still as meaningless as it was last month.

 

[U2Edge]

Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.

So you are saying that the first and last month is just as worthless and incomplete as the average without the overall trend line.
Actually no you are not, you are too STUPID to see the impotance of the overall trend line!

Unemployment goes up and down many times during an administration. There is rarely if ever a perfect trend line going down every month for 96 months or one going up ever month for 96 months. You typically will have multiple cycles of up and down trends over a 96 month period of time. You take the average to understand what the man on the street was dealing with typically during a particular administrations time in office, from month to month. You won't see any of that if you just look at the first month and the last month of a 96 month period. The average is important to know and is very relevant. That's why there are such things as GPA Grade Point Average for students, and other methods of assessing a workers average performance on a job. If averages don't matter as you say, then that criteria would never been used in rating students or workers.

Finally, if you think this is stupid or I'm stupid, why do you even bother looking at the thread? The fact that you keep posting in here only undermines your claim in that regard.

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.


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

Gerald Ford: 7.77%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.30%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 35 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9%, down from 63% in February 2018.

This is the longest period of time that the unemployment rate has been at 4.1% or lower, 6 months now, since the 15 month period it was at that rate or lower during the Clinton administration, October 1999 through December 2000. Before that, you have to go back to the late 1960s and the early 1950s to find unemployment this low for months on end.

And still as meaningless as it was last month.

Yet, you sit their waiting for days on end(an entire month) to post in this thread. If its meaningless, why bother even clicking on the thread? Your participation in this thread only increases its visibility to others.

 

[U2Edge]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

 

[U2Edge]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit".

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

 

[Faun]

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

The lie is you assigning a value to a president as though it reflects on the job they did regarding employment; which, as you’ve been shown over and over again, it does no such thing.

 

[AntiTrump]

President Obama created 17.267 million jobs by the end of December 2016, a 12.8 percent increase. There were 152.111 million people employed at the end of his term. That's compared to 134.844 million working at the end of the Bush Administration.

But that doesn't give the total picture. The economy lost 8.7 million jobs as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. It kept shedding them until January 2010. Since that low point, Obama created 22.309 million jobs, a 17.2 percent increase.

Obama attacked the Great Recession with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It created jobs through public works. Many of those jobs were in construction. That successfully reduced the unemployment rate. But that meant Obama increased the debt by $7.9 trillion, a 67 percent increase. That drove the debt to GDP ratio to 104 percent.

It didn't stimulate demand as much as creating the same number of better paying high-tech jobs. In fact, jobs created after the last few recessions have led to greater income inequality, as re-hired workers became willing to take jobs that paid less. The high level of long-term unemployed and underemployed meant that trend only continued.

Job creation would have been stronger during Obama's term if Congress hadn't passed sequestration. In his last FOMC meeting, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke noted that these austerity measures forced the government to shed 600,000 jobs in four years. In the prior recovery, the economy added 400,000 jobs during the same period.

Obama outline his job creation strategies in his State of the Union Addresses and the American Jobs Act.