Unemployment Rate 14.5 %

[JakeStarkey]

You are describing yourself, brnc. You can't argue, you don't understand logic, you make pronouncements you can't support, you get slapped down, and then you cry.

Nothing has changed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are describing yourself, brnc. You can't argue, you don't understand logic, you make pronouncements you can't support, you get slapped down, and then you cry.

Nothing has changed.

What the fuck is Bribed Republicans? It wasn't Republicans that voted for obamacare.

 

[pinqy]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

Tell us what the real rate was under Reagan in October 1983.

Let's have a comparison here, if we are going to get "real".

To be fair, since the alternative measures were redesigned in 1994, there is no data for the Reagan years for the U-6. Marginally Attached, a major component of the U-6, wasn't even a classification before 94, so it's not even possible to go back and recreate.

 

[Dr.House]

No, 4 years ago it was the democratic congress' fault. 10 demerit points for going off the republican reservation.

Oh that's right! Unless you're a Democrat, then it's Republicans fault from 6 years ago or when Republicans took over the house 2 years ago!

It’s great how this works, you can always, and I do in fact mean always blame the other side. Shit, Obama had a HISTORIC super majority with Dems in the House and Senate and I kid you not you can fill a thread with people blaming the reason Obama didn’t save the country and real ANYTHING from the Bush era evil policies on the MINORITY Republicans…

Bush and his Super majority fucked things up, and Obama with his super majority made things worse… SO it kinda makes you wonder how voting either Rep or Dems in 2012 can make any difference… But most the people in the country and these boards will vote the same anyways!

If Obama had a super-majority, how is it possible that the Republicans in the Senate set a filibuster record in 2009?

Please list those bills and the length of the filibuster...

If you're handlers aren't capable of gathering all that in a reasonable amount of time, try three of them...

Bill and length of filibuster...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

Tell us what the real rate was under Reagan in October 1983.

Let's have a comparison here, if we are going to get "real".

To be fair, since the alternative measures were redesigned in 1994, there is no data for the Reagan years for the U-6. Marginally Attached, a major component of the U-6, wasn't even a classification before 94, so it's not even possible to go back and recreate.

Because Pinqy says so? The Pinqy Corollary? Lame, very lame. A generalization is easily made. Try it.

 

[pinqy]

Tell us what the real rate was under Reagan in October 1983.

Let's have a comparison here, if we are going to get "real".

To be fair, since the alternative measures were redesigned in 1994, there is no data for the Reagan years for the U-6. Marginally Attached, a major component of the U-6, wasn't even a classification before 94, so it's not even possible to go back and recreate.

Because Pinqy says so? The Pinqy Corollary? Lame, very lame. A generalization is easily made. Try it.

What generalization? I'm stating facts. The U-6 is unemployed+marginally attached+part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus marginally attached. It was a measure first introduced in1994. Marginally Attached was not a category before then.

These are facts, not opinion. not because I say so, they're just true. Feel free to try to prove me wrong. But before you do that, read BLS article

 

[snakedoc]

If Obama had a super-majority, how is it possible that the Republicans in the Senate set a filibuster record in 2009?

because you are not big on reading comprehension?

heres one for you; IF they didn't how did obamacare get passed in the senate?

Bribed Republicans.

Actually Obama care got passed by Reid making deals or bribes if you prefer with the so called conservative blue dog Democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh that's right! Unless you're a Democrat, then it's Republicans fault from 6 years ago or when Republicans took over the house 2 years ago!

It’s great how this works, you can always, and I do in fact mean always blame the other side. Shit, Obama had a HISTORIC super majority with Dems in the House and Senate and I kid you not you can fill a thread with people blaming the reason Obama didn’t save the country and real ANYTHING from the Bush era evil policies on the MINORITY Republicans…

Bush and his Super majority fucked things up, and Obama with his super majority made things worse… SO it kinda makes you wonder how voting either Rep or Dems in 2012 can make any difference… But most the people in the country and these boards will vote the same anyways!

If Obama had a super-majority, how is it possible that the Republicans in the Senate set a filibuster record in 2009?

because you are not big on reading comprehension?

heres one for you; IF they didn't how did obamacare get passed in the senate?

There is no such thing as a filibuster proof majority because Senators are never obligated to vote with their caucus.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

Tell us what the real rate was under Reagan in October 1983.

Let's have a comparison here, if we are going to get "real".

I think you could try to do your own research and present it, no problem, this threads more into the here and now though.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Tell us what the real rate was under Reagan in October 1983.

Let's have a comparison here, if we are going to get "real".

Yup, funny how the alternative data is introduced only when politically expedient.

I wonder why that is.


.

If you prefer smoke and mirrors that's your choice, no problem..

The alternate chart does start back in the Clinton years, through Bush and then Obama to the present. Seems fair enough to me!

 

[yidnar]

Nothing a republican president wouldn't make all better with a wave of his hand.

thats all you've got ??

 

[edthecynic]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.

As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday -- just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations -- some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on.

The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

The U6 number is derived from a household survey that includes people who are actually unemployed as well as those who haven’t looked for work in over four weeks, Mathur explained.

“If you’re unemployed and you haven’t been looking for work in the previous four weeks than you’re not considered part of the official unemployed,” she said. The U6 rate, meanwhile, “includes all of those people who are too discouraged to look for work.”

The 120,000 jobs added in March was the smallest increase since October and effectively killed momentum that had been growing in the labor markets since late last year. Forecasts had predicted nonfarm unemployment to rise by 203,000. The economy had added more than 200,000 jobs in each of the past two months.

Time to Focus on the Real Unemployment Rate | Fox Business

other links

Alternate Unemployment Charts

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

You are a liar as usual. Your own Table A-15 link proves you and AEI are liars.

The U-4 not the U-6 is the rate for unemployed plus those who have given up looking for work. U-6 rate is the UNDERemployment rate and includes additional groups of workers like part time workers who would like full time work, not just discouraged workers.

The U-4 rate is 8.7%

From your OWN link;

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

 

[Lumpy 1]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.

As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday -- just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations -- some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on.

The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

The U6 number is derived from a household survey that includes people who are actually unemployed as well as those who haven’t looked for work in over four weeks, Mathur explained.

“If you’re unemployed and you haven’t been looking for work in the previous four weeks than you’re not considered part of the official unemployed,” she said. The U6 rate, meanwhile, “includes all of those people who are too discouraged to look for work.”

The 120,000 jobs added in March was the smallest increase since October and effectively killed momentum that had been growing in the labor markets since late last year. Forecasts had predicted nonfarm unemployment to rise by 203,000. The economy had added more than 200,000 jobs in each of the past two months.

Time to Focus on the Real Unemployment Rate | Fox Business

other links

Alternate Unemployment Charts

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

You are a liar as usual. Your own Table A-15 link proves you and AEI are liars.

The U-4 not the U-6 is the rate for unemployed plus those who have given up looking for work. U-6 rate is the UNDERemployment rate and includes additional groups of workers like part time workers who would like full time work, not just discouraged workers.

The U-4 rate is 8.7%

From your OWN link;

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

Why do you think I provided 3 links?...(the liar comment was uncalled for) ya dink!

 

[Lumpy 1]

mmm another round ...?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lumpy1 still won't post the 10,.8% from October 1983, which translated to more than 18% real unemployment under Reagan, almost 1 out of 5 American adults were not working.

 

[Ravage]

Boy BushCo REALLY drove the country into the shitter.
And all you republicans can do is WHINE about how SOMEONE ELSE isn't cleaning it up fast enough or to your liking.

Don't let reality hit you dumbass CONZ in the piehole or anything, but it's not like you have passed anything in the house to help with the jobs situation.
Apparently loyalty to your party trumps loyalty to the people elected republicans are SUPPOSED to represent. If that were not the case, you would have sought a compromise with dems and done ANYTHING about the jobs situation.

If you want jobs, you spend government money until the private sector makes up the difference.


Oh, and one more thing. Consumer spending is the largest driver of our economy. Perhaps you could explain to us all how people are supposed to spend more when their wages have remained FLAT for the last 30 years while execs took home the money they USED to reinvest in their businesses because their tax rate was cut in half? What did the Reagan Revolution substitute for increasing wages? Cheap credit. THAT sure worked out great, didn't it?

GET IT DOLTS?
You don't get a better economy until the MIDDLE CLASS and POOR do BETTER!

Now, name ONE PIECE of deficit neutral legislation that the GOP has passed that helps the middle class and poor in the last 20 years. Go ahead.

I wouldn't look to the bankruptcy bill from a few years back...You RethugliCONZ made credit card payments the same priority as child support payments. REAL concern for families and the middle class on display there.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Lumpy1 still won't post the 10,.8% from October 1983, which translated to more than 18% real unemployment under Reagan, almost 1 out of 5 American adults were not working.

Gads Man, I wasn't aware of it (it's old news) but as I recall this was after just after the Carter Years.

Interesting reading for Ya..

Much has been written about the budget deficits during the Reagan Administration, usually pointing to President Reagan as the one to blame, in an attempt to cast a shadow on the viability of "Reaganomics," or "Trickle-down-theory" economics," or "Supply-side" economics.

Of course Reagan's across-the-board tax rates were, and are still, legendary, lowering the top rate from a whopping 70% during the Carter years, all the way down to 28%. Much of prior economic theory had believed income tax cuts, of such enormous magnitude, would have the effect of decreasing revenues coming into the treasury.

The opposite happened. How can this be? How can the government "charge less" and "get more?" On surface, it does sound counter-intuitive, or like I like to say, "bass-ackwards." Even the elder George Bush (who eventually ended up being Reagan's V.P.), had previously, during the campaign in which he was running against Reagan in the Republican primary, "Voodoo Economics."

However, more tax revenue was collected during every year of the two Reagan terms than had ever been collected and any single previous year in the history of the United States. By the last year of the Reagan administration in 1988, the federal government (in that year alone), collected over $391,000,000,000 more than any year of the just prior Carter administration. In percentage terms, the federal government took in 76% more that year than it had ever collected in any year of any other administration!

Why, then were there large deficits? Because as much as the tax revenues increased, government spending increased even more! It makes one wonder if there is any amount of money high enough for the bureaucrats in Washington not to spend.

There are several very logical reasons why tax revenue increases, especially when taxes are cut on the rich. One is that they, like all Americans, don't mind paying their "fair share." Therefore, they are not compelled to use tax shelters, usually with no inherent economic viability, to avoid high taxes. Loop holes are not used. Money is not shipped overseas to avoid paying taxes in the U. S. Tax savings from the wealthy are reinvested, which helps the economy, and creates even more revenue. Money that was being wasted on taxes is used to grow businesses and hire more workers. Individuals find that their paychecks are larger, can afford to purchase things that they previously weren't able to because that money was being siphoned by electronic tube directly to the IRS!

Tax revenues went up when John F. Kennedy cut tax rates during the 1960s. I wonder if the left would demonize JFK if he tried that today?

Newsvine - The "Reagan" Deficits of the '80's...whose to blame?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lumpy1 still won't post the 10,.8% from October 1983, which translated to more than 18% real unemployment under Reagan, almost 1 out of 5 American adults were not working.

Gads Man, I wasn't aware of it (it's old news) but as I recall this was after just after the Carter Years.

It was in the 34th month of Reagan's first term, not immediately after the JC 'years'.

Nice try, Lumpy1, but no cigar.

 

[Vast LWC]

Tell us what the real rate was under Reagan in October 1983.

Let's have a comparison here, if we are going to get "real".

To be fair, since the alternative measures were redesigned in 1994, there is no data for the Reagan years for the U-6. Marginally Attached, a major component of the U-6, wasn't even a classification before 94, so it's not even possible to go back and recreate.

These are both good points.

One can, however, look back and find the percentage of the population that was employed then and now.

And, oddly, it is almost exactly the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubts Lumpy1 is going to agree that what was good for Reagan is good for Obama.

I do believe what is good for the country is good for all of us, whether dem or pub or non-political.

I have no use for ideologues, period.