Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Publius1787, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,517
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +567
    Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

    BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
    BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

    Change in Unemployment
    7.6% Jan 2009
    6.7% Dec 2013
    Difference = 0.9%

    Change in Number of Unemployed
    11,616,000 Jan 2009
    10,351,000 Dec 2013
    Difference = 1,265,000 less workers unemployed

    Change in the Number of Employed
    142,099,000 Jan 2009
    144,586,000 Dec 2013
    Difference = + 2,487,000 net jobs created

    Change in Labor Force Participation Rate
    65.5% Jan 2009
    62.8% Dec 2013
    Difference = 2.7% of the labor force stopped participating.

    Total Not in Labor Force
    49,455,000 Jan 2009
    55,220,000 Dec 2013
    Difference = 5,765,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

    Jobs to Dropouts
    Average net Jobs Created Per Year: 497,400
    Average # of Labor Force Dropouts per Year: 1,153,000
    Difference: For Every 1 net job created under Obama 2.32 people have given up looking for work.

    Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office. In real numbers, Obama can boast that 2,487,000 net jobs were created for Americans under his stewardship in 5 years (497,400 net jobs per year average). He can also boast that those eligible for work and able to work while not looking for work increased by 5,765,000 (A labor force participation drop out rate of 1,153,000 per year). In other words, for every net job created since January 2009, 2.32 people have given up looking for work. If we were to start on the month Obama took office, fair or not, and compared the employment situation to today, we are still worse off today in terms of employment than the day he took office.

    Conclusion: Ceteris paribus (and they are not) Thus far, though we look to be catching up and the economy is growing, the economy has not grown enough in accordance with the increase in workforce population so as to maintain an employment rate that would be less than that of when Obama took office.

    I hope I used ceteris paribus correctly :eusa_think:

    Your Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2014
  2. Avorysuds
    Offline

    Avorysuds Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    12,774
    Thanks Received:
    1,456
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Eugene Oregon
    Ratings:
    +1,600
    It's like many said in the past and now the media is finally unable to not report on... The UE rate going down is due to people leaving the work force and that is a bad thing. Less people are working today than 1-2-3-4-5 years ago, take your pick. Obama and his policies have been devastating coming after 8 years of horrible policies under Bush.

    If the FED-R actually starts to taper off spending, things will probably get far worse and the media simply can't avoid reporting it. Make no mistake, the Media will place the blame on anyone and anything other than the policies in place that caused the problem.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2014
  3. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    9,551
    Thanks Received:
    1,551
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +2,494
    Those numbers will be manipulated for the uninformed until they get all the guns, then they won't care who knows.
     
  4. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,517
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +567
    Indeed, less people as a percentage of the total labor force are working than 5 years ago, however, more people are in fact working due to a small amount of economic expansion. Nevertheless, the expansion has not been enough to bring employment back up to the amount Obama started with. The labor force has in fact grown due to kids graduating into the workforce, which makes unemployment go down all the slower and labor force participation go down all the faster.
     
  5. Joe Steel
    Offline

    Joe Steel Class Warrior

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,052
    Thanks Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Ratings:
    +119
    You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

    The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Avorysuds
    Offline

    Avorysuds Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    12,774
    Thanks Received:
    1,456
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Eugene Oregon
    Ratings:
    +1,600
    I think the real issue is accountability and credibility. If there is good news people give all that credit to Obama, and he arrogantly accepts that credit. When things are bad, get worse or are discovered under Obama's watch and policies.... It's Republicans fault, or conservatives, or ATM's, or Rush L, Glenn B, TP, Bush. Reagan, Harding and all whites that don't agree with Obama.

    On one had many claim Obama saved the US from a depression, Obama accepts that. On the other hand less people are working, the poor and middle class are more poor than when Obama took over and that can all be explained by "It's out of the Presidents power!" Yet staving off a depression was well with in Obama's powers apparently....
     
  7. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    9,551
    Thanks Received:
    1,551
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +2,494
    Nothing's ever his fault.
     
  8. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,517
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +567
    I agree. I thought I made this clear when I noted "rightfully or wrongfully" in the above post. Nevertheless, Obama was the one who has noted many times that the government can play a role in creating jobs and thus far in his presidency he is at a net loss in employment as a percentage of the population. Indeed it was him who coined terms such as "recovery summer," and his administration, that predicted such a demonstrably inaccurate economic reaction to his recovery plan, that according to the White House's own predictions it did nothing to help the employment situation.

    [​IMG]

    How many pivots toward jobs has Obama made?
    How many times have we seen Obama state that he has a "laser like focus" on jobs?
    Wasn't the trillion dollar stimulus supposed to create jobs?
    Wasn't Obamacare supposed to create jobs?
    Wasn't cash for clunkers supposed to create jobs?
    Wasn't a two year unemployment extension supposed to create jobs?
    How many other Democrat championed bills has Obama signed into law that were supposed to create jobs?
    If the chart above was supposed to be the case for stimulus job creation then shouldn't all of Obamas "job creating" measures have at least brought employment back to the blue/lightblue line?
    The fact of the matter is that the White house assumed that the job market was within their control, which is why they released the above chart. Therefore it is only right that Obama should be held accountable to such economic assumptions and promises.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2014
  9. Avorysuds
    Offline

    Avorysuds Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    12,774
    Thanks Received:
    1,456
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Eugene Oregon
    Ratings:
    +1,600

    I fully agree, we have trillion spent on stimulus that the use was defined to be for "creating jobs." Here we are at a net loss of jobs and even pointing the the incredibly misleading and inaccurate u3 UE stats we are still doing terrible. We look at the workforce participation rate for one reason under Obama, because ever single person knows things are worse off and claiming the official UE rate at 7% is bullshit.

    Obama himself has made looking at the UE pointless. Obama used it as a lie to cover his tracks on trillions spent with no actual "recovery' in jobs. We are in the first ever recorded "recovery" in the history of the world were we have less jobs than when we started (where no mass death has taken place from a war).

    I despise Obama because he is in fact so bad at his job that an honest person that wanted the best would have not run a second term, an honest person would resign. Then again, Obama said he wouldn't run a second term if things were not fixed and yet he did.... because it's well documented Obama is not an honest person.
     
  10. expat_panama
    Offline

    expat_panama Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,461
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +252
    The administration's website says--
    [​IMG]
    --but I agree with you that current government policy has been unable to provide any beneficial affect. Now that we know what doesn't work let's decide what we want. I want lower taxes so I can hire people. So if we got no better ideas on the table (which we don't yet) let's just go w/ lower taxes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page