Why Better PRIVATE SECTOR Job Growth Under Obama?

[bripat9643]

Why is Labor participation at record lows?

It's nowhere near record lows..it's higher than anytime before 1978.

Another way of saying that is that it hasn't been this low since 1978, almost 40 years ago. In other words, record lows.

When you play such rhetorical games, it's a sure sign that you know you're lying.

But the reason it has been going down for the last 15 years is that fewer people want to work. More retirees, more disabled, more students, more stay home spouses.

Why would there be more students, disabled and more stay-at-home spouses?

In April 2000, approximately 69.1% of the population age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution wanted to work (well, employed, unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force, wants a job now).
April 2015 it's 65% (note that yes, I am including discouraged, marginally attached, and ALL who say they want to work, regardless of ability.

Where do these figures come from?

 

[pinqy]

Why is Labor participation at record lows?

It's nowhere near record lows..it's higher than anytime before 1978.

Another way of saying that is that it hasn't been this low since 1978, almost 40 years ago. In other words, record lows.

Perhaps you need a picture since you have trouble reading:

The LFPR consistantly went up until 2000, and it's been going down since then. Nowhere near the record lows.

But the reason it has been going down for the last 15 years is that fewer people want to work. More retirees, more disabled, more students, more stay home spouses.

Why would there be more students, disabled and more stay-at-home spouses?

Because better education leads to better jobs, Disabled benefits are better, and if the choice is stay home with kids or get a min wage job then you're almost always better off staying home.

In April 2000, approximately 69.1% of the population age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution wanted to work (well, employed, unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force, wants a job now).
April 2015 it's 65% (note that yes, I am including discouraged, marginally attached, and ALL who say they want to work, regardless of ability.

Where do these figures come from?

Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Formula I used was (Labor Force + Not in the Labor Force: wants a job now)/adult civilian non-institutional population

Sp April 2000 was (142,138,000+4,437,000)/212,218,000 = 69.1%
And April 2015 was (156,554,000+6,096,000)/250,266,000 = 65%

 

[Faun]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let it turn into a depression. But then, he's not a Republican so that wasn't really an option.

Obama's "solution" only made it worse. However, it provided a great slush fund for him to buy votes with.

As usual, nothing but abject nonsense you pluck from your ass. Here, on planet reality, we are at full employment and the unemployment rate is about a full percentage point lower than at this same point in Reagan's presidency ... and Reagan is a god to you brain-dead rightards.

 

[Faun]

Why is Labor participation at record lows?

It's nowhere near record lows..it's higher than anytime before 1978.

Another way of saying that is that it hasn't been this low since 1978, almost 40 years ago. In other words, record lows.

When you play such rhetorical games, it's a sure sign that you know you're lying.

But the reason it has been going down for the last 15 years is that fewer people want to work. More retirees, more disabled, more students, more stay home spouses.

Why would there be more students, disabled and more stay-at-home spouses?

In April 2000, approximately 69.1% of the population age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution wanted to work (well, employed, unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force, wants a job now).
April 2015 it's 65% (note that yes, I am including discouraged, marginally attached, and ALL who say they want to work, regardless of ability.

Where do these figures come from?

Only to an imbecile is a non-record, a record.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let it turn into a depression. But then, he's not a Republican so that wasn't really an option.

Obama's "solution" only made it worse. However, it provided a great slush fund for him to buy votes with.

As usual, nothing but abject nonsense you pluck from your ass. Here, on planet reality, we are at full employment and the unemployment rate is about a full percentage point lower than at this same point in Reagan's presidency ... and Reagan is a god to you brain-dead rightards.

Obama's recovery is the weakest we've had since the Great Depressin:

 

[bripat9643]

Why is Labor participation at record lows?

It's nowhere near record lows..it's higher than anytime before 1978.

Another way of saying that is that it hasn't been this low since 1978, almost 40 years ago. In other words, record lows.

When you play such rhetorical games, it's a sure sign that you know you're lying.

But the reason it has been going down for the last 15 years is that fewer people want to work. More retirees, more disabled, more students, more stay home spouses.

Why would there be more students, disabled and more stay-at-home spouses?

In April 2000, approximately 69.1% of the population age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution wanted to work (well, employed, unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force, wants a job now).
April 2015 it's 65% (note that yes, I am including discouraged, marginally attached, and ALL who say they want to work, regardless of ability.

Where do these figures come from?

Only to an imbecile is a non-record, a record.

How is that an answer to my question?

 

[Faun]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let it turn into a depression. But then, he's not a Republican so that wasn't really an option.

Obama's "solution" only made it worse. However, it provided a great slush fund for him to buy votes with.

As usual, nothing but abject nonsense you pluck from your ass. Here, on planet reality, we are at full employment and the unemployment rate is about a full percentage point lower than at this same point in Reagan's presidency ... and Reagan is a god to you brain-dead rightards.

Obama's recovery is the weakest we've had since the Great Depressin:

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Faun]

Why is Labor participation at record lows?

It's nowhere near record lows..it's higher than anytime before 1978.

Another way of saying that is that it hasn't been this low since 1978, almost 40 years ago. In other words, record lows.

When you play such rhetorical games, it's a sure sign that you know you're lying.

But the reason it has been going down for the last 15 years is that fewer people want to work. More retirees, more disabled, more students, more stay home spouses.

Why would there be more students, disabled and more stay-at-home spouses?

In April 2000, approximately 69.1% of the population age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution wanted to work (well, employed, unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force, wants a job now).
April 2015 it's 65% (note that yes, I am including discouraged, marginally attached, and ALL who say they want to work, regardless of ability.

Where do these figures come from?

Only to an imbecile is a non-record, a record.

How is that an answer to my question?

How can I answer a question to an idiot who thinks a non-record is a record? Like a famous person once said, "what difference does it make?"

 

[Hossfly]

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let it turn into a depression. But then, he's not a Republican so that wasn't really an option.

Obama's "solution" only made it worse. However, it provided a great slush fund for him to buy votes with.

As usual, nothing but abject nonsense you pluck from your ass. Here, on planet reality, we are at full employment and the unemployment rate is about a full percentage point lower than at this same point in Reagan's presidency ... and Reagan is a god to you brain-dead rightards.

Obama's recovery is the weakest we've had since the Great Depressin:

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

April, 2015: 11.5%

People Not Drawing Paychecks Statistics Data

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let it turn into a depression. But then, he's not a Republican so that wasn't really an option.

Obama's "solution" only made it worse. However, it provided a great slush fund for him to buy votes with.

As usual, nothing but abject nonsense you pluck from your ass. Here, on planet reality, we are at full employment and the unemployment rate is about a full percentage point lower than at this same point in Reagan's presidency ... and Reagan is a god to you brain-dead rightards.

Obama's recovery is the weakest we've had since the Great Depressin:

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

When you get a chance, post the change in median household income for the same periods.

 

[pinqy]

April, 2015: 11.5%

People Not Drawing Paychecks Statistics Data

Ummm, what number is that supposed to be?

 

[Dragonlady]

The idiots on the right keep thinking that Baby Boomers aren't retiring by the millions and have been doing so for the last 10 years.

Odd that they haven't grasped this notion since they're the ones who screamed for years that once Boomers started retiring, there would be more people not working than working and we'd swamp SS into bankruptcy and overwhelm Medicaid.

Short memories these right wingers. I guess that's why they keep making the same mistakes over and over, expecting a different result.

 

[Stephanie]

Poll after poll show the people feels things has been worse under Obama and feels the country is headed in the wrong direction. That would be why they KICKED Obama and his party to the CURB of control of Congress is ONE REASON

but for Obots you will never convince them of that . sheeesh

 

[bripat9643]

Why is Labor participation at record lows?

It's nowhere near record lows..it's higher than anytime before 1978.

Another way of saying that is that it hasn't been this low since 1978, almost 40 years ago. In other words, record lows.

When you play such rhetorical games, it's a sure sign that you know you're lying.

But the reason it has been going down for the last 15 years is that fewer people want to work. More retirees, more disabled, more students, more stay home spouses.

Why would there be more students, disabled and more stay-at-home spouses?

In April 2000, approximately 69.1% of the population age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution wanted to work (well, employed, unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force, wants a job now).
April 2015 it's 65% (note that yes, I am including discouraged, marginally attached, and ALL who say they want to work, regardless of ability.

Where do these figures come from?

Only to an imbecile is a non-record, a record.

How is that an answer to my question?

How can I answer a question to an idiot who thinks a non-record is a record? Like a famous person once said, "what difference does it make?"

That famous person is a notorious liar and hosebag. No one is surprised that you would quote such a person.

I have no idea what this "non record" you refer to is supposed to be.

 

[pinqy]

I have no idea what this "non record" you refer to is supposed to be.

I believe it was referring to your false claim that the current Labor Force Participation Rate of 62.8% is "near record lows."

Facts: Historical Participation Rate
You can re format the link to look at just the annual averages.

Out of 68 years of data, 31 years had lower participation rates and 37 higher than 62.8. But if you look at the mean...the average is 62.8%

So how can the average be near the record lows?

 

[bripat9643]

I have no idea what this "non record" you refer to is supposed to be.

I believe it was referring to your false claim that the current Labor Force Participation Rate of 62.8% is "near record lows."

Facts: Historical Participation Rate
You can re format the link to look at just the annual averages.

Out of 68 years of data, 31 years had lower participation rates and 37 higher than 62.8. But if you look at the mean...the average is 62.8%

So how can the average be near the record lows?

It's the lowest it has been in 40 years, moron.

 

[Stephanie]

Here's Obama's and his administrations idea of HELPING us and economy.
If he can't tax it then Regulate it

SNIP:
Obama Administration Issues 184 Major Rules Costing $80 Billion Annually
By Ali Meyer | May 19, 2015 | 3:14 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - During the six years that President Obama has held office, the number and cost of regulations has continued to climb, with the issuance of 184 major rules estimated to cost $80 billion annually, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Red Tape Rising report.

A major rule is “generally defined as having an expected economic impact of at least $100 million per year.”

“The number and cost of government regulations continued to climb in 2014, intensifying Washington’s control over the economy and Americans’ lives,” the report stated. “The addition of 27 new major rules last year pushed the tally for the Obama Administration’s first six years to 184, with scores of other rules in the pipeline.

“The cost of just these 184 rules is estimated by regulators to be nearly $80 billion annually, although the actual cost of this massive expansion of the administrative state is obscured by the large number of rules for which costs have not been fully quantified,” it added.

In addition, the number of major new regulations in Obama’s first six years is twice as many as in Bush’s first six years. From 2001 to 2006, the Bush administration issued 75 major regulations. From 2009 to 2014, the Obama Administration issued 184 major rules, which is145 percent more than Bush.

all of it here:
Obama Administration Issues 184 Major Rules Costing 80 Billion Annually

 

[Iceweasel]

This is a discussion of economics, not voter turnout. Not praising or criticizing Obama, just posing the question as to why private sector job growth has been dramatically better under Obama than under W.

Don't Republicans want higher stock prices? Under W, S&P 500 lost 36%, under Obama it's up 150%. Toss out the last 18 months of Bush's presidency, and it was still only up 10%.

Is the GOP only about symbolism, rhetoric, and excuses, or is everyone OK with the shockingly poor private sector job growth and stock market returns we saw under W?

You don't live in reality. Which dimension are you from? Labor participation rate is way down, your religious views on obama don't change it.

 

[pinqy]

I have no idea what this "non record" you refer to is supposed to be.

I believe it was referring to your false claim that the current Labor Force Participation Rate of 62.8% is "near record lows."

Facts: Historical Participation Rate
You can re format the link to look at just the annual averages.

Out of 68 years of data, 31 years had lower participation rates and 37 higher than 62.8. But if you look at the mean...the average is 62.8%

So how can the average be near the record lows?

It's the lowest it has been in 40 years, moron.

How does that make it near the record lows, though?

 

[pinqy]

This is a discussion of economics, not voter turnout. Not praising or criticizing Obama, just posing the question as to why private sector job growth has been dramatically better under Obama than under W.

Don't Republicans want higher stock prices? Under W, S&P 500 lost 36%, under Obama it's up 150%. Toss out the last 18 months of Bush's presidency, and it was still only up 10%.

Is the GOP only about symbolism, rhetoric, and excuses, or is everyone OK with the shockingly poor private sector job growth and stock market returns we saw under W?

You don't live in reality. Which dimension are you from? Labor participation rate is way down, your religious views on obama don't change it.

It's been going down for 15 years. Made worse by the Recession, but everyone knew it would go down.