Why Better PRIVATE SECTOR Job Growth Under Obama?

[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.

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

Says who? There's no immigration going on?

 

[Darkwind]

lol, that must be why the people voted his party out of control of Congress.

all them jobs he CREATED you would think they would keep his party in the MAJORITY, wouldn't you?

you poor things. believe what you need. the majority of the people who isn't Obot worshipers , knows better

You mean it had NOTHING to do with gerrymandered districts, low voter turnout in mid-term elections, and Republican lies that if they got both Houses, gridlock would end?

Who knew?

Your right. It had nothing to do with any of that.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

In fact, the majority of economists were claiming that if nothing was done, the economy would recover by the summer of 2010...Thanks to Obama, he extended that to 2016...

 

[rightwinger]

Another interesting stat...since Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010, 11.5 million private sector jobs

and another...PUBLIC SECTOR employment up 2 million under W, but down 500k under Obama

Unlike other Presidents like FDR or Reagan who faced severe economic collapses...Obama was expected to recover while taking cuts in Government hiring and a GOP austerity program

"We want you to recover AND balance the budget"

 

[Faun]

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.

That's because you're a moron who thinks the LFPR is at a "record" low, even after being shown it's not. Reality eludes you.

 

[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.

In fact, the majority of economists were claiming that if nothing was done, the economy would recover by the summer of 2010...Thanks to Obama, he extended that to 2016...

Link to those economists ....

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Damn Baby Boomers retiring at 4 million a year

Why won't Obama stop them?

 

[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.

Says who? There's no immigration going on?

Says who what? It was long predicted that an aging population would prove a negative factor on the Labor Force participation rate. Immigration would have to vastly increase, and include almost no non-working family members (over age 15) to mitigate that.

 

[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.

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

Says who? There's no immigration going on?

Says who what? It was long predicted that an aging population would prove a negative factor on the Labor Force participation rate. Immigration would have to vastly increase, and include almost no non-working family members (over age 15) to mitigate that.

I would hope we don't have too many deadbeat families immigrating. Why shouldn't they work? So the current unemployment numbers aren't a reflection of the economy or the economy isn't a reflection of the current administration's policies? Are we were we should be with the "expert predictions"?

 

[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.

Says who? There's no immigration going on?

Says who what? It was long predicted that an aging population would prove a negative factor on the Labor Force participation rate. Immigration would have to vastly increase, and include almost no non-working family members (over age 15) to mitigate that.

I would hope we don't have too many deadbeat families immigrating.

I wouldn't really call a traditional 1 earner family "deadbeat."

So the current unemployment numbers aren't a reflection of the economy or the economy isn't a reflection of the current administration's policies?

I have no idea how you could reach that conclusion.

Are we were we should be with the "expert predictions"?

As far as Labor Force? Forecasts didn't anticipate a recession, so of course we're a bit off.

I have no idea what you think immigration has to do with anything.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Says who? There's no immigration going on?

Says who what? It was long predicted that an aging population would prove a negative factor on the Labor Force participation rate. Immigration would have to vastly increase, and include almost no non-working family members (over age 15) to mitigate that.

I would hope we don't have too many deadbeat families immigrating.

I wouldn't really call a traditional 1 earner family "deadbeat."

Me neither, unless it costs more than the one earner makes to take care of them. It was in answer to your non-working family scenario.

So the current unemployment numbers aren't a reflection of the economy or the economy isn't a reflection of the current administration's policies?

I have no idea how you could reach that conclusion.

I have no idea why you can't reach the obvious conclusion.

Are we were we should be with the "expert predictions"?

As far as Labor Force? Forecasts didn't anticipate a recession, so of course we're a bit off.

I have no idea what you think immigration has to do with anything.

I have no idea if you have a brain or not. Replacement workers obviously factor into retirement workers. So the "forecasters" were clueless? That's what I thought.

 

[pinqy]

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

Says who? There's no immigration going on?

Says who what? It was long predicted that an aging population would prove a negative factor on the Labor Force participation rate. Immigration would have to vastly increase, and include almost no non-working family members (over age 15) to mitigate that.

I would hope we don't have too many deadbeat families immigrating.

I wouldn't really call a traditional 1 earner family "deadbeat."

Me neither, unless it costs more than the one earner makes to take care of them. It was in answer to your non-working family scenario.

So the current unemployment numbers aren't a reflection of the economy or the economy isn't a reflection of the current administration's policies?

I have no idea how you could reach that conclusion.

I have no idea why you can't reach the obvious conclusion.

Are we were we should be with the "expert predictions"?

As far as Labor Force? Forecasts didn't anticipate a recession, so of course we're a bit off.

I have no idea what you think immigration has to do with anything.

I have no idea if you have a brain or not. Replacement workers obviously factor into retirement workers. So the "forecasters" were clueless? That's what I thought.

Well, of course immigration was part of the models.. That doesn't change that an aging population was still expected to reduce the labor force participation rate. I'm not sure why you brought up immigration.

It was not expected, and has not, compensated for the aging population.