4.7%

[dcbl]

The U-3 rate has 39.7% under Obama, from 7.8% to 4.7%. The U-6 rate has fallen 35.2%, from 14.2% to 9.2%. So by either measure, the unemployment is significantly lower under Obama.

I mean, gosh.

At this point I don't know what else to say other than WOW - YOU ARE RIGHT!

that HAS to be why Clinton won the election & was given an opportunity to extend Obama's policies, cuz everyone is THRILLED with how strong our economy is - right?

 

[edthecynic]

people who are part time (many are in this position because of ACA rules)

That is a lie!
The number working PT who want FT jobs has DECLINED since the ACA was passed.

 

[Faun]

The U-3 rate has 39.7% under Obama, from 7.8% to 4.7%. The U-6 rate has fallen 35.2%, from 14.2% to 9.2%. So by either measure, the unemployment is significantly lower under Obama.

I mean, gosh.

At this point I don't know what else to say other than WOW - YOU ARE RIGHT!

that HAS to be why Clinton won the election & was given an opportunity to extend Obama's policies, cuz everyone is THRILLED with how strong our economy is - right?

Your imagination is fervent but has no bearing on the actual numbers.

 

[pinqy]

And how, exactly, does the U-6 give a better picture of where we are? From the chart, both show about the same thing:

U6 includes people that are unable to get the type of work they want and or need

No, it doesn't. Type of work plays no part.

- people who are part time (many are in this position because of ACA rules)

People who have jobs, you mean. Are you saying they are really unemployed? And it's just part time for economic reasons. The problem with calling them unemployed is this:
Alice and Barbara work together as waitresses at the same restaurant. Alice works 16 hours a week for extra money and doesn't want/need to work more. If we call the U-6 "unemployed" then Alice is Employed because she is not part time for economic reasons.
Barbara normally works 40 hrs/week. But business has been slow and she had a shift cut so this month she only worked 32 hours. She is part time for economic reasons and you want to call her unemployed.

Does that make sense to your? To have two people at the same job for the same pay and the one working twice as many hours is Unemployed and the one working fewer hours is Employed. This is a good representation of unemployment to you?

it also brings in those that are discouraged from looking

All marginally attached, not just discouraged.

perhaps you can explain to me how that is not more realistic?

Sure. What we want to know is how many jobs the economy is short. For a given month, how many people weren't working that could have been. Think of the labor market as an actual market where people show up to find work. We want to know how many people are unsuccessful...how many more jobs need to be brought to the market. People who don't show up of course won't get a job.

Look, in December, 7 million people tried to get a job and failed.
95 million did not try to get a job and did not get a job.
Are you really going to claim that someone who doesn't get hired because she doesn't try to get a job tells us how hard it is to get a job the same as someone who tried and failed?

 

[rightwinger]

The Senate and House were under Republican control until 2007 and once Bush replaced Clinton they never got the same numbers, so it obviously was Clinton and not the GOP congress.

You never get anything right.

Congress Profiles | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
105th Congress (1997–1999)
Congressional Profile
Total Membership:

• 435 Representatives
• 4 Delegates
• 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions:*

• 207 Democrats
• 226 Republicans
• 2 Independent

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

WikiLeaks thinks you're full of shit there buddy.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.

You prove my point, the GOP lost the 2006 elections and control went to the Dems in 2007 for the first time since 1995.

The Right are so stupid they can't even read a calendar, no wonder Tramp loves lying to them.

The left is full of idiots just like you.

2006 is when the Dems took over. Not 2007.

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

It's awesome, especially when you don't count the millions of workers who are no longer in the workforce because they stopped looking for jobs that don't exist.

The 1st Black President leaves behind an Unemployment rate for Blacks of 7.8%, btw.
- Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

Anyone who believes that 4.7% is the real number than the box of rocks is gaining on them.

What number do you prefer we measure Trump against ?

Will have to wait till he's in office for a while.

This is half day one.

Good Lord you can't be this stupid.

Are you that daft?

What economic number do you want to evaluate Trump against?

U3, U6, Labor Participation?

Choose your poison

 

[Claudette]

You never get anything right.

Congress Profiles | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
105th Congress (1997–1999)
Congressional Profile
Total Membership:

• 435 Representatives
• 4 Delegates
• 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions:*

• 207 Democrats
• 226 Republicans
• 2 Independent

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

WikiLeaks thinks you're full of shit there buddy.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.

You prove my point, the GOP lost the 2006 elections and control went to the Dems in 2007 for the first time since 1995.

The Right are so stupid they can't even read a calendar, no wonder Tramp loves lying to them.

The left is full of idiots just like you.

2006 is when the Dems took over. Not 2007.

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

It's awesome, especially when you don't count the millions of workers who are no longer in the workforce because they stopped looking for jobs that don't exist.

The 1st Black President leaves behind an Unemployment rate for Blacks of 7.8%, btw.
- Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

Anyone who believes that 4.7% is the real number than the box of rocks is gaining on them.

What number do you prefer we measure Trump against ?

Will have to wait till he's in office for a while.

This is half day one.

Good Lord you can't be this stupid.

Are you that daft?

What economic number do you want to evaluate Trump against?

U3, U6, Labor Participation?

Choose your poison

You're the daft one. The guys been in office for half a day.

I'm content to give him some time and see what he can do.

You sure are one stupid ****.

 

[dcbl]

most Americans in most states are frustrated with the economy and our government; this is why Trump was able to capture the Republican nomination and win the General Election

Job participation is not where it needs to be, many people are not able to find work commensurate with fulfilling their needs.

Many of these have given up looking (these are not counted as "job seekers") - many are not able to get the hours they want and need at the jobs they do have (these are counted as "employed" & many are in that spot because companies are incentivized to keep hours under 30 because of ACA guidelines)

Bottom line, folks are looking & hoping for better days

If Trump's policies deliver, you are looking at 8 years with him as POTUS (which is my expectation)

If he does not deliver, y'all will be able to place another liberal in the Oval Office

we can bicker about which numbers are "fair" or "more realistic" all day - but if people weren't hurting, Trump would have lost

 

[rightwinger]

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

WikiLeaks thinks you're full of shit there buddy.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.

You prove my point, the GOP lost the 2006 elections and control went to the Dems in 2007 for the first time since 1995.

The Right are so stupid they can't even read a calendar, no wonder Tramp loves lying to them.

The left is full of idiots just like you.

2006 is when the Dems took over. Not 2007.

It's awesome, especially when you don't count the millions of workers who are no longer in the workforce because they stopped looking for jobs that don't exist.

The 1st Black President leaves behind an Unemployment rate for Blacks of 7.8%, btw.
- Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

Anyone who believes that 4.7% is the real number than the box of rocks is gaining on them.

What number do you prefer we measure Trump against ?

Will have to wait till he's in office for a while.

This is half day one.

Good Lord you can't be this stupid.

Are you that daft?

What economic number do you want to evaluate Trump against?

U3, U6, Labor Participation?

Choose your poison

You're the daft one. The guys been in office for half a day.

I'm content to give him some time and see what he can do.

You sure are one stupid ****.

Look Claudette, I realize you are not as bright as most of the other posters on here and that you try to fake it.

Anyone who believes that 4.7% is the real number than the box of rocks is gaining on them.

You attacked the U3 employment numbers (I realize you have no idea what that means) that are used for Obama and all previous Presidents. Since you did not like U3, I asked which number you prefer we use from now on

 

[easyt65]

Look Claudette, I realize you are not as bright as most of the other posters

Typical Liberal asshole - think they are so smarter than everyone else. They know more than you, can spend your money better than you, blah, blah, blah...

Which is probably why they have lost nearly 1,000 seats under Obama and back-to-back historic, record-setting losses in the last 2 elections.

 

[Faun]

most Americans in most states are frustrated with the economy and our government; this is why Trump was able to capture the Republican nomination and win the General Election

Job participation is not where it needs to be, many people are not able to find work commensurate with fulfilling their needs.

Many of these have given up looking (these are not counted as "job seekers") - many are not able to get the hours they want and need at the jobs they do have (these are counted as "employed" & many are in that spot because companies are incentivized to keep hours under 30 because of ACA guidelines)

Bottom line, folks are looking & hoping for better days

If Trump's policies deliver, you are looking at 8 years with him as POTUS (which is my expectation)

If he does not deliver, y'all will be able to place another liberal in the Oval Office

we can bicker about which numbers are "fair" or "more realistic" all day - but if people weren't hurting, Trump would have lost

Utter nonsense. Trump barely eked out an electoral victory by narrowly beating Hillary by slim margins in WI, MI, and PA in an election influenced by Russia and the Director of the FBI and where Hillary got more votes.

He won because Republicans are more dispersed throughout the nation while Democrats are concentrated more in bigger cities.

 

[Claudette]

WikiLeaks thinks you're full of shit there buddy.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.

You prove my point, the GOP lost the 2006 elections and control went to the Dems in 2007 for the first time since 1995.

The Right are so stupid they can't even read a calendar, no wonder Tramp loves lying to them.

The left is full of idiots just like you.

2006 is when the Dems took over. Not 2007.

Anyone who believes that 4.7% is the real number than the box of rocks is gaining on them.

What number do you prefer we measure Trump against ?

Will have to wait till he's in office for a while.

This is half day one.

Good Lord you can't be this stupid.

Are you that daft?

What economic number do you want to evaluate Trump against?

U3, U6, Labor Participation?

Choose your poison

You're the daft one. The guys been in office for half a day.

I'm content to give him some time and see what he can do.

You sure are one stupid ****.

Look Claudette, I realize you are not as bright as most of the other posters on here and that you try to fake it.

You attacked the U3 employment numbers (I realize you have no idea what that means) that are used for Obama and all previous Presidents. Since you did not like U3, I asked which number you prefer we use from now on

You insult me in one sentence and then want my opinion in the next??

Nah. You ain't worth it toots.

Carry on oh so smart.

 

[Faun]

Look Claudette, I realize you are not as bright as most of the other posters

Typical Liberal asshole - think they are so smarter than everyone else. They know more than you, can spend your money better than you, blah, blah, blah...

Which is probably why they have lost nearly 1,000 seats under Obama and back-to-back historic, record-setting losses in the last 2 elections.

Most posters are smarter than Claudette. Hell, in this thread alone she actually said Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Using that logic means Trump took over the Executive branch back in November and not today.

 

[The Original Tree]

I believe Noninstitutional refers to people who are not Students in a University as the DOL list Full Time Student as an Occupation, so that person is considered employed.
You are playing with Semantics.

No matter which way you play this game, 34% of our population who are capable of working are not working.

They may be receiving other entitlements like food stamps or welfare.

So if you have 34% of your eligible workforce not working, perhaps this will explain why Obama racked up 11 Trillion Dollars in debt while he was in office.
That 34% figure is not good not matter which way you try to explain it away, and it is undeniable that this administration has presided over the highest Non Participation Rate in our history.

That claim is just sheer out and out stupidity. That percentage includes the disabled, it includes the retired, it includes the 102 year old man in the nursing home.

I mean when the hell did the labor participation rate make a happy damn? It has never been an indication of economic health, either way. Last I checked, our motto was "In God We Trust", not "Arbeit Macht Frei".

But the worst claim of your ignorance is not the capable of working, it is the not working part. Not only does your 35% include the retired and disabled, it includes the stay at home moms and the thousands of individuals devoting their time to taking care of an elderly parent. It is out and out disgusting and the truth is, the number never made a happy damn to anyone until the right started using it to counter Obama's success in cutting unemployment.

The labor force participation rate has never been considered a measurement of the health of the job markets until Obama became president and the unemployment rate began falling.

He who speaks with forked tongue, I will reply to you with a simple answer:

The best measurement of the health of the job market was the election of a man who never ran for office.
This man ran against 16 seasoned GOP politicians, and beat all of them.
This man was then outspent by another seasoned career politician 5-1 and had thrown at him, everything, including the kitchen sink and a 1.5 Billion dollar 24-7 Personal Assault Campaign, joined in by every major liberal newspaper in the country, and the entire Liberal Main Stream Media.

After running the gauntlet through 16 GOP contenders, and a Republican Establishment, that balked at his high jacking "THEIR PARTY", he faced off against 4 major candidates in the general election and an additional throng of also rans on the ballot tallying another 1,700 candidates.

This was the most watered down election in US history with 5 major candidates and their running mates vying for "The People's Vote" and soliciting the approval of each of the 50 states in our Union in 50 Independent Elections.

The result was that Donald Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232. But the electoral landslide was far worse than this. Trump Won 84% of all available Electoral Districts to Hillary Clinton's 16%. and he won 33 States to her 17. The majority of her votes were densely concentrated in just a handful of major US cities in just 17 states.

Total counties won by Trump vs. Clinton?

Trump won 2,626 of 3,084 counties to Hillary Clinton's 487. That is the equivalent of winning a football game 84 to 16, with the loser racking up a lot of yards but dropping passes, committing multiple drive killing penalties and turnovers, and simply being overconfident in their abilities against a determined opponent, who would not flinch, would not back down, and refused to be intimidated.

The American People did not buy Barak Hussein Obama's Cooked Unemployment Figures, His Stance on Globalism, Global Warming, and so called Free Trade. Neither did they buy his Immigration Policy, or Hillary Clinton's record as a Senator and Secretary of State, and her claims of being trustworthy, and qualified to be president, nor did they buy Obama's soft on terrorism approach, but they did buy what Donald Trump was selling.

And they bought it big, and in a shocking way, giving the middle finger to a system and media that was rigged against them.

There is your "measurement" of the health of our job markets as The American People saw it at the polls.

 

[easyt65]

Utter nonsense. Trump barely eked out an electoral victory...

Hillary called Trump to congratulate him before 8pm, her normal bedtime...

 

[Claudette]

Look Claudette, I realize you are not as bright as most of the other posters

Typical Liberal asshole - think they are so smarter than everyone else. They know more than you, can spend your money better than you, blah, blah, blah...

Which is probably why they have lost nearly 1,000 seats under Obama and back-to-back historic, record-setting losses in the last 2 elections.

Most posters are smarter than Claudette. Hell, in this thread alone she actually said Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Using that logic means Trump took over the Executive branch back in November and not today.

Well I'm sure none of us are as smart as you and RW. LOL

We'll struggle along though.

Carry on oh so smart. LOL

 

[Faun]

I believe Noninstitutional refers to people who are not Students in a University as the DOL list Full Time Student as an Occupation, so that person is considered employed.
You are playing with Semantics.

No matter which way you play this game, 34% of our population who are capable of working are not working.

They may be receiving other entitlements like food stamps or welfare.

So if you have 34% of your eligible workforce not working, perhaps this will explain why Obama racked up 11 Trillion Dollars in debt while he was in office.
That 34% figure is not good not matter which way you try to explain it away, and it is undeniable that this administration has presided over the highest Non Participation Rate in our history.

That claim is just sheer out and out stupidity. That percentage includes the disabled, it includes the retired, it includes the 102 year old man in the nursing home.

I mean when the hell did the labor participation rate make a happy damn? It has never been an indication of economic health, either way. Last I checked, our motto was "In God We Trust", not "Arbeit Macht Frei".

But the worst claim of your ignorance is not the capable of working, it is the not working part. Not only does your 35% include the retired and disabled, it includes the stay at home moms and the thousands of individuals devoting their time to taking care of an elderly parent. It is out and out disgusting and the truth is, the number never made a happy damn to anyone until the right started using it to counter Obama's success in cutting unemployment.

The labor force participation rate has never been considered a measurement of the health of the job markets until Obama became president and the unemployment rate began falling.

He who speaks with forked tongue, I will reply to you with a simple answer:

The best measurement of the health of the job market was the election of a man who never ran for office.
This man ran against 16 seasoned GOP politicians, and beat all of them.
This man was then outspent by another seasoned career politician 5-1 and had thrown at him, everything, including the kitchen sink and a 1.5 Billion dollar 24-7 Personal Assault Campaign, joined in by every major liberal newspaper in the country, and the entire Liberal Main Stream Media.
After running the gauntlet through 16 GOP contenders, and a Republican Establishment, that balked at his high jacking "THEIR PARTY", he faced off against 4 major candidates in the general election and an additional throng of also rans on the ballot tallying another 1,700 candidates.

This was the most watered down election in US history with 5 major candidates and their running mates vying for "The People's Vote" and soliciting the approval of each of the 50 states in our Union in 50 Independent Elections.

The result was that Donald Trump won 84% of all available Electoral Districts to Hillary Clinton's 16%. and he won 33 States to her 17. Total counties won by Trump vs. Clinton.
Trump won 2,626 of 3,084 counties to Hillary Clinton's 487.

The American People did not buy Barak Hussein Obama's Cooked Unemployment Figures, or his Immigration Policy, or Hillary Clinton's record and claims of being trustworthy, and qualified to be president, nor did they buy Obama's soft on terrorism approach, but they did buy what Donald Trump was selling.

There is your "measurement" of the health of our job markets as The American People saw it at the polls.

You righties are a riot!.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[pinqy]

Job participation is not where it needs to be,

Where does it need to be, and why?

Many of these have given up looking (these are not counted as "job seekers")

Not even half a million "gave up." (discouraged)
Since the bulk of the people not participating are voluntarily not participating (or are unable to work), what do you think is necessary?

- many are not able to get the hours they want and need at the jobs they do have (these are counted as "employed"

should they not be?

& many are in that spot because companies are incentivized to keep hours under 30 because of ACA guidelines)

the data don't seem to support that. Here are the number of people who have had their hours cut due to slow business or other business reasons (including ACA cuts):

Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to show significant cuts to hours due to ACA?

You keep making assertions, not arguments. Why should someone who is not doing anything about work be classified as unemployed? Why should someone who has a job be classified as unemployed, especially when there are others who work fewer hours for less pay and are called employed?

 

[dcbl]

Utter nonsense. Trump barely eked out an electoral victory by narrowly beating Hillary by slim margins in WI, MI, and PA in an election influenced by Russia and the Director of the FBI and where Hillary got more votes.

He won because Republicans are more dispersed throughout the nation while Democrats are concentrated more in bigger cities.

keep telling yourself that

the good news for me & all patriots that actually love this country & are willing to defend what being an American stands for?

you are not at all alone in your foolish arrogance

it is what cost you (the collective you) power in this country - so keep it up!

3 more seats on SCOTUS would be great!

 

[AntonToo]

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Here are the numbers and graph that tell the real story:

Here is the real story ignoramus:

When Trump leaves office LFPR will be further declined, nothing he can do about it. People aren't geoing to be younger or spending less time in school.

 

[Faun]

Utter nonsense. Trump barely eked out an electoral victory by narrowly beating Hillary by slim margins in WI, MI, and PA in an election influenced by Russia and the Director of the FBI and where Hillary got more votes.

He won because Republicans are more dispersed throughout the nation while Democrats are concentrated more in bigger cities.

keep telling yourself that

the good news for me & all patriots that actually love this country & are willing to defend what being an American stands for?

you are not at all alone in your foolish arrogance

it is what cost you (the collective you) power in this country - so keep it up!

3 more seats on SCOTUS would be great!

Keep telling myself what? That Trump won the election because Republicans are more dispersed? It's true. Hillary got more votes. But since states elect the president and not a nationwide popular vote and because Republicans are more dispersed, Trump won.

And you seem to be oblivious to the reality that politics in the U.S. is like a pendulum. While it's swinging to the right now, it will next swing back to the left.