economy is not on a rebound, it's on a roar

[emptystep]

U6 averaged 9% and went to 15% under Barry's socialism. This is what we would expect from socialism, after all it killed 125 million or so in USSR and Red China. Why did you think China switched to Republican capitalism and instantly made everyone rich by historical standards??

So this completely ineffectual President ruined the economy in the first year of his administration. And just how did he do that?

Given that cause and effect in the U.S. economy takes at least a year I wonder whose administration that would fall in?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So this completely ineffectual President ruined the economy in the first year of his administration. And just how did he do that?

Dear, Republicans and the Constitution have been holding him back; that is why U6 is only 15%. Barry is a full blown communist who voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.


Given that cause and effect in the U.S. economy takes at least a year I wonder whose administration that would fall in? [/QUOTE]

what????????????????

 

[SteadyMercury]

The U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job,

Okay...

The "U-6" includes two groups of people that the "U-3" does not:

1. "Marginally attached workers" - people who are not actively looking for work, but who have indicated that they want a job and have looked for work (without success) sometime in the past 12 months. This class also includes "discouraged workers" who have completely given up on finding a job because they feel that they just won't find one.

You are contradicting yourself. U6 includes people who can't find a job, which consists of people are who are not actively looking for one? If you aren't looking for a job, you won't find one. "Can't" has nothing to do with it.

 

[pinqy]

Analogy time.
Let's say a town has 1,000 people. Every month a restaurant gives out free meals for one day, lunch and dinner. Every person has 1 month to submit their name to receive a free meal.
So for Decmber, 636 people submitted their names, and 586 people got free meals. So 50 applied but didn't get one.
32 wanted dinner, but only got lunch. 11 people said they could have eaten a meal, had tried for one in the past, but didn't apply for December. 4 of them said they didn't submit their name because they didn't think they'd win a meal.

So, how what percent of people who could have had a free meal didn't?
I say that that's the 50 who tried and failed out of the 636 who applied. 7.8%

But some of y'all are saying we should include those who applied before but not this time and those who only got lunch instead of dinner and the real percentage of people who couln't get a meal is 14.4% ....(50+32+11)/(636+11) =14.4%
But if, say, there had been 647 meals provided, 11 would have gone uneaten because only 636 people actually put in their names...those 11 you want to count could not have had a meal anyway. But does it make sense to count them as failing to get a meal when there's no way they could have had one anyway?

As for the 32 who had lunch instead of dinner, how does it make sense to say they had no meal at all?

 

[emptystep]

Analogy time.
Let's say a town has 1,000 people. Every person has 1 month to submit their name to receive a free meal.
So for Decmber, 636 people submitted their names, and 586 people got free meals. So 50 applied but didn't get one.
32 wanted dinner, but only got lunch. 11 people said they could have eaten a meal, had tried for one in the past, but didn't apply for December. 4 didn't submit name - didn't think they'd win a meal.

So, how what percent of people who could have had a free meal didn't?
I say that that's the 50 who tried and failed out of the 636 who applied. 7.8%

But some of y'all are saying we should include those who applied before but not this time and those who only got lunch instead of dinner and the real percentage of people who couln't get a meal is 14.4% ....(50+32+11)/(636+11) =14.4%
But if, say, there had been 647 meals provided, 11 would have gone uneaten because only 636 people actually put in their names...those 11 you want to count could not have had a meal anyway. But does it make sense to count them as failing to get a meal when there's no way they could have had one anyway?

As for the 32 who had lunch instead of dinner, how does it make sense to say they had no meal at all?

Really, really great reply. I do hope you don't mind a little reformatting for clarity. Some I cut out might make parts ambiguous but your original post is there for clarity. Please let me know if I ended up misrepresented anything. The second to last paragraph might be clearer visually but I don't know how to format it. If you would like I can post the HTML so you could more easily modify formating.

• 1,000 people. Every person has 1 month to submit their name to receive a free meal.
  
  I say that that's the 50 who tried and failed out of the 636 who applied. 7.8%​
• So for Decmber, 636 people submitted their names, and 586 got free meals. So 50 applied but didn't get one.
• 32 wanted dinner, but only got lunch.
• 11 people said they could have eaten a meal, had tried for one in the past, but didn't apply for December. 4 of them said they didn't submit their name because they didn't think they'd win a meal.
  
  ? only got lunch instead of dinner and the real percentage of people who couldn't get a meal is 14.4% ....(50+32+11)/(636+11) =14.4%​

But if, say, there had been 647 meals provided, 11 would have gone uneaten because only 636 people actually put in their names...those 11 you want to count could not have had a meal anyway. But does it make sense to count them as failing to get a meal when there's no way they could have had one anyway?

As for the 32 who had lunch instead of dinner, how does it make sense to say they had no meal at all?

 

[Wiseacre]

Good Lord.

Idly wondering - who paid for the 586 meals? What about the 364 people out of the 1000 residents who didn't apply? Never mind, I don't care.

 

[pinqy]

Good Lord.

Idly wondering - who paid for the 586 meals? What about the 364 people out of the 1000 residents who didn't apply? Never mind, I don't care.

You don't grasp the concept of "analogy," do you?

Paying for the meals is irrelevant as the concept doesn't carry over into the labor force analogy, at least as far as what the focus was, which was measuring those without meals.

What about the 364 people who didn't submit their names? Some were vegetarians, some were on a diet, some had conflicting appointments and couldn't have made it to the meal, some just couldn't be bothered to fill out out the application. Again, pretty much irrelevant.

 

[emptystep]

Good Lord.

Idly wondering - who paid for the 586 meals? What about the 364 people out of the 1000 residents who didn't apply? Never mind, I don't care.

Since the meals represents jobs the people were paid to choke down that slop.

 

[Rshermr]

Good Lord.

Idly wondering - who paid for the 586 meals? What about the 364 people out of the 1000 residents who didn't apply? Never mind, I don't care.

You don't grasp the concept of "analogy," do you?

Paying for the meals is irrelevant as the concept doesn't carry over into the labor force analogy, at least as far as what the focus was, which was measuring those without meals.

What about the 364 people who didn't submit their names? Some were vegetarians, some were on a diet, some had conflicting appointments and couldn't have made it to the meal, some just couldn't be bothered to fill out out the application. Again, pretty much irrelevant.

I am afraid you just over ran the ability of your audience to understand. They just had agendas that they wanted to push, using the numbers they liked the best.

As usual, your posts are to the point and accurate as can be expected, Pinqy. Wish I had the patience that you show.

 

[Wiseacre]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

 

[Rshermr]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

Yup. I noticed that about you. But every time the UE rate ticked up just a bit, you were on it like stink on shit. You must just hate things getting better every month.

 

[pinqy]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

True, but you and others who claim the U6 is "real unemployment" aren't grasping that the U6 adds in people who could NOT be working (because they're not trying to) and people who are working (fewer hours than they want).

 

[The Rabbi]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

True, but you and others who claim the U6 is "real unemployment" aren't grasping that the U6 adds in people who could NOT be working (because they're not trying to) and people who are working (fewer hours than they want).

That's a contradiction. U6 measures people who could be working. Period. That they dont want to right now is irrelevant. If the right job/situation came along they might decide differently.

Fact is, if the workforce participation rate were the same today as it was when Obumbo took office the UE rate would be over 10%.

 

[pinqy]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

True, but you and others who claim the U6 is "real unemployment" aren't grasping that the U6 adds in people who could NOT be working (because they're not trying to) and people who are working (fewer hours than they want).

That's a contradiction. U6 measures people who could be working.

How could someone who has not looked for work have been hired? The Marginally Attached could theoretically be working IF they actually looked for work. Don't know how it is where you are, but in Virginia, employers don't go door to door looking for people to work.

That they dont want to right now is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevent if you're trying to objectively measure how many people are failing to be hired. People not trying to work adds nothing to that.

If the right job/situation came along they might decide differently.

Since they're not looking, how would they know if the right job/situation came along? The Marginally Attached are tracked because there is a good chance they'll start looking, and if perception of the economy changes they might start looking. But you can't call them unemployed because they made no effort to get a work and therefore they tell us nothing about the actual labor market.

Fact is, if the workforce participation rate were the same today as it was when Obumbo took office the UE rate would be over 10%.

Sure. But that's faulty math. Let's go through that formula.
Participation rate in Jan 2009 was 65.7%. Applied to current population of 244,350,000, the required Labor Force would be 160,547,000. Actual Labor Force is 155,511,000, so we need to add 5,036,000 and we're adding them all to the count of Unemployed (actual number 12,206,000)
So (12,206,000+5,036,000)/160,547,000 = 10.7%

Now, if we used the LF participation rate from Jan 2001, when Bush took office (67.2%) the result would be 12.8%
67.2% * 244,350,000 = 164,281,000
164,281,000-155,511,000 = 8,770,000
(12,206,000 + 8,770,000)/164,281,000 = 12.8%

But what about when, say, Carter took office in Jan 1977 and the LF participation rate was 61.6%?
61.6% * 244,350,000 = 150,631,000
150,631,000 - 155,511,000 = -4,880,000
(12,206,000 - 4,880,000)/150,631,000 = 4.9%

Is there any reason it would be valid to use the Jan 2009 LF rate and not the Jan 1977 one?

Or even better....Jan 1965 when Johnson became President in his own right and the LF participation rate was 58.6%
58.6% * 244,350,000 = 143,072,000
143,072,000 - 155,511,000 = -12,439,000
(12,206,000 - 12,439,000)/143,072,000 = -0.2%

Since I'm not sure how negative unemployed people would be possible, I think the fact that by using the same formula I can get a negative number shows there's something invalid with the formula.

Yes, in many ways the employment situation is worse now than Jan 2009...every alternative measure of underutilization except the U2 (Job losers as % of the labor force) is worse now. But the percent of people who do not want a job is also higher: 33.6% as opposed to 31.9%

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

True, but you and others who claim the U6 is "real unemployment" aren't grasping that the U6 adds in people who could NOT be working (because they're not trying to) and people who are working (fewer hours than they want).

Most importantly , U6 has gone from around 9% to 15% during Barry's depression!! Liberals are quite happy to forgive him and blame Bush or circumstances. At the 8 years mark they will probably be just as forgiving as they were of FDR after 10 years of his depression!!

Liberals are treasonously slow,what other explanation is possible?

 

[pinqy]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

True, but you and others who claim the U6 is "real unemployment" aren't grasping that the U6 adds in people who could NOT be working (because they're not trying to) and people who are working (fewer hours than they want).

Most importantly , U6 has gone from around 9% to 15% during Barry's depression!! Liberals are quite happy to forgive him and blame Bush or circumstances. At the 8 years mark they will probably be just as forgiving as they were of FDR after 10 years of his depression!!

Liberals are treasonously slow,what other explanation is possible?

No, it was 14.2% in Jan 2009, went as high as 17.1% in 2009, and is now 14.4%. Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

And since the U6 trends the same as the U3, it doesn't show any difference in direction.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

True, but you and others who claim the U6 is "real unemployment" aren't grasping that the U6 adds in people who could NOT be working (because they're not trying to) and people who are working (fewer hours than they want).

Most importantly , U6 has gone from around 9% to 15% during Barry's depression!! Liberals are quite happy to forgive him and blame Bush or circumstances. At the 8 years mark they will probably be just as forgiving as they were of FDR after 10 years of his depression!!

Liberals are treasonously slow,what other explanation is possible?

No, it was 14.2% in Jan 2009, went as high as 17.1% in 2009, and is now 14.4%. Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

And since the U6 trends the same as the U3, it doesn't show any difference in direction.

It was about 9% in the 10 years before BO and its averaged about 15% during BO's years. Its the worst performance since FDR's all time records.

But FDR's depresssion made him a hero to brain dead liberals and BO's depression will probably do the same for him!!

 

[asterism]

Nothing says "Roar!" Like 8% UE for 5 years

To be fair, OP was talking about current state of the economy. What it was 5 years ago isn't a refutable point.

Don't be fair. Look someone's net worth is going through the freaking roof right now and that is based on bets made on the U.S. economy. I never said it was anyone in particular. All I said was that someone is watching their portfolio go like Jack's beanstalk these last few years.

The only ones who are seeing their net worth go through the roof based on the DJIA increases are those who had substantial assets not in the market and invested precisely at the bottom, and even then their holdings grown much more than double.

 

[asterism]

Western Progressive

The stock market has nearly doubled under Obama, adding $7.3 trillion in market cap, according to Bloomberg Businessweek in mid-October.

That means that investors are $7.3T richer than in 2009. If you're not an investor in the stock market than I feel for you. Take your 2% and smile. Oh, and you're probably doing the work of three people right now, tough times and all you know.

Investors are richer only after having the value of their holdings cut in half.

 

[emptystep]

Looked like a totally incoherent mess to me, one that has no relevance to the UE issue. But hey, if you guys are happy wth it, more power to ya.

Here's what I know: we got too many people who could be working but ain't.

True, but you and others who claim the U6 is "real unemployment" aren't grasping that the U6 adds in people who could NOT be working (because they're not trying to) and people who are working (fewer hours than they want).

Most importantly , U6 has gone from around 9% to 15% during Barry's depression!! Liberals are quite happy to forgive him and blame Bush or circumstances. At the 8 years mark they will probably be just as forgiving as they were of FDR after 10 years of his depression!!

Liberals are treasonously slow,what other explanation is possible?

I really don't know. Your argument that we needed a much bigger stimulus package might have caused some adverse side effects. Sometime trying to get things going to quickly creates long term problems.