Fact vs. Myth: Real Unemployment Rate (U-6) -- Obama vs. Bush

[thereisnospoon]

Now factor in the new jobs under Democrats are paying about 30% less than the jobs lost.

And add that to the fact that new job creation is in the negative.
The labor participation rate continues to shrink.

 

[Siete]

many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare

No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.

When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.

In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.

the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.

But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.

no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.

Not all, some choose to reduce their hours.

Boomers Plan to Work Part-Time in Retirement - FlexJobs

18 Jun, 2014
Boomers Plan to Work Part-Time in Retirement
Jennifer Parris
In the past, you might have worked with the same company for decades, retired at age 65, and set off to find a new pastime to fill your carefree hours. Today’s boomers are doing quite the opposite and are actually planning to work part-time in retirement—and beyond.

According to a new survey commissioned by the nonprofit Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, about 65 percent of baby boomers plan to work after age 65—or don’t even plan to retire at all. The two biggest motivating factors for them to continue working: income (or lack thereof) and health benefits.

which has nothing to do with the 9 million boomers that have already left the workforce.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:

Chart What s the real unemployment rate

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment

In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. And that recession was needlessly made worse by senselss federal regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market regulation, which was later quietly changed in recognition of the damage it had done during the early stages of the recession. See:

Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis

One BIG contrast is that unlike Bush, Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. That being the biggisest reason the U6 rate went up as high as 17.1%. And while the U3 rate is the official unemployment rate, by any measure, it almost doubled under Bush and has come down under Obama.

Your other nonsense about the CRA has been debunked repeatedly.

Blah blah blah....."It's the other guy's fault"...
You lefties are so childish....You have no conception of responsibility.
It's always someone else's fault.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:

Chart What s the real unemployment rate

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment

In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. And that recession was needlessly made worse by senselss federal regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market regulation, which was later quietly changed in recognition of the damage it had done during the early stages of the recession. See:

Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis

One BIG contrast is that unlike Bush, Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. That being the biggisest reason the U6 rate went up as high as 17.1%. And while the U3 rate is the official unemployment rate, by any measure, it almost doubled under Bush and has come down under Obama.

Your other nonsense about the CRA has been debunked repeatedly.

No, puddin. The CRA had much to do with the banks being forced into lending to otherwise unqualified individuals.
If that was not the case, why then did the federal government as a concession tell lenders the government would in case of default, back up the loans?
If the CRA/Fannie/Freddie systems were so good, why the need to set up a system in case of failure?....Why create rules that allowed financial institutions to package loans into 'securities'?....

 

[edthecynic]

No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.

When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.

In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.

the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.

But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.

no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.

Not all, some choose to reduce their hours.

Boomers Plan to Work Part-Time in Retirement - FlexJobs

18 Jun, 2014
Boomers Plan to Work Part-Time in Retirement
Jennifer Parris
In the past, you might have worked with the same company for decades, retired at age 65, and set off to find a new pastime to fill your carefree hours. Today’s boomers are doing quite the opposite and are actually planning to work part-time in retirement—and beyond.

According to a new survey commissioned by the nonprofit Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, about 65 percent of baby boomers plan to work after age 65—or don’t even plan to retire at all. The two biggest motivating factors for them to continue working: income (or lack thereof) and health benefits.

which has nothing to do with the 9 million boomers that have already left the workforce.

Some Boomers retire completely and some don't. What is so hard to get? Once I reached retirement are I switched to part time just to keep active and maintain some kind of regular schedule. Before I took a PT job I tended to stay in bed until late in the day and stay up all night. Now my day is more regular.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:

Chart What s the real unemployment rate

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment

In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. See:

Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis

(And it's worth noting that the Great Recession was needlessly made worse by senseless federal regulations such as the ridiculous federal mark-to-market regulations. Those regulations were later quietly changed, in recognition of the damage they had done during the early stages of the recession. For more on the damage done by the federal mark-to-market restrictions, see Suspend Mark-To-Market Now - Forbes and The mark to market fiasco.)

Obama inherited a 14.3% U-6 from Bush and it's now down to 11.3%.

And no it was not federal regulation that caused the recession.

So what happened? Where is Obama's 2010 "summer of recovery"?
You people voted for this guy...twice. And despite the economy running its cycles and now has finally only started to improve, and notwithstanding Obama's nothing but rhetoric domestic policies, you cannot admit you made a gigantic error in judgment....And to protect your position, you play the race card. As in "if you object to Obama, you must be a racist."

 

[BluesLegend]

Now factor in the new jobs under Democrats are paying about 30% less than the jobs lost.

And add that to the fact that new job creation is in the negative.
The labor participation rate continues to shrink.

Yet according to the left Obama's policies are economic genius.

 

[edthecynic]

The CRA had much to do with the banks being forced into lending to otherwise unqualified individuals.

Pure racist bullshit!

A borrower had to be qualified for a CRA mortgage, but to racists no minority is ever qualified for a bank mortgage. It was Bush who allowed no down payment loans to unqualified borrowers with bad credit.

 

[pinqy]

Now factor in the new jobs under Democrats are paying about 30% less than the jobs lost.

And add that to the fact that new job creation is in the negative.

No, there are 3.2 million more jobs in January 2015 than January 2014 (not seasonally adjusted. Jobs haven't gone down since September 2010

The labor participation rate continues to shrink.

As the percentage of people who don't want to work goes up:

That is from BLS data using a St. Louis Fed tool. The number of people not in the labor force minus those not in the labor force who say they want a job (in other words, eveyone in the population who does not want a job) divided by the population. If the percent that does not want to work goes up, then the percent in the labor force will probably go down.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Where to start. . . . The U-3 rate hit over 10% in the recession Reagan faced. GDP loss can vary in a recession, depending on the nature of the recession, which sectors are hit the worst, etc. But U-3 went over 10% in the 1982 recession, and there were just about as many bank failures in 1982 recession as there were in the 2008 recession.

If you've done any kind of balanced research, you surely know that Reagan's economic record is far better than Obama's. The comparison is not even close.

The thing with Reagan's recession is that the bank failures kept going all the way until a few years after Clinton's term started. With Obama the bank failures were mostly over by 2012.

Year - Number of bank failures
2014 - 18
2013 - 23
2012 - 50
2011 - 92
2010 - 157
2009 - 140
2008 - 30
2007 - 3
2006 - 0
2005 - 0
2004 - 4
2003 - 3
2002 - 11
2001 - 4
2000 - 7
1999 - 8
1998 - 3
1997 - 1
1996 - 6
1995 - 8
1994 - 15
1993 - 50
1992 - 181
1991 - 271
1990 - 382
1989 - 534
1988 - 470
1987 - 262
1986 - 204
1985 - 180
1984 - 106
1983 - 99
1982 - 119
1981 - 40
1980 - 22

Also there isn't a significant difference between Reagan and Obama with unemployment, Obama has performed slightly better but both of them had to deal with situations outside of their control.

Bank failures had little to do with POTUS policy. Rather, the bank failures of the 80's were due mostly to lax or even absent rules with regard to the valuation of real property, speculative investment in the domestic oil business and agriculture. Most of the banks that failed were small Savings' and Loan banks that lent money to farmers who saw commodity prices tumble due to recession...
These banks also failed because there little oversight in the real estate appraisal business. As opposed to today, there was no "arm's length" rule to insure appraisers were acting independently of lender desires. Banks would hire their own appraisers whop were told to "apply a value to this property so that the loan will work"...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now factor in the new jobs under Democrats are paying about 30% less than the jobs lost.

And add that to the fact that new job creation is in the negative.

No, there are 3.2 million more jobs in January 2015 than January 2014 (not seasonally adjusted. Jobs haven't gone down since September 2010

The labor participation rate continues to shrink.

As the percentage of people who don't want to work goes up:

That is from BLS data using a St. Louis Fed tool. The number of people not in the labor force minus those not in the labor force who say they want a job (in other words, eveyone in the population who does not want a job) divided by the population. If the percent that does not want to work goes up, then the percent in the labor force will probably go down.

Define "job".....IMO a "job" is FULL TIME hired employment. Not part time. Not temporary.
As the percentage of people who do not want a job goes up......
I just stated that.....Jesus...

 

[pinqy]

Now factor in the new jobs under Democrats are paying about 30% less than the jobs lost.

And add that to the fact that new job creation is in the negative.

No, there are 3.2 million more jobs in January 2015 than January 2014 (not seasonally adjusted. Jobs haven't gone down since September 2010

The labor participation rate continues to shrink.

As the percentage of people who don't want to work goes up:

That is from BLS data using a St. Louis Fed tool. The number of people not in the labor force minus those not in the labor force who say they want a job (in other words, eveyone in the population who does not want a job) divided by the population. If the percent that does not want to work goes up, then the percent in the labor force will probably go down.

Define "job".....IMO a "job" is FULL TIME hired employment. Not part time. Not temporary.

So a part time job is not actually a job? No need to give the persona paycheck? Well, the official jobs numbers ("jobs created") don't differentiate between full and part-time. The survey only asks number of employees, total hours, overtime hours, total payroll, overtime pay. So we have to switch to the household survey to look at those who usually work 35+ hours/week

Doesn't seem to be in the negative to me.

As the percentage of people who do not want a job goes up......
I just stated that.....Jesus...

I missed it. I just saw you say "The labor participation rate continues to shrink" which is not the same thing (there are those not in the labor force who say they want a job).

 

[Wry Catcher]

The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:

Chart What s the real unemployment rate

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment

In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. And that recession was needlessly made worse by senselss federal regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market regulation, which was later quietly changed in recognition of the damage it had done during the early stages of the recession. See:

Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis

One BIG contrast is that unlike Bush, Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. That being the biggisest reason the U6 rate went up as high as 17.1%. And while the U3 rate is the official unemployment rate, by any measure, it almost doubled under Bush and has come down under Obama.

Your other nonsense about the CRA has been debunked repeatedly.

Poor useful idiot.

I see ^^^ you signed your post, but failed to post anything else. I suppose that is why you have been so nicknamed.

 

[rdean]

You only need to look at Red State vs Blue States to know who is better at economics. It really is that simple.

 

[Faun]

The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!

The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.

How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?

Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.

Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes

Forbes is actually a liberal mouthpiece.
Next.

Hallucinates the forum jester

 

[Faun]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

If that were true, it doesn't bode well for Republicans since more jobs have been added during his presidency than by 4 of the 6 Republican presidents since the BLS has tracked employment. And that's even factoring in the millions of jobs lost on his watch in 2009 due to Bush's Great Recession.

 

[Faun]

The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:

Chart What s the real unemployment rate

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment

In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. And that recession was needlessly made worse by senselss federal regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market regulation, which was later quietly changed in recognition of the damage it had done during the early stages of the recession. See:

Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis

One BIG contrast is that unlike Bush, Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. That being the biggisest reason the U6 rate went up as high as 17.1%. And while the U3 rate is the official unemployment rate, by any measure, it almost doubled under Bush and has come down under Obama.

Your other nonsense about the CRA has been debunked repeatedly.

Blah blah blah....."It's the other guy's fault"...
You lefties are so childish....You have no conception of responsibility.
It's always someone else's fault.

And your point is ... I should ignore lies told by the right?

Well that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Faun]

The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:

Chart What s the real unemployment rate

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment

In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. And that recession was needlessly made worse by senselss federal regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market regulation, which was later quietly changed in recognition of the damage it had done during the early stages of the recession. See:

Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis

One BIG contrast is that unlike Bush, Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. That being the biggisest reason the U6 rate went up as high as 17.1%. And while the U3 rate is the official unemployment rate, by any measure, it almost doubled under Bush and has come down under Obama.

Your other nonsense about the CRA has been debunked repeatedly.

No, puddin. The CRA had much to do with the banks being forced into lending to otherwise unqualified individuals.
If that was not the case, why then did the federal government as a concession tell lenders the government would in case of default, back up the loans?
If the CRA/Fannie/Freddie systems were so good, why the need to set up a system in case of failure?....Why create rules that allowed financial institutions to package loans into 'securities'?....

I'd sure love to see you provide a lucid explanation for how the CRA caused the system to fail given that 3/4 of the lending institutions which wrote toxic loans weren't even under CRA authority ... 94% of the toxic loans were not CRA loans ... and zero percent of the toxic loans on commercial properties were CRA loans.

Like I said ... I'd love to see you do it -- but I know you can't.

 

[Siete]

No, puddin. The CRA had much to do with the banks being forced into lending to otherwise unqualified individuals.
If that was not the case, why then did the federal government as a concession tell lenders the government would in case of default, back up the loans?
If the CRA/Fannie/Freddie systems were so good, why the need to set up a system in case of failure?....Why create rules that allowed financial institutions to package loans into 'securities'?....

the banks were paid everytime they made a loan, then were paid again when the loan failed ... forced my right shoe.

 

[edthecynic]

No, puddin. The CRA had much to do with the banks being forced into lending to otherwise unqualified individuals.

repeating pure racist bullshit does not make it any less pure racist bullshit.

The CRA came about because banks were refusing loans to QUALIFIED minorities who tried to buy into white neighborhoods after some news organizations caught the banks in a sting. they had a black couple with excellent credit apply for a mortgage and when they were refused they sent a white couple with the identical credit data with just the name changed to buy the same exact house and they were accepted.

The CRA required banks to lend to QUALIFIED borrowers even if they were minorities buying into white neighborhoods, but to racists no minority is ever qualified for a loan especially if it is for a home in a white neighborhood, thus their claim that the CRA made loans to unqualified borrowers.