So How Many Times Were There More Jobs Than People During The Obama Years?

[Redfish]

This is the unemployment rate over the last few years with the year lines removed...any of the Trumpsters think they can highlight the big change that took place under Trump?

View attachment 224964

you guys said it would go up if he won, it didn't, it reached record lows. That's the point here. Got a similar chart on black and Hispanic unemployment? If you do, post them and I think you will find the answer to your question.

I said that? Feel free to find a post of me saying that.

Here is black unemployment

over the same time frame as above...feel free to highlight the sudden change under Trump.

View attachment 224987

And this Hispanic unemployment over the same time frame. Same goes, show me where the Trump change is on here.

View attachment 224988

right, record lows for both after all the left wingers (maybe not you) said Trump would cause them to go up. RECORD lows, do you understand that?

 

[Redfish]

stat 101, for a sample to be statistically significant it needs to be at least 5% of the population it is taken from.

then provide the link that supports this claim.

As to fries, never cooked them, but I do make excellent ribs on the grill. also redfish on the half shell and char broiled oysters, and a pretty good gumbo.

I didn't know this was a food forum. But I understand that you get confused easily.

Don't be shy, we all know that someone as stupid as you could not do anything more than be a fry cook at Wendy's. It is ok, nature is just not fair sometimes.

you are an embarrassment to the gator nation. I am not interested in engaging in an insult contest with a moron like you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is the unemployment rate over the last few years with the year lines removed...any of the Trumpsters think they can highlight the big change that took place under Trump?

View attachment 224964

you guys said it would go up if he won, it didn't, it reached record lows. That's the point here. Got a similar chart on black and Hispanic unemployment? If you do, post them and I think you will find the answer to your question.

I said that? Feel free to find a post of me saying that.

Here is black unemployment

over the same time frame as above...feel free to highlight the sudden change under Trump.

View attachment 224987

And this Hispanic unemployment over the same time frame. Same goes, show me where the Trump change is on here.

View attachment 224988

right, record lows for both after all the left wingers (maybe not you) said Trump would cause them to go up. RECORD lows, do you understand that?

So, one more time..show me where the change took place after the election, or is what we are seeing now just a continuation of the previous trend?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

stat 101, for a sample to be statistically significant it needs to be at least 5% of the population it is taken from.

then provide the link that supports this claim.

As to fries, never cooked them, but I do make excellent ribs on the grill. also redfish on the half shell and char broiled oysters, and a pretty good gumbo.

I didn't know this was a food forum. But I understand that you get confused easily.

Don't be shy, we all know that someone as stupid as you could not do anything more than be a fry cook at Wendy's. It is ok, nature is just not fair sometimes.

you are an embarrassment to the gator nation. I am not interested in engaging in an insult contest with a moron like you.

Still waiting for that link....

 

[sparky]

Work until you drop. A horrible thing to look forward to.

I plan on dying of something i LIKE to do...

Why are they screwed if S.S. Is cut?

yeah, bowl o' gruel w/o sugar...bummer

If anyone relies totally on the government to take care of them during their retirement then they're a fool.

ironically ,our elected leaders are set for life!

and then we can talk about his doubling of the national debt.

Trump's GOP did that, while you were of lamenting Kava's laundry

why is the right wing still trying to punish the poor with cuts to social services or work requirements, if our economy is doing so well.

It's their thing , they hate the poor , makes 'em look bad

so 'eff 'em, let 'em die is their policy

~S~

 

[pinqy]

Why won't you answer the question?

How much change has tRump actually made in the unemployment numbers?

From like 4% under Obama to like 3% under Trump? For Obama when he started as president in his first month it grew to 10%. That’s what bush and the GOP handed him.

4.8 to 3.9.

0.9%.

and 0.9% of 330,000,000 is ?????

It’s not .9% of anything, that’s not how percentages work.

4.8% of 159,718,000 minus 3.9% of 161,776,000 are the actual numbers. Well, the September data have come out so it’s now 3.7% of 161,926,000

The unemployment rate is not percent of the total population...it’s percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rate
Labor Force level

yes, and the labor force is a fluid number. It is not a constant. The facts are that under Trump the UE is at record lows, especially for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. We also know that people who stopped looking for work were removed from the calculation under Obama, I don't know is that has been corrected or not.

People not trying to work have never ever been included in the labor force (ok, there were some subjective exceptions before 1969). So there was nothing to correct: the labor force are those people available for work, and someone not trying to work is by definition not available.

 

[danielpalos]

This is the unemployment rate over the last few years with the year lines removed...any of the Trumpsters think they can highlight the big change that took place under Trump?

View attachment 224964

you guys said it would go up if he won, it didn't, it reached record lows. That's the point here. Got a similar chart on black and Hispanic unemployment? If you do, post them and I think you will find the answer to your question.

we are starting to see the effect of some of Your guy's policies now. The trade war is not helping. --https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tariffs-trade-war-layoffs-business-losses-2018-8

 

[g5000]

Look, man. I've solved the problem.

We have seven million job openings. Let's bring in some more Mexicans!

Hell, we already have a few thousand on the way. Just wave them in. We need the income taxes what with Trump running up trillion dollar deficits!

 

[danielpalos]

Look, man. I've solved the problem.

We have seven million job openings. Let's bring in some more Mexicans!

Hell, we already have a few thousand on the way. Just wave them in. We need the income taxes what with Trump running up trillion dollar deficits!

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage; first worlders may want try their luck. If Only, we had a market friendly visa system.

 

[sparky]

the labor force are those people available for work, and someone not trying to work is by definition not available

oh? it's politically incorrect to call 'em bums now?

man, i never get the memo...

Let's bring in some more Mexicans!

¡Más mecicanos! ¡Esconda a las mujeres y a los niños!

 

[Marion Morrison]

So now Obama comes back from vacation to brag about how this is his economy? The Trump economic wonder was created by him?
Really? Does anyone ever recall a time during that 8 year horror when we hit 20,000 in the stock market and we had 7 million job openings?

Zero.

 

[danielpalos]

the labor force are those people available for work, and someone not trying to work is by definition not available

oh? it's politically incorrect to call 'em bums now?

man, i never get the memo...

Let's bring in some more Mexicans!

¡Más mecicanos! ¡Esconda a las mujeres y a los niños!

the right wing prefers cheap labor regardless of social costs.

 

[pinqy]

the labor force are those people available for work, and someone not trying to work is by definition not available

oh? it's politically incorrect to call 'em bums now?

man, i never get the memo...

Why would you call retirees, housewives, full time students, independently wealthy, and disabled “bums?” Sure, a lot of people not trying to work are potheads living in Mom’s basement, or other bums, but there are also many that can’t or really don’t need to work.

We’re talking over 90 million people: most are old, young or disabled.

 

[pinqy]

stat 101, for a sample to be statistically significant it needs to be at least 5% of the population it is taken from. Its a simple mathematical reality. Spin and insult all you want, praise the crooked pollsters all you want, math is an absolute.

Leaving aside your misuse of the phrase "statistically significant," your claim of minimum sample size is only true for pure random samples. The Current Population Survey (used for the UE rate) is not. For a pure random sample it would be possible with a low sample size to completely miss an entire state or city. In the actual survey, it's not possible.

For the CPS, the country is divided into Primary Statistical Units, where each PSU IS entire in one state. If the PSU is large enough (top 150 or so most populouscounties) it is self representing: it will be picked with certainty. The rest of the PSUs in the state are grouped into strata where all the PSUs in the strata are roughly equivalent in demographics, income, unemployment etc and one PSU is randomly selected. And then an average of around 75 addresses are chosen from each PSU...again representing the different demographics and socio-economic pattern.

So overall, at the 90% confidence level, the margin of error for the UE rate is +/- .2 percentage points.

 

[Redfish]

From like 4% under Obama to like 3% under Trump? For Obama when he started as president in his first month it grew to 10%. That’s what bush and the GOP handed him.

4.8 to 3.9.

0.9%.

and 0.9% of 330,000,000 is ?????

It’s not .9% of anything, that’s not how percentages work.

4.8% of 159,718,000 minus 3.9% of 161,776,000 are the actual numbers. Well, the September data have come out so it’s now 3.7% of 161,926,000

The unemployment rate is not percent of the total population...it’s percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rate
Labor Force level

yes, and the labor force is a fluid number. It is not a constant. The facts are that under Trump the UE is at record lows, especially for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. We also know that people who stopped looking for work were removed from the calculation under Obama, I don't know is that has been corrected or not.

People not trying to work have never ever been included in the labor force (ok, there were some subjective exceptions before 1969). So there was nothing to correct: the labor force are those people available for work, and someone not trying to work is by definition not available.

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation. People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today, I really don't know, and frankly, don't care. Trump is doing what I want him to do, he is fixing the mess and calling out the corrupt establishment in both parties, as well as calling out the corrupt lying media which has become nothing but the propaganda arm of the dem party.

 

[Redfish]

stat 101, for a sample to be statistically significant it needs to be at least 5% of the population it is taken from. Its a simple mathematical reality. Spin and insult all you want, praise the crooked pollsters all you want, math is an absolute.

Leaving aside your misuse of the phrase "statistically significant," your claim of minimum sample size is only true for pure random samples. The Current Population Survey (used for the UE rate) is not. For a pure random sample it would be possible with a low sample size to completely miss an entire state or city. In the actual survey, it's not possible.

For the CPS, the country is divided into Primary Statistical Units, where each PSU IS entire in one state. If the PSU is large enough (top 150 or so most populouscounties) it is self representing: it will be picked with certainty. The rest of the PSUs in the state are grouped into strata where all the PSUs in the strata are roughly equivalent in demographics, income, unemployment etc and one PSU is randomly selected. And then an average of around 75 addresses are chosen from each PSU...again representing the different demographics and socio-economic pattern.

So overall, at the 90% confidence level, the margin of error for the UE rate is +/- .2 percentage points.

that is correct, but its not what gator and I were discussing. We were talking about political polls, where the sample is tiny compared to the population and the fact that the pollsters try to claim validity by saying that their 1000 proportionately includes all American demographics. That is simply impossible since their are far more than 1000 American demographic groups.

 

[pinqy]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

 

[Redfish]

Under Obama, those who were unemployed but no longer looking for work were taken out of the calculation.

Here is the definition of Unemployed from the May 2007 Rmployment Situation
Scroll to page 7 of the report.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

You do see that under Bush (I can go back to Johnson if you want) people not looking for work were not classified as unemployed. Excepting those in temporary unemployment.
If you want to get more explicit, on page 6 the last FAQ is

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped looking for
work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in the Employment Situation news release.

There has been no change in the definition dince 1994, and even that was a minor change relating to people no longer looking because they’ve been hired but haven’t started working yet

People who had given up on finding jobs. That may still be the case today,

It’s always been the case.

But here’s the problem: You made a statement that was untrue. When told it was untrue, did you do any checking at all to see if you were mistaken or if you were believing a lie? No, you didn’t. You just repeated the same untruth, not caring if it was true or not.

That’s disturbing.[/B]

If your cite is correct, I stand corrected, thanks

 

[edthecynic]

someone is providing food, water, tents, trucks, buses, and trains. I guess you don't care or don't know, that's just fine. Or maybe you have suspicions but cant speak of them because it would destroy your dem/lib ideology. We all understand who and what you are.

TRUMP! That's who! He needed an issue to rouse his base to try to save the midterms and avoid being investigated by a Dem controlled House and all of a sudden there is a caravan of asylum seekers on the march at a time when they had never marched before.

 

[edthecynic]

someone is providing food, water, transportation, tents, etc. Who do you think it is? this is not just some random exodus, its being orchestrated by someone, and it has to be someone with a lot of money, Soros fits the bill.

Actually Tramp fits the bill better. He needed an issue to try to save the GOP in the midterms, and thus himself from criminal prosecution, so he financed Trump's Convoy and presto he has an issue to motivate his base.

please provide some proof of that stupid claim.

I need no more proof than Tramp had blaming Venezuela since Donnie dirtbag ALWAYS lies and accuses others of what he is doing.