The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Faun]

Do you know what an average measures? Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96. If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office. Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q. How is that?

A. Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

Using your analogy with a GPA, by the end, one student flunks out while the other makes the dean’s list. But then here comes some schmuck trying to say they both did equally as well because they both had the same average GPA.

Now do you see why your position is ridiculed for its absurdity?

 

[U2Edge]

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

The lie is you assigning a value to a president as though it reflects on the job they did regarding employment; which, as you’ve been shown over and over again, it does no such thing.

Where is the value that I have assigned to each President? I've gathered data on one important metric that should be looked at and considered.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

Figures you wouldn’t know that answer

Figures you aren't a math wizard, too.

so what is it that makes it a math problem to solve?

Consider when Obama took office we were losing nearly a million jobs a month. Graphs are a much better tool to understand the issue, using the average is to lie by omission:

See: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

still not sure how that has anything to do with math.

LOL look up Mean and Average.

 

[U2Edge]

1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information.
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone.
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact.
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

Using your analogy with a GPA, by the end, one student flunks out while the other makes the dean’s list. But then here comes some schmuck trying to say they both did equally as well because they both had the same average GPA.

Now do you see why your position is ridiculed for its absurdity?

Well if the student who started with bad grades flunked out, then he wouldn't be around to make any good grades. The other student who started with good grades would have been around much longer and completed most of his education before he , according to you, flunked out.

Does not matter. Do we still use GRADE POINT AVERAGE as a metric to assess students? Yes. Why? Because the average is an important metric to consider!

But hey, maybe you want to do away with GPA at schools. Perhaps you should become an advocate. What do you think?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

Using your analogy with a GPA, by the end, one student flunks out while the other makes the dean’s list. But then here comes some schmuck trying to say they both did equally as well because they both had the same average GPA.

Now do you see why your position is ridiculed for its absurdity?

Well if the student who started with bad grades flunked out, then he wouldn't be around to make any good grades. The other student who started with good grades would have been around much longer and completed most of his education before he , according to you, flunked out.

Does not matter. Do we still use GRADE POINT AVERAGE as a metric to assess students? Yes. Why? Because the average is an important metric to consider!

But hey, maybe you want to do away with GPA at schools. Perhaps you should become an advocate. What do you think?

There is no polite way to respond to this ^^^ rant, and nothing will ever convince you of the facts. Have a good day.

 

[Faun]

President Obama created 17.267 million jobs by the end of December 2016, a 12.8 percent increase. There were 152.111 million people employed at the end of his term. That's compared to 134.844 million working at the end of the Bush Administration.

But that doesn't give the total picture. The economy lost 8.7 million jobs as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. It kept shedding them until January 2010. Since that low point, Obama created 22.309 million jobs, a 17.2 percent increase.

Obama attacked the Great Recession with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It created jobs through public works. Many of those jobs were in construction. That successfully reduced the unemployment rate. But that meant Obama increased the debt by $7.9 trillion, a 67 percent increase. That drove the debt to GDP ratio to 104 percent.

It didn't stimulate demand as much as creating the same number of better paying high-tech jobs. In fact, jobs created after the last few recessions have led to greater income inequality, as re-hired workers became willing to take jobs that paid less. The high level of long-term unemployed and underemployed meant that trend only continued.

Job creation would have been stronger during Obama's term if Congress hadn't passed sequestration. In his last FOMC meeting, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke noted that these austerity measures forced the government to shed 600,000 jobs in four years. In the prior recovery, the economy added 400,000 jobs during the same period.

Obama outline his job creation strategies in his State of the Union Addresses and the American Jobs Act.

What fucking bullshit. Did you really think you could come on a forum like this and pass off such utter nonsense? You’re actually posting from two separate surveys to serve up your bullshit.

Your starting figure of 134K employed comes from the BLS’s payroll data but your ending figure comes from the BLS’s household data. Two separate surveys. . Shit, someone as dishonest as you could flip the two surveys and claim Obama started with 142K jobs (household survey) and finished with 146K (payroll data), adding only 4 million jobs in total. Of course, that would be equally as retarded as the bullshit you posted.

Here are the actual figures (in thousands)...

BLS: Household Data (+9.9 million)
1/2009: 142,152
1/2017: 152,076

BLS: Payroll Data (+11.6 million)
1/2009: 134,055
1/2017: 145,696

 

[my2¢]

Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:

1. Bill Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Lyndon B. Johnson
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt
6. Richard Nixon
7. Harry Truman
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. John F. Kennedy
10. George W. Bush

Which President Created the Most Jobs?

 

[jc456]

Figures you wouldn’t know that answer

Figures you aren't a math wizard, too.

so what is it that makes it a math problem to solve?

Consider when Obama took office we were losing nearly a million jobs a month. Graphs are a much better tool to understand the issue, using the average is to lie by omission:

See: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

still not sure how that has anything to do with math.

LOL look up Mean and Average.

mean

average

 

[Faun]

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

The lie is you assigning a value to a president as though it reflects on the job they did regarding employment; which, as you’ve been shown over and over again, it does no such thing.

Where is the value that I have assigned to each President? I've gathered data on one important metric that should be looked at and considered.

Where have you assign a value to each president? Don't you pay attention to what you post? Are you not the person who posted this...?

 

[Faun]

As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....

Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

Using your analogy with a GPA, by the end, one student flunks out while the other makes the dean’s list. But then here comes some schmuck trying to say they both did equally as well because they both had the same average GPA.

Now do you see why your position is ridiculed for its absurdity?

Well if the student who started with bad grades flunked out, then he wouldn't be around to make any good grades. The other student who started with good grades would have been around much longer and completed most of his education before he , according to you, flunked out.

Nope, not really. Because unlike a GPA which measures only a students own efforts, the unemployment rate and employment conditions are inherited from the previous president, greatly affecting the numbers of the incoming president.

So to rectify your GPA quandary, one student is given the gift of a 4.0 GPA when they start. Soon after, they end up on academic probation and eventually flunk out. The other student is saddled with a 1.0 GPA to start with. They're allowed to stay in school because their grades are improving and they ultimately make the dean's list.

Is any of this penetrating your skull?

 

[Faun]

Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:

1. Bill Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Lyndon B. Johnson
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt
6. Richard Nixon
7. Harry Truman
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. John F. Kennedy
10. George W. Bush

Which President Created the Most Jobs?

^^^ that's more bullshit. And that link you gave is an utter mess.

First of all, they keep changing the numbers they published, which they claim come from the BLS (they don't)

First they say Clinton added 23.2 million jobs. Then further down, they say he added 21.5 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 22.9 million jobs (link is below).

Then they say Reagan added 15.9 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 16.1 million jobs. In fact, they got most of their figures wrong.

Even worse, they're unbelievably comparing nominal figures in an ever growing population. Their list actually compares the job growth in number of jobs added under Obama in 2016, with a civilian noninstitutional population (CNP) of 254 million -- with Gerald Ford, with a CNP of just 155 million. Worse still, they go all the way back to FDR. I can't show the CNP from then because the BLS does not post such numbers from that long ago.

That's why we use rates to compare, not nominal figures.

Lastly, who the fuck knows where they get their figures on Obama. They actually claim he added 17.3 million jobs.

Nowhere near that. Obama's actual job growth was 11.6 million.

Then they ridiculously calculate he added a whopping 22.3 million jobs, placing him second behind Clinton, if you ignore the jobs lost in Bush's Great Recession. WTF?? You can't cherry pick dates you find convenient just so you can move Obama up the ladder. And again, their numbers are bullshit because even if you start counting from the lowest point in Feb., 2010, it's still only 16 million jobs, not 22.3.

Really lastly. It looks like your link also dishonestly intermingled payroll data with household data. That's why their figures are all fucked up.

Looking at the actual figures (in millions) posted by the BLS (and only going as far back as Carter since the population growth factors in too heavily, even that far back, we see...

1. Clinton ... 22.9
2. Reagan .... 16.1
3. Obama ..... 11.6
4. Carter .... 10.3
5. Bush41 .... 2.6
6. Bush43 .... 1.3

But those numbers are skewed because not all presidents served the same number of years. Breaking that down on an average by year...

1. Clinton ... 2.9
2. Carter .... 2.6
3. Reagan .... 2.0
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.7
6. Bush43 .... 0.2

And then if you factor in population growth, using January, 2017 as a base, annual averages in millions looks like this...

1. Carter .... 3.9
2. Clinton ... 3.4
3. Reagan .... 2.8
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.9
6. Bush43 .... 0.2

The one thing that stands out above all others is what an absolute fucking mess George Walker Bush was. There was barely any job growth on his watch at all. In fact, ALL of the job growth on his miserable watch was in public sector jobs as he became only the second president behind Herbert Hoover (of Great Depression infamy) to leave office with fewer jobs in the private sector than when he started.

All data used in this post comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[U2Edge]

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

Using your analogy with a GPA, by the end, one student flunks out while the other makes the dean’s list. But then here comes some schmuck trying to say they both did equally as well because they both had the same average GPA.

Now do you see why your position is ridiculed for its absurdity?

Well if the student who started with bad grades flunked out, then he wouldn't be around to make any good grades. The other student who started with good grades would have been around much longer and completed most of his education before he , according to you, flunked out.

Nope, not really. Because unlike a GPA which measures only a students own efforts, the unemployment rate and employment conditions are inherited from the previous president, greatly affecting the numbers of the incoming president.

So to rectify your GPA quandary, one student is given the gift of a 4.0 GPA when they start. Soon after, they end up on academic probation and eventually flunk out. The other student is saddled with a 1.0 GPA to start with. They're allowed to stay in school because their grades are improving and they ultimately make the dean's list.

Is any of this penetrating your skull?

Do you think schools should use GRADE POINT AVERAGE in assessing a students performance?

A previous President may or may not have impacted unemployment numbers for the next President, and if so to what degree and for how long. That's another debate. Here were just looking at the average unemployment rate while each President was in office which you say should never be looked at all, considered, or is irrelevant etc. But like any metric from students grades to workers performance, knowing what the average is, is an important metric to look at.

You obviously thought it was important otherwise you would never have clicked on a thread with the title:
"The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?"

You could take any statistic, issue, or problem and make claims that its not so, does not matter, because of the previous President etc etc. Presidents terms begin and end at specific times, and naturally, one is going to group data during a Presidents time in office when making various assessments about a whole range of things. The average of data on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, poverty rate, crime rate, murder rate, etc. is going to be looked at to see things were during a certain administration.

Your fretting over a situation that does not happen. Where one Presidents unemployment goes down every month and another Presidents unemployment goes up ever month for the duration of their time in office. That never happens, and even if it did, taking the average for the time period is still relevant in many ways. Its the only way to look at all the data on a particular time period and accurately compare it with other administrations. Just looking at the first and the last month of an administration leaves out more than 90% of the data does not give you a real idea of what it was like from month to month, year to year for most people out there while that President was in office.

 

[U2Edge]

That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that.
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant.

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread.
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

The lie is you assigning a value to a president as though it reflects on the job they did regarding employment; which, as you’ve been shown over and over again, it does no such thing.

Where is the value that I have assigned to each President? I've gathered data on one important metric that should be looked at and considered.

Where have you assign a value to each president? Don't you pay attention to what you post? Are you not the person who posted this...?

Its a statistical average of the data from the bureau of labor statistics. Its not some randomly assigned value, its a FACT! You can fret about it all you want to, but it will never change.

You obviously think its important, otherwise you never would have clicked on a thread with this title.

 

[deanrd]

Which economy was better?

The one Bush left Obama?

Or the one Obama left Trump?

 

[U2Edge]

Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:

1. Bill Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Lyndon B. Johnson
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt
6. Richard Nixon
7. Harry Truman
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. John F. Kennedy
10. George W. Bush

Which President Created the Most Jobs?

^^^ that's more bullshit. And that link you gave is an utter mess.

First of all, they keep changing the numbers they published, which they claim come from the BLS (they don't)

First they say Clinton added 23.2 million jobs. Then further down, they say he added 21.5 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 22.9 million jobs (link is below).

Then they say Reagan added 15.9 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 16.1 million jobs. In fact, they got most of their figures wrong.

Even worse, they're unbelievably comparing nominal figures in an ever growing population. Their list actually compares the job growth in number of jobs added under Obama in 2016, with a civilian noninstitutional population (CNP) of 254 million -- with Gerald Ford, with a CNP of just 155 million. Worse still, they go all the way back to FDR. I can't show the CNP from then because the BLS does not post such numbers from that long ago.

That's why we use rates to compare, not nominal figures.

Lastly, who the fuck knows where they get their figures on Obama. They actually claim he added 17.3 million jobs.

Nowhere near that. Obama's actual job growth was 11.6 million.

Then they ridiculously calculate he added a whopping 22.3 million jobs, placing him second behind Clinton, if you ignore the jobs lost in Bush's Great Recession. WTF?? You can't cherry pick dates you find convenient just so you can move Obama up the ladder. And again, their numbers are bullshit because even if you start counting from the lowest point in Feb., 2010, it's still only 16 million jobs, not 22.3.

Really lastly. It looks like your link also dishonestly intermingled payroll data with household data. That's why their figures are all fucked up.

Looking at the actual figures (in millions) posted by the BLS (and only going as far back as Carter since the population growth factors in too heavily, even that far back, we see...

1. Clinton ... 22.9
2. Reagan .... 16.1
3. Obama ..... 11.6
4. Carter .... 10.3
5. Bush41 .... 2.6
6. Bush43 .... 1.3

But those numbers are skewed because not all presidents served the same number of years. Breaking that down on an average by year...

1. Clinton ... 2.9
2. Carter .... 2.6
3. Reagan .... 2.0
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.7
6. Bush43 .... 0.2

And then if you factor in population growth, using January, 2017 as a base, annual averages in millions looks like this...

1. Carter .... 3.9
2. Clinton ... 3.4
3. Reagan .... 2.8
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.9
6. Bush43 .... 0.2

The one thing that stands out above all others is what an absolute fucking mess George Walker Bush was. There was barely any job growth on his watch at all. In fact, ALL of the job growth on his miserable watch was in public sector jobs as he became only the second president behind Herbert Hoover (of Great Depression infamy) to leave office with fewer jobs in the private sector than when he started.

All data used in this post comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Job growth is not as high when the economy is at or near full employment. That was the situation for most of W's time in office until 2008.

 

[U2Edge]

Which economy was better?

The one Bush left Obama?

Or the one Obama left Trump?

Certainly the situation was better when the Obama administration transitioned into the Turmp Administration. But that's just a snapshot in time, and does not tell the full story of what things were like during a particular administration, especially when these administrations last 96 months or eight years. You need to look at a lot more than brief moments in time when fully assessing conditions good or bad during each administration.

 

[U2Edge]

Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:

1. Bill Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Lyndon B. Johnson
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt
6. Richard Nixon
7. Harry Truman
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. John F. Kennedy
10. George W. Bush

Which President Created the Most Jobs?

Job creation is typically easier during or just after a time of very high unemployment in contrast to times when the economy is at or near full employment.

 

[Faun]

I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....

... as this ...

... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.

How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance.

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.

Using your analogy with a GPA, by the end, one student flunks out while the other makes the dean’s list. But then here comes some schmuck trying to say they both did equally as well because they both had the same average GPA.

Now do you see why your position is ridiculed for its absurdity?

Well if the student who started with bad grades flunked out, then he wouldn't be around to make any good grades. The other student who started with good grades would have been around much longer and completed most of his education before he , according to you, flunked out.

Nope, not really. Because unlike a GPA which measures only a students own efforts, the unemployment rate and employment conditions are inherited from the previous president, greatly affecting the numbers of the incoming president.

So to rectify your GPA quandary, one student is given the gift of a 4.0 GPA when they start. Soon after, they end up on academic probation and eventually flunk out. The other student is saddled with a 1.0 GPA to start with. They're allowed to stay in school because their grades are improving and they ultimately make the dean's list.

Is any of this penetrating your skull?

Do you think schools should use GRADE POINT AVERAGE in assessing a students performance?

Of course they should.

A previous President may or may not have impacted unemployment numbers for the next President, and if so to what degree and for how long.

Utter nonsense.

ALL presidents have an impact on employment and ALL incoming presidents, for better or for worse, inherit what they start with. I do agree that the duration of what they inherit varies from one administration to the next.

That's another debate. Here were just looking at the average unemployment rate while each President was in office which you say should never be looked at all, considered, or is irrelevant etc. But like any metric from students grades to workers performance, knowing what the average is, is an important metric to look at.

You obviously thought it was important otherwise you would never have clicked on a thread with the title:
"The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?"

As I've told you before, and I'll tell you again when you raise this issue -- I post here to expose the lies you're telling. Your stat is unimportant but your lies are not.

You could take any statistic, issue, or problem and make claims that its not so, does not matter, because of the previous President etc etc. Presidents terms begin and end at specific times, and naturally, one is going to group data during a Presidents time in office when making various assessments about a whole range of things. The average of data on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, poverty rate, crime rate, murder rate, etc. is going to be looked at to see things were during a certain administration.

All meaningless tripe as you've been shown repeatedly, it's a meaningless stat since it doesn't reveal job performance.

Two presidents, each serve 1 term. One starts at 10% unemployment and lowers it to 2%; while the other starts at 2% and raises it, at the same rate the other lowered it, to 10%.

The former gets easily re-elected to another term while the latter is booed out of office. Yet they would have the same average unemployment rate.

Your fretting over a situation that does not happen. Where one Presidents unemployment goes down every month and another Presidents unemployment goes up ever month for the duration of their time in office. That never happens, and even if it did, taking the average for the time period is still relevant in many ways. Its the only way to look at all the data on a particular time period and accurately compare it with other administrations. Just looking at the first and the last month of an administration leaves out more than 90% of the data does not give you a real idea of what it was like from month to month, year to year for most people out there while that President was in office.

Yet another example of how flawed your notion is....

It places Bush over Reagan and Obama. Reagan added 16.1 million jobs in 8 years and Obama added 11.6 million

..... bush added 1.4. That's a measly 169K jobs a year. By far, the worst jobs performer since Herbert Hoover. Yet you place 7th on your list.

 

[Faun]

Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:

1. Bill Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Lyndon B. Johnson
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt
6. Richard Nixon
7. Harry Truman
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. John F. Kennedy
10. George W. Bush

Which President Created the Most Jobs?

^^^ that's more bullshit. And that link you gave is an utter mess.

First of all, they keep changing the numbers they published, which they claim come from the BLS (they don't)

First they say Clinton added 23.2 million jobs. Then further down, they say he added 21.5 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 22.9 million jobs (link is below).

Then they say Reagan added 15.9 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 16.1 million jobs. In fact, they got most of their figures wrong.

Even worse, they're unbelievably comparing nominal figures in an ever growing population. Their list actually compares the job growth in number of jobs added under Obama in 2016, with a civilian noninstitutional population (CNP) of 254 million -- with Gerald Ford, with a CNP of just 155 million. Worse still, they go all the way back to FDR. I can't show the CNP from then because the BLS does not post such numbers from that long ago.

That's why we use rates to compare, not nominal figures.

Lastly, who the fuck knows where they get their figures on Obama. They actually claim he added 17.3 million jobs.

Nowhere near that. Obama's actual job growth was 11.6 million.

Then they ridiculously calculate he added a whopping 22.3 million jobs, placing him second behind Clinton, if you ignore the jobs lost in Bush's Great Recession. WTF?? You can't cherry pick dates you find convenient just so you can move Obama up the ladder. And again, their numbers are bullshit because even if you start counting from the lowest point in Feb., 2010, it's still only 16 million jobs, not 22.3.

Really lastly. It looks like your link also dishonestly intermingled payroll data with household data. That's why their figures are all fucked up.

Looking at the actual figures (in millions) posted by the BLS (and only going as far back as Carter since the population growth factors in too heavily, even that far back, we see...

1. Clinton ... 22.9
2. Reagan .... 16.1
3. Obama ..... 11.6
4. Carter .... 10.3
5. Bush41 .... 2.6
6. Bush43 .... 1.3

But those numbers are skewed because not all presidents served the same number of years. Breaking that down on an average by year...

1. Clinton ... 2.9
2. Carter .... 2.6
3. Reagan .... 2.0
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.7
6. Bush43 .... 0.2

And then if you factor in population growth, using January, 2017 as a base, annual averages in millions looks like this...

1. Carter .... 3.9
2. Clinton ... 3.4
3. Reagan .... 2.8
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.9
6. Bush43 .... 0.2

The one thing that stands out above all others is what an absolute fucking mess George Walker Bush was. There was barely any job growth on his watch at all. In fact, ALL of the job growth on his miserable watch was in public sector jobs as he became only the second president behind Herbert Hoover (of Great Depression infamy) to leave office with fewer jobs in the private sector than when he started.

All data used in this post comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Job growth is not as high when the economy is at or near full employment. That was the situation for most of W's time in office until 2008.

Bullshit.

You show the average unemployment rate under Bush was Bush: 5.27% ... he added 1.4 million jobs in 8 years. 169K per year on average.

The average unemployment rate for Clinton was nearly identical at 5.2% ... yet he added 22.9 million jobs in 8 years. 2900K per year on average.

The average unemployment rate under Obama during his final year in office was 4.86 -- lower than Bush's 8 years. Yet Obama added 2.2 million jobs over that period. More in that one year than Bush in 8 years -- and with an average unemployment rate lower than Bush's.

Same with Trump. The average unemployment rate during his first year was 4.29% -- a full point lower than Bush's. Yet he added 2.1 million jobs

So no, full employment doesn't necessarily mean fewer new jobs added. Bush just sucked as bad as a president can. Your figures hide that. That's what's wrong with your position.

 

[asaratis]

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Gerald Ford: 7.77%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Donald Trump: 4.30%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
11. Barack Obama: 7.45%
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 35 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9%, down from 63% in February 2018.

This is the longest period of time that the unemployment rate has been at 4.1% or lower, 6 months now, since the 15 month period it was at that rate or lower during the Clinton administration, October 1999 through December 2000. Before that, you have to go back to the late 1960s and the early 1950s to find unemployment this low for months on end.

And still as meaningless as it was last month.

It is not meaningless to those who have just found jobs after years of being unemployed.