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

[edthecynic]

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.

So you are saying that the first and last month is just as worthless and incomplete as the average without the overall trend line.
Actually no you are not, you are too STUPID to see the impotance of the overall trend line!

Unemployment goes up and down many times during an administration. There is rarely if ever a perfect trend line going down every month for 96 months or one going up ever month for 96 months. You typically will have multiple cycles of up and down trends over a 96 month period of time. You take the average to understand what the man on the street was dealing with typically during a particular administrations time in office, from month to month. You won't see any of that if you just look at the first month and the last month of a 96 month period.

Knowing just how STUPID your average without a trend line is, you created something I never said, a "PERFECT trend line" as the Straw Man of someone who knows he is wrong.
Thank you.

Obviously a trend line NEVER has to be ALWAYS up or down to be valuable in understanding what the man on the street is dealing with over any period.
But your Straw Man proves you knew that already.
Thank you again.

 

[edthecynic]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!

 

[asaratis]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!

83.6% of statistics are made up....including 'averages'.

 

[Faun]

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.

Who’s been unemployed for years? We’ve been at full employment since 2015.

 

[deanrd]

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.

Because the stock market when from 7,000 to 20,000 in the last two weeks of the Obama administration.

Because Unemployment went from 10% to 5% in the last two weeks of the Obama administration.

It's all about those fuking snapshots.

And if you believe that, I have a man you can vote for who stiffs his workers, uses his charity foundation's money to buy stuff for him and his family and whose entire cabinet lives like Russian Oligarchs.

 

[deanrd]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!

83.6% of statistics are made up....including 'averages'.

Trump said 80% of immigrant women have been raped. Are you calling him a liar?

 

[asaratis]

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.

Because the stock market when from 7,000 to 20,000 in the last two weeks of the Obama administration.

Because Unemployment went from 10% to 5% in the last two weeks of the Obama administration.

It's all about those fuking snapshots.

And if you believe that, I have a man you can vote for who stiffs his workers, uses his charity foundation's money to buy stuff for him and his family and whose entire cabinet lives like Russian Oligarchs.

Those things happened because Donald J. Trump was elected President.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Its not about jobs added, its about the average monthly situation for the man on the street in terms of finding a job! Obama had lots of good job growth when the unemployment rate was at 9% and 10%. Adding jobs when the unemployment rate is high is easy. But that does not make it easy for the man on the street. Their situation does not get easy until the unemployment rate is at low levels.

For most of Bush's time in office, the unemployment was very low, near full employment. Enough jobs were being created to keep up with population growth and economic growth. It was relatively easy to find employment for the majority of the the months Bush was in office. Not so while Obama was in office.

As for your little narrow example that you keep repeating without end. Yes, when there is good economic news near to election time, it benefits the candidate in office. When there is not, it benefits its challenger. Most voters vote on what their feeling at the moment, not how well a President did over the course of their entire term. So, naturally if Bush had been up for re-election in 2008 he would have lost as did McCain the Republican challenger. Had the election occurred with the economic news of just one year earlier, he likely would have won. The focus there though is on a year or two by most voters. But when you accurately rate a President, you look at everything they did while they were in office, not just what they did at the very end which is what your doing. As if the only thing that matters is what a student does in his last month in school.

The average looks at everything a President did. Your method leaves out most of what a President did on that issue.

All the data I have presented is accurate and from the bureau of Labor Statistics. If you think its a lie, take it up with them.


Thanks for your continued interest in my thread. Your reading and posting helps keep it active and relevant within the forum and beyond.

 

[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 **** 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 ******* 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.

It often does mean job growth will be slower. George Bush had a higher labor force participation rate than either Obama or Trump. In fact, under Bush, the nation had one of the highest average labor force participation rates in history. The labor force participation is smaller now which means the unemployment rate today does not have the same impact it did when Bush was in office and labor force participation rate was HIGHER. Plus, Bush's job creation numbers are unduly impacted by his last year in office.

 

[U2Edge]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!

So you think a students Grade Point Average is worthless?

Thanks again for continuing to keep this thread, its topic and major points alive and well in this forum and beyond!

 

[U2Edge]

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.

So you are saying that the first and last month is just as worthless and incomplete as the average without the overall trend line.
Actually no you are not, you are too STUPID to see the impotance of the overall trend line!

Unemployment goes up and down many times during an administration. There is rarely if ever a perfect trend line going down every month for 96 months or one going up ever month for 96 months. You typically will have multiple cycles of up and down trends over a 96 month period of time. You take the average to understand what the man on the street was dealing with typically during a particular administrations time in office, from month to month. You won't see any of that if you just look at the first month and the last month of a 96 month period.

Knowing just how STUPID your average without a trend line is, you created something I never said, a "PERFECT trend line" as the Straw Man of someone who knows he is wrong.
Thank you.

Obviously a trend line NEVER has to be ALWAYS up or down to be valuable in understanding what the man on the street is dealing with over any period.
But your Straw Man proves you knew that already.
Thank you again.

Your argument doesn't even work if you get your perfect trend line.

 

[Faun]

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.

Its not about jobs added, its about the average monthly situation for the man on the street in terms of finding a job! Obama had lots of good job growth when the unemployment rate was at 9% and 10%. Adding jobs when the unemployment rate is high is easy. But that does not make it easy for the man on the street. Their situation does not get easy until the unemployment rate is at low levels.

For most of Bush's time in office, the unemployment was very low, near full employment. Enough jobs were being created to keep up with population growth and economic growth. It was relatively easy to find employment for the majority of the the months Bush was in office. Not so while Obama was in office.

As for your little narrow example that you keep repeating without end. Yes, when there is good economic news near to election time, it benefits the candidate in office. When there is not, it benefits its challenger. Most voters vote on what their feeling at the moment, not how well a President did over the course of their entire term. So, naturally if Bush had been up for re-election in 2008 he would have lost as did McCain the Republican challenger. Had the election occurred with the economic news of just one year earlier, he likely would have won. The focus there though is on a year or two by most voters. But when you accurately rate a President, you look at everything they did while they were in office, not just what they did at the very end which is what your doing. As if the only thing that matters is what a student does in his last month in school.

The average looks at everything a President did. Your method leaves out most of what a President did on that issue.

All the data I have presented is accurate and from the bureau of Labor Statistics. If you think its a lie, take it up with them.


Thanks for your continued interest in my thread. Your reading and posting helps keep it active and relevant within the forum and beyond.

As you’ve been shown, it’s also easy to add jobs during times of full employment. Clinton did it and now Trump is doing it. The one who sucked the most was Duhbya, who couldn’t add jobs during full employment and lost millions upon millions of jobs when the economy tanked.

 

[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 **** 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 ******* 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.

It often does mean job growth will be slower. George Bush had a higher labor force participation rate than either Obama or Trump. In fact, under Bush, the nation had one of the highest average labor force participation rates in history. The labor force participation is smaller now which means the unemployment rate today does not have the same impact it did when Bush was in office and labor force participation rate was HIGHER. Plus, Bush's job creation numbers are unduly impacted by his last year in office.

Job growth was abysmal under Bush even before his Great Recession; though it did get much worse after it started.

 

[Faun]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!

So you think a students Grade Point Average is worthless?

Thanks again for continuing to keep this thread, its topic and major points alive and well in this forum and beyond!

You’re still lying by using your GPA analogy. As you’ve been shown, that is not comparable to the unemployment rate since one student’s GPA doesn’t transfer to another. You’ve also been shown a GPA, unless it’s 4.0, doesn’t indicate if a student’s grades are getting better or worse.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Who’s been unemployed for years? We’ve been at full employment since 2015.

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 **** 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 ******* 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.

It often does mean job growth will be slower. George Bush had a higher labor force participation rate than either Obama or Trump. In fact, under Bush, the nation had one of the highest average labor force participation rates in history. The labor force participation is smaller now which means the unemployment rate today does not have the same impact it did when Bush was in office and labor force participation rate was HIGHER. Plus, Bush's job creation numbers are unduly impacted by his last year in office.

Job growth was abysmal under Bush even before his Great Recession; though it did get much worse after it started.

It was enough to keep up with economic growth and job growth during that time. The Unemployment was low for most of that time, and for most of that time, people had a relatively easy time getting a job.

 

[U2Edge]

All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact.

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!

So you think a students Grade Point Average is worthless?

Thanks again for continuing to keep this thread, its topic and major points alive and well in this forum and beyond!

You’re still lying by using your GPA analogy. As you’ve been shown, that is not comparable to the unemployment rate since one student’s GPA doesn’t transfer to another. You’ve also been shown a GPA, unless it’s 4.0, doesn’t indicate if a student’s grades are getting better or worse.

Better grades move a GPA up, bad grades lower it. Each grade has an impact. Presidents don't necessarily have an impact on the next President and their unemployment levels. That is up for debate, just as the impact a President himself has on his or her own unemployment levels while in office.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Its not about jobs added, its about the average monthly situation for the man on the street in terms of finding a job! Obama had lots of good job growth when the unemployment rate was at 9% and 10%. Adding jobs when the unemployment rate is high is easy. But that does not make it easy for the man on the street. Their situation does not get easy until the unemployment rate is at low levels.

For most of Bush's time in office, the unemployment was very low, near full employment. Enough jobs were being created to keep up with population growth and economic growth. It was relatively easy to find employment for the majority of the the months Bush was in office. Not so while Obama was in office.

As for your little narrow example that you keep repeating without end. Yes, when there is good economic news near to election time, it benefits the candidate in office. When there is not, it benefits its challenger. Most voters vote on what their feeling at the moment, not how well a President did over the course of their entire term. So, naturally if Bush had been up for re-election in 2008 he would have lost as did McCain the Republican challenger. Had the election occurred with the economic news of just one year earlier, he likely would have won. The focus there though is on a year or two by most voters. But when you accurately rate a President, you look at everything they did while they were in office, not just what they did at the very end which is what your doing. As if the only thing that matters is what a student does in his last month in school.

The average looks at everything a President did. Your method leaves out most of what a President did on that issue.

All the data I have presented is accurate and from the bureau of Labor Statistics. If you think its a lie, take it up with them.


Thanks for your continued interest in my thread. Your reading and posting helps keep it active and relevant within the forum and beyond.

As you’ve been shown, it’s also easy to add jobs during times of full employment. Clinton did it and now Trump is doing it. The one who sucked the most was Duhbya, who couldn’t add jobs during full employment and lost millions upon millions of jobs when the economy tanked.

I think most of the job growth during Clintons time in office happened prior to 1999. But hey, if you have figures that prove its easier to add jobs when the unemployment rate is 4% rather than 8% or 10%, lets see it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Who’s been unemployed for years? We’ve been at full employment since 2015.

^^^ 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 **** 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 ******* 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.

It often does mean job growth will be slower. George Bush had a higher labor force participation rate than either Obama or Trump. In fact, under Bush, the nation had one of the highest average labor force participation rates in history. The labor force participation is smaller now which means the unemployment rate today does not have the same impact it did when Bush was in office and labor force participation rate was HIGHER. Plus, Bush's job creation numbers are unduly impacted by his last year in office.

Job growth was abysmal under Bush even before his Great Recession; though it did get much worse after it started.

It was enough to keep up with economic growth and job growth during that time. The Unemployment was low for most of that time, and for most of that time, people had a relatively easy time getting a job.

Actually, the unemployment rate rose steadily during his first few years from about 4% to over 6%. It came back down to mid 4’s when the housing bubble took off like crazy and then skyrocketed when the housing bubble popped.

Still, with an average unemployment rate lower than Bush’s, Clinton and Trump were both able to add jobs. Whereas the only jobs added under Bush were government jobs.

 

[Faun]

A worthless useless incomplete "fact."

Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.

Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!

So you think a students Grade Point Average is worthless?

Thanks again for continuing to keep this thread, its topic and major points alive and well in this forum and beyond!

You’re still lying by using your GPA analogy. As you’ve been shown, that is not comparable to the unemployment rate since one student’s GPA doesn’t transfer to another. You’ve also been shown a GPA, unless it’s 4.0, doesn’t indicate if a student’s grades are getting better or worse.

Better grades move a GPA up, bad grades lower it. Each grade has an impact. Presidents don't necessarily have an impact on the next President and their unemployment levels. That is up for debate, just as the impact a President himself has on his or her own unemployment levels while in office.

While bad grades lower a GPA and good grades raise it, that doesn’t tell you if their grades are getting better or worse. If I show you a student with a 3.0 GPA, you can’t possibly tell me if they’re grades are falling or improving based on their GPA.

What that does is it hides their performance. You don’t know if they started off strong and are now barely making it; or if they started off on the short bus but now they’re on the dean’s list.

Which is the lie you’re telling and why you’re telling it. When it comes to jobs, Bush ranks among the worst presidents. He started with a 4.2 unemployment rate and ultimately crashed the economy and handed his successor a 7.8 (and growing) unemployment rate. Even worse for the lie you’re telling, the unemployment rate ultimately went as high as 10% due to the recession he walked into. By hiding performance as you do, you hysterically ding Obama for the high unemployment rates which resulted from the recession.

But again, that’s why you lie.

 

[Faun]

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.

Its not about jobs added, its about the average monthly situation for the man on the street in terms of finding a job! Obama had lots of good job growth when the unemployment rate was at 9% and 10%. Adding jobs when the unemployment rate is high is easy. But that does not make it easy for the man on the street. Their situation does not get easy until the unemployment rate is at low levels.

For most of Bush's time in office, the unemployment was very low, near full employment. Enough jobs were being created to keep up with population growth and economic growth. It was relatively easy to find employment for the majority of the the months Bush was in office. Not so while Obama was in office.

As for your little narrow example that you keep repeating without end. Yes, when there is good economic news near to election time, it benefits the candidate in office. When there is not, it benefits its challenger. Most voters vote on what their feeling at the moment, not how well a President did over the course of their entire term. So, naturally if Bush had been up for re-election in 2008 he would have lost as did McCain the Republican challenger. Had the election occurred with the economic news of just one year earlier, he likely would have won. The focus there though is on a year or two by most voters. But when you accurately rate a President, you look at everything they did while they were in office, not just what they did at the very end which is what your doing. As if the only thing that matters is what a student does in his last month in school.

The average looks at everything a President did. Your method leaves out most of what a President did on that issue.

All the data I have presented is accurate and from the bureau of Labor Statistics. If you think its a lie, take it up with them.


Thanks for your continued interest in my thread. Your reading and posting helps keep it active and relevant within the forum and beyond.

As you’ve been shown, it’s also easy to add jobs during times of full employment. Clinton did it and now Trump is doing it. The one who sucked the most was Duhbya, who couldn’t add jobs during full employment and lost millions upon millions of jobs when the economy tanked.

I think most of the job growth during Clintons time in office happened prior to 1999. But hey, if you have figures that prove its easier to add jobs when the unemployment rate is 4% rather than 8% or 10%, lets see it.

Now you’re even lying about what I said. <smh>

Show me where I said it’s easier to add jobs when the unemployment rate is 4% versus 8 or 10%? I’ll help you — I didn’t.

Clinton averaged about 2.8 million jobs per year. Duhbya? A couple of hundred thousand. Abysmal. And Clinton’s average unemployment rate was lower than Bush’s. Trump’s unemployment rate is also lower than Bush’s and he added 2 million jobs during his first year. And Clinton added almost 3m in 1999, close to another 2m in 2000.

But ya know how you cane hide all of that so no one will know? You average out the unemployment rate.