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

[rightwinger]

As Republicans fumble over unemployment

Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)

and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)

 

[pinqy]

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

Why does it matter if someone is no longer receiving unemployment benefits or not? People are classified as unemployed regardless of whether or not they ever received or were eligible for benefits.
The reference week in December for the Current Population Survey (used to calculate unemployment and the unemployment rate) was the week of December 7-13. The total number of Unemployed (not seasonally adjusted) was 8,331,000 Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
For that same week, the total number of people receiving Unemployment insurance benefits was 2,474,688 http://www.oui.doleta.gov/press/2015/010815.pdf

So, since only 30% of those reported as unemployed were receiving benefits, why do you think it matters that there's no specific tracking of those whose benefits expired and why do you think it's like they don't exist?

 

[pinqy]

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

 

[TooTall]

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

It seems Bush's average UE rate of 5.7% was quite reasonable for the number of people in the Labor force. At least you are comparing apples to apples, unlike those that are too partisan to understand simple math.

 

[TooTall]

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

It is clear to me that the poster chose an LPR of 66% because that was what it was for 82 of the 96 months that Bush was in office. The question you should have asked is why does a larger percentage of the population not want a job?

 

[Dad2three]

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

It seems Bush's average UE rate of 5.7% was quite reasonable for the number of people in the Labor force. At least you are comparing apples to apples, unlike those that are too partisan to understand simple math.

Yeah, AMAZING what a false economy built on a Bankster credit bubble can do right? US household debt doubled between 2001-2007 OOPS

 

[Dad2three]

 

[pinqy]

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

It is clear to me that the poster chose an LPR of 66% because that was what it was for 82 of the 96 months that Bush was in office. The question you should have asked is why does a larger percentage of the population not want a job?

Let's look:
Arbitrarily choosing December 2006 (a year before the recession, the Population was 230,108,000, and the labor force was 152,571,000 for a rate of 66.3% (all numbers will be not seasonally adjusted). 13.1% of the population was 65 or older and not in the labor force. In December 2014, it was 14.7% So right there that's 1.6% lower LFPR.
Those not in the labor force and enrolled in school went from 5.2% to 5.8%.
Unfortunately, data on those with disabilities only goes back to 2008, but since that number has clearly been going up since then, that's another push.
And there's no way to measure stay at home parents as timely, but from the 2006 average to the 2012 average the number of one earner families went up.

I'm not sure why you think it matters why people don't want a job, though.

 

[Faun]

That unemployment is not down.

I'm not telling myself that. I'm telling YOU that (but you're to brainwashed to listen)

But you're not convincing anyone of this idiocy except yourself. Hence.....

Two people in this forum seem to be on my side in my OP > "NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN", and more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums. So you just made a wrong statement. Egg on your face.

Great. More evidence you're insane. As if any were needed.

In reality, nobody agreed with you ... nobody 'liked' any of your posts ... nobody 'thanked' you for any of your posts ... nobody defended any of your idiocy ...

... yet here you are, deluding yourself into believing that 2 people are "on your side" on the issue; just as you delude yourself into believing that foreigners shouldn't count towards unemployment figures.

Your lying is obvious. It's also obvious that you're desperate, by virtue of the fact that you have to resort to foolish deceit.

1. My OP just began here a few hours ago, so most people don't even know it exists. so what do you do ? You pretend I haven't been thanked, HA HA, and try to use that as a basis to say my Op is bad. Do you realize how absolutely DUMB that is.

2. Then, you tried to get away with ignoring my statement that "more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums" (and it's new there too) Well, I could give you the links to those, but should I ? Hell no. You're not worth it. You're too damn STUPID. And you'll never make it as a liar. You should have cut & run from this exchange, when you had the chance. Now you've got that egg all over your Whole body.

3. Too bad this is a computer forum, or you'd be smacked right in the head, just for your stupidity alone. Dumbass.

The one lying was you. YOU said 2 people were on your side when in fact, none were.

Now you make excuses for why you lied as though that means you didn't, such as it was a new thread or that there was another thread where people agreed with you.

You're nuts.

 

[AceRothstein]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

 

[Faun]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

And yet, despite that .... Obama's 8.2% average is barely worse than Reagan's 8.1% was at this same point in his presidency. Only the unemployment rate is a full point lower now than it was then. And Reagan is a god to many on the right.

 

[Liminal]

The average unemployment rate now is far worse than 8.24% ..

Click the link >> NO Unemployment is NOT DOWN US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You keep telling yourself that.

Telling myself WHAT ?

That unemployment is not down.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

 

[TooTall]

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

It is clear to me that the poster chose an LPR of 66% because that was what it was for 82 of the 96 months that Bush was in office. The question you should have asked is why does a larger percentage of the population not want a job?

Let's look:
Arbitrarily choosing December 2006 (a year before the recession, the Population was 230,108,000, and the labor force was 152,571,000 for a rate of 66.3% (all numbers will be not seasonally adjusted). 13.1% of the population was 65 or older and not in the labor force. In December 2014, it was 14.7% So right there that's 1.6% lower LFPR.
Those not in the labor force and enrolled in school went from 5.2% to 5.8%.
Unfortunately, data on those with disabilities only goes back to 2008, but since that number has clearly been going up since then, that's another push.
And there's no way to measure stay at home parents as timely, but from the 2006 average to the 2012 average the number of one earner families went up.

I'm not sure why you think it matters why people don't want a job, though.

First, I answered your idiotic question why an LPR of 66% was used. You have given two good reasons for a reduction in the LPR with the over 65 at 1.6% (although some of those continued working after age 65) and the increase in school enrollment of .6% That accounts for 2.2% bringing the LPR down to 64.1%. The number of those filing for and getting disability has skyrocketed and the number of single moms working probably account for the remaining drop of 1.4% that are not looking for work.

 

[TooTall]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

 

[pinqy]

You keep telling yourself that.

Telling myself WHAT ?

That unemployment is not down.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

 

[kwc57]

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

The president who inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression is?

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing - Forbes

Correct me if I'm wrong........he applied for the job twice, no? He doesn't get to whine about what he asked for.

 

[Liminal]

Telling myself WHAT ?

That unemployment is not down.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics. How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits. Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

 

[pinqy]

That unemployment is not down.

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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

 

[MarcATL]

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 8.24%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.24%

593/72 = 8.236111 = 8.24%

He will be lower than Ronnie by the time he completes his 8 years, EVEN AFTER what the GOP dumped in his lap

Yep

 

[Liminal]

There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits. Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.