The True Labor Participation!!!

[AceRothstein]

We are now in territory which the Labor Department considers "full employment".

I think we'll see the unemployment rate stay close to what it currently is for a while as those not currently in the labor force come back in as more jobs are available.

 

[g5000]

Son of a...BITCH!

As much as the right bitches about the unemployment rate, you'd think Reagan, a god to many righties, would have lowered unemployment more than Obama. But he didn't.

At this point in Reagan's presidency in February, 1987, the unemployment rate was 6.6% -- 0.9 point lower than when Reagan became president. Meanwhile,under Obama, it's 5.5% -- 2.3 points lower than when he became president.

Unemployment peaked at 10.0 percent nine months into Obama's Presidency.

It peaked at 9.7 percent during Reagan's second year.

 

[g5000]

We are now in territory which the Labor Department considers "full employment".

I think we'll see the unemployment rate stay close to what it currently is for a while as those not currently in the labor force come back in as more jobs are available.

Yep.

However, because the economy is starting to warm up, the Fed is looking at raising interest rates, and that will throw a wet blanket on the economy. And God only know what higher interest rates will do to the bond bubble.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Obambots remain blissfully ignorant of the true situation.

I suppose you could tell us what the true situation is?

Th U-6 is at 11%. The majority of these new jobs are low paying. Obamacare is reeking havoc on the middle class and healthcare in the US. Foreign policy is a joke and we're drowning in debt.

The Unemployment Rate is U-3....and has been for decades.

Obviously you're no economist, people who deal in it look at the U6

The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites the U-3 as the official unemployment rate, as do most economists when citing the unemployment rate. The NBER, the organization that officially clocks recessions and expansions cites U-3. When virtually any economist cites the unemployment rate, they're citing U-3. Virtually every trading website and business analysis website on the web sites U-3 for unemployment numbers. U-3 is the standard and has been for decades.

The U-6 is rarely used.

Why would we suddenly switch to the U-6? Because its convenient to your argument?

As I said, anyone paying attention uses the U6. How many times has the U3 been revised under this administration? The proof is in the pudding

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I guess DENYING the FACTS followed with five moronic smilies ensures everyone is clear you're a fucking MORON.

I'm sorry that more than two million Americans getting jobs in the past 11 months has made you feel so down that you need to piss all over it.

obama let in more mexicans than that.

 

[g5000]

I suppose you could tell us what the true situation is?

Th U-6 is at 11%. The majority of these new jobs are low paying. Obamacare is reeking havoc on the middle class and healthcare in the US. Foreign policy is a joke and we're drowning in debt.

The Unemployment Rate is U-3....and has been for decades.

Obviously you're no economist, people who deal in it look at the U6

The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites the U-3 as the official unemployment rate, as do most economists when citing the unemployment rate. The NBER, the organization that officially clocks recessions and expansions cites U-3. When virtually any economist cites the unemployment rate, they're citing U-3. Virtually every trading website and business analysis website on the web sites U-3 for unemployment numbers. U-3 is the standard and has been for decades.

The U-6 is rarely used.

Why would we suddenly switch to the U-6? Because its convenient to your argument?

As I said, anyone paying attention uses the U6. How many times has the U3 been revised under this administration? The proof is in the pudding

And has been shown, U-6 has declined, too.

Sorry to make your butt hurt. Again.

 

[g5000]

It's none of your business how or what I comment on, you're not a mod nor and admin. Got it, pea brain?

It's right there on the rules page for this forum, dumbass:

You may not disclose any personal information about other members.

Once again, pea brain. You're in no position to tell me what to do. I realize that gives you gas but facts are facts. Now shush, loon

This poster reminds me a lot of econchick, full of bluster and wrong about everything.

I have been thinking the exact same thing!

 

[g5000]

Sassy, see posts 55, 56, and 57.

 

[AceRothstein]

I suppose you could tell us what the true situation is?

Th U-6 is at 11%. The majority of these new jobs are low paying. Obamacare is reeking havoc on the middle class and healthcare in the US. Foreign policy is a joke and we're drowning in debt.

The Unemployment Rate is U-3....and has been for decades.

Obviously you're no economist, people who deal in it look at the U6

The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites the U-3 as the official unemployment rate, as do most economists when citing the unemployment rate. The NBER, the organization that officially clocks recessions and expansions cites U-3. When virtually any economist cites the unemployment rate, they're citing U-3. Virtually every trading website and business analysis website on the web sites U-3 for unemployment numbers. U-3 is the standard and has been for decades.

The U-6 is rarely used.

Why would we suddenly switch to the U-6? Because its convenient to your argument?

As I said, anyone paying attention uses the U6. How many times has the U3 been revised under this administration? The proof is in the pudding

The U3 has never been revised.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Th U-6 is at 11%. The majority of these new jobs are low paying. Obamacare is reeking havoc on the middle class and healthcare in the US. Foreign policy is a joke and we're drowning in debt.

The Unemployment Rate is U-3....and has been for decades.

Obviously you're no economist, people who deal in it look at the U6

The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites the U-3 as the official unemployment rate, as do most economists when citing the unemployment rate. The NBER, the organization that officially clocks recessions and expansions cites U-3. When virtually any economist cites the unemployment rate, they're citing U-3. Virtually every trading website and business analysis website on the web sites U-3 for unemployment numbers. U-3 is the standard and has been for decades.

The U-6 is rarely used.

Why would we suddenly switch to the U-6? Because its convenient to your argument?

As I said, anyone paying attention uses the U6. How many times has the U3 been revised under this administration? The proof is in the pudding

And has been shown, U-6 has declined, too.

Sorry to make your butt hurt. Again.

 

[g5000]

Sassy has nothing left. She has been cornered by facts, and now her inner rat is coming out.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Son of a...BITCH!

As much as the right bitches about the unemployment rate, you'd think Reagan, a god to many righties, would have lowered unemployment more than Obama. But he didn't.

At this point in Reagan's presidency in February, 1987, the unemployment rate was 6.6% -- 0.9 point lower than when Reagan became president. Meanwhile,under Obama, it's 5.5% -- 2.3 points lower than when he became president.

Unemployment peaked at 10.0 percent nine months into Obama's Presidency.

It peaked at 9.7 percent during Reagan's second year.

Again, I don't take direction from you

 

[AceRothstein]

It's none of your business how or what I comment on, you're not a mod nor and admin. Got it, pea brain?

It's right there on the rules page for this forum, dumbass:

You may not disclose any personal information about other members.

Once again, pea brain. You're in no position to tell me what to do. I realize that gives you gas but facts are facts. Now shush, loon

This poster reminds me a lot of econchick, full of bluster and wrong about everything.

I have been thinking the exact same thing!

The U-6 thing is now convincing me even more.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sassy has nothing left. She was cornered by facts.

You're way past annoying and you're not using facts, you're just blabbering away like an obedient left loon. You're worthless and weak

 

[g5000]

Sassy has nothing left. She was cornered by facts.

You're way past annoying and you're not using facts, you're just blabbering away like an obedient left loon. You're worthless and weak

If you are annoyed, that's a GOOD thing. Just like job growth and falling U-6.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sassy has nothing left. She was cornered by facts.

You're way past annoying and you're not using facts, you're just blabbering away like an obedient left loon. You're worthless and weak

Ignored, I'm weary of your foolishness

 

[g5000]

Down syndrome.

Come on. That was FUNNY!

 

[g5000]

Sassy has nothing left. She was cornered by facts.

You're way past annoying and you're not using facts, you're just blabbering away like an obedient left loon. You're worthless and weak

Ignored, I'm weary of your foolishness

Weary of having your ass handed to you by facts.

 

[Skylar]

I suppose you could tell us what the true situation is?

Th U-6 is at 11%. The majority of these new jobs are low paying. Obamacare is reeking havoc on the middle class and healthcare in the US. Foreign policy is a joke and we're drowning in debt.

The Unemployment Rate is U-3....and has been for decades.

Obviously you're no economist, people who deal in it look at the U6

The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites the U-3 as the official unemployment rate, as do most economists when citing the unemployment rate. The NBER, the organization that officially clocks recessions and expansions cites U-3. When virtually any economist cites the unemployment rate, they're citing U-3. Virtually every trading website and business analysis website on the web sites U-3 for unemployment numbers. U-3 is the standard and has been for decades.

The U-6 is rarely used.

Why would we suddenly switch to the U-6? Because its convenient to your argument?

As I said, anyone paying attention uses the U6. How many times has the U3 been revised under this administration? The proof is in the pudding

The U-6 is a stat that's rarely used in business, by the government, or in academics. Its ALWAYS higher than U-3, under Bush, under Reagan, under any president. And preliminary unemployment stats are almost always revised. That's why they're called preliminary. Preliminary stats are revised under EVERY administration.

So much for you pudding.

 

[Skylar]

Th U-6 is at 11%. The majority of these new jobs are low paying. Obamacare is reeking havoc on the middle class and healthcare in the US. Foreign policy is a joke and we're drowning in debt.

The Unemployment Rate is U-3....and has been for decades.

Obviously you're no economist, people who deal in it look at the U6

The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites the U-3 as the official unemployment rate, as do most economists when citing the unemployment rate. The NBER, the organization that officially clocks recessions and expansions cites U-3. When virtually any economist cites the unemployment rate, they're citing U-3. Virtually every trading website and business analysis website on the web sites U-3 for unemployment numbers. U-3 is the standard and has been for decades.

The U-6 is rarely used.

Why would we suddenly switch to the U-6? Because its convenient to your argument?

As I said, anyone paying attention uses the U6. How many times has the U3 been revised under this administration? The proof is in the pudding

The U3 has never been revised.

Preliminary U-3 numbers are regularly revised when the final numbers come out. Sometimes up. Sometimes down. Its the nature of preliminary stats. And they're revised under every administration.