Unemploy Rate A Reflection of P A R T Time Jobs & Discouraged Leaving The Work Force

[Faun]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

 

[Dad2three]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like


The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Three thoughts for the road:

1) Most people working part-time want to work part-time because they're in school, or they're raising kids, or they consider themselves mostly retired. Don't pay attention to anybody who's using the number of stay-at-home dads and moms to argue that Obamacare is destroying full-time work.

2) Last fall, the Fed produced a useful document explaining that "current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less."

3) If you insist on being a pessimist, here's a very smart way to express fear about the future of part-time work, also from the Fed. There are some industries, such as hotels, food service, and retail, that have historically had shorter workweeks and more part-time workers. If those sectors continue to grow faster than the overall economy (because other sectors, like government and manufacturing, are shrinking), then we should expect part-time work to remain elevated. Indeed, the relative strength of those industries today is one reason why part-time work hasn't declined even faster than it has.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

 

[Dad2three]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

380,000 people leaving but being counted as gains. Only under Obama can that be seen as a good thing. A net loss in people working and the UE rate goes down! Tell us all again how 25 trillion found it's way into the economy RW, it was so fan beating you senseless with that lie.

PRIVATE jobs in the US

Feb 2009 (10 days after Obama became Prez)

110,699,000

Sept 2014

117,524,000, THAT'S NEARLY 7 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS, FOR YOU CONS WHO CAN'T DO THE MATH

AFTER Dubya lost 1,000,000+ private sector jobs in 8 years with his 'job creator' policies

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, fawny, that's why Gallup shows Americans are disgusted with Obama on the economy. Because he's doing SOOO great (roll eyes). LOL. Dumb ass.

You ran on that thread. I know it and you know it.

Look, I can't help you're little dick shrunk even more by the time I was through with you. You can try to lie like those idiots Candy and Mac did.....but everyone knows I've outmaneuvered you three morons with ease.

But thanks for being my useful idiot. Keep bumping it.

Demented rightwinger, I even linked that tread (and I'll do so again) because it shows how you fled and how I kept trying to incite you to return, but you were so beaten, you refused to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

Oh, and Gallup means nothing. You still idiotically claimed the drop in the UE rate was reflective of underlying factors because they increased. But in fact, they've decreased. Even Gallup can't save your dumb ass from that level of stupidity.

When libs are losing, their language turns trashy. You have failed to prove your point and all the insults in the world won't change that.

I know Clementine.....I love it when Loser Loner and Faun pull out the "*****" and "whore" comments.....it's a sure sign they know they've lost.

Everyone knows this is the lowest labor participation rate EVER.....and while some are people retiring, most of it is because of Obummer's policies.

It's a higher labor force participation rate than any time before 1978!
Yes, I'm aware of the how's and whys of increased participation, but that doesn't change the fact that is not the lowest ever. And the peak was in 2000. It's long been known it would decline, though the recedes ion made it worse.

Oh yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh pinky............it's a REAL high labor force participation rate now.


Keep snortin that crack, hon.

You might wanna pull back from the cliff those dumbasses fawny and carby have already gone over.

I know you're not stupid like they are....you're just indoctrinated. Indoctrination can be fixed. Stupidity is forever. LOL

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Kosh]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

 

[Faun]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

It's your claim. Either you can prove it or you prove you made that up.

 

[Kosh]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

It's your claim. Either you can prove it or you prove you made that up.

Yes the far left denies that made any such claims under Bush. They have to in order to pretend to be outraged at anyone saying that under Obama.

The funny thing was they were claiming it was because Bush was shipping all the jobs over seas in order to keep the numbers low..

 

[Dad2three]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

Should be easy for you to PROVE YOUR POSIT right? Oh I forgot, you go by gut and criticize the left as the ONLY thing you EVER have

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

Of course they didn't. Obama was barely in office when out of the rightwing propaganda machine came a barrage of rhetoric attacking U-3 as the wrong measure of unemployment and that 'real' unemployment was much higher,

with the obvious implication that this was somehow a liberal scheme to make Obama look better.

Yes, a scheme to use the UE measures we'd been using for decades, lol.

That is what the rightwing propaganda machine does. That is why it exists.

 

[Kosh]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

Of course they didn't. Obama was barely in office when out of the rightwing propaganda machine came a barrage of rhetoric attacking U-3 as the wrong measure of unemployment and that 'real' unemployment was much higher,

with the obvious implication that this was somehow a liberal scheme to make Obama look better.

Yes, a scheme to use the UE measures we'd been using for decades, lol.

That is what the rightwing propaganda machine does. That is why it exists.

More far left revisionist History, especially after the far left commentary after the 2000 elections.

 

[Kosh]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

Should be easy for you to PROVE YOUR POSIT right? Oh I forgot, you go by gut and criticize the left as the ONLY thing you EVER have

Once again the far left denies they made such claims under Bush.

Plus it is more fun to let the far left run on and on and on..

Just goes to show how the propaganda of the far left will always over rid any reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't give a **** what you do, to be honest. I've concluded you are unqualified based on your posting history. You are only a genius in your own mind, everyone else points and laughs at you.

I'm supposed to care when mentally challenged, crack induced, bottom dwelling, liberal uneducated trash like yourself laughs at me?????

Wow, I'm so rattled.

Talk about the person with less substance than even that idiot Loner Loser....that's you, moron.

Take some econ classes....maybe you'll better understand this topic, shit for brains.

Are you better educated than Paul Krugman?

Anyone is better educated than any far left hack/drone.

Next this far left drone will be telling us that Krugman is unbiased and spot on..

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Yeah, you read all 20+ Krugman books and every article he's ever written.

Question to the sane people here:

Do ANY of you not believe that EC is a pathological liar?

 

[Kosh]

I'm supposed to care when mentally challenged, crack induced, bottom dwelling, liberal uneducated trash like yourself laughs at me?????

Wow, I'm so rattled.

Talk about the person with less substance than even that idiot Loner Loser....that's you, moron.

Take some econ classes....maybe you'll better understand this topic, shit for brains.

Are you better educated than Paul Krugman?

Anyone is better educated than any far left hack/drone.

Next this far left drone will be telling us that Krugman is unbiased and spot on..

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Yeah, you read all 20+ Krugman books and every article he's ever written.

Question to the sane people here:

Do ANY of you not believe that EC is a pathological liar?

I believe that the far left posters here are pathological liars based on their faulty far left programming.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

No one had to say it. When Bush took office unemployment was at 4%. It immediately started going up and Bush never saw 4% again.

You can check it right here:

Unemployment Rate - US Portal Seven

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you better educated than Paul Krugman?

Anyone is better educated than any far left hack/drone.

Next this far left drone will be telling us that Krugman is unbiased and spot on..

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Yeah, you read all 20+ Krugman books and every article he's ever written.

Question to the sane people here:

Do ANY of you not believe that EC is a pathological liar?

I believe that the far left posters here are pathological liars based on their faulty far left programming.

The question was for sane posters. Learn to read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm supposed to care when mentally challenged, crack induced, bottom dwelling, liberal uneducated trash like yourself laughs at me?????

Wow, I'm so rattled.

Talk about the person with less substance than even that idiot Loner Loser....that's you, moron.

Take some econ classes....maybe you'll better understand this topic, shit for brains.

Are you better educated than Paul Krugman?

Anyone is better educated than any far left hack/drone.

Next this far left drone will be telling us that Krugman is unbiased and spot on..

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Yeah, you read all 20+ Krugman books and every article he's ever written.

Question to the sane people here:

Do ANY of you not believe that EC is a pathological liar?

lol, I bet if I'd chosen Joseph Stiglitz as my example she'd have claimed she's read everything he's ever written.

Classic. My pathological liar co-worker from the eighties claimed he had been in the CIA. I suspect we can get EC to make that claim too eventually.

 

[pinqy]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

No, he's sort of right. There were some on the left claiming the U-6 as the "real unemployment" under Bush. And claiming the books were cooked, etc. Of course, once Obama became President it all switched.

 

[EconChick]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like


The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Three thoughts for the road:

1) Most people working part-time want to work part-time because they're in school, or they're raising kids, or they consider themselves mostly retired. Don't pay attention to anybody who's using the number of stay-at-home dads and moms to argue that Obamacare is destroying full-time work.

2) Last fall, the Fed produced a useful document explaining that "current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less."

3) If you insist on being a pessimist, here's a very smart way to express fear about the future of part-time work, also from the Fed. There are some industries, such as hotels, food service, and retail, that have historically had shorter workweeks and more part-time workers. If those sectors continue to grow faster than the overall economy (because other sectors, like government and manufacturing, are shrinking), then we should expect part-time work to remain elevated. Indeed, the relative strength of those industries today is one reason why part-time work hasn't declined even faster than it has.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

Yawn. Yeah, says the same idiots that think crushing debt is no problem....and an artificially inflated stock market is no bubble.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'd keep believing their stats. LMAO

 

[EconChick]

Are you better educated than Paul Krugman?

Anyone is better educated than any far left hack/drone.

Next this far left drone will be telling us that Krugman is unbiased and spot on..

He's better educated than Econchick pretends to be, which means that his opinions carry more weight and credibility than hers,

and that's by her own rules, not mine.

How do you know he's more educated than I am? LOL. You have no idea how much time I've spent in academia. That's why I'm constantly tearing it up.

There are plenty of "well educated idiots." Krugman is the poster boy.

My first grad thesis was spent reading every book and article Krugman had written. I know that idiot better than he knows himself.

It's fun watching pathetic liberals worship him.

It's one of the funniest things on this board.

Yeah, you read all 20+ Krugman books and every article he's ever written.

Question to the sane people here:

Do ANY of you not believe that EC is a pathological liar?

lol, I bet if I'd chosen Joseph Stiglitz as my example she'd have claimed she's read everything he's ever written.

Classic. My pathological liar co-worker from the eighties claimed he had been in the CIA. I suspect we can get EC to make that claim too eventually.

It is soooooooooooooo fun watching you meltdown, crybabycarb. I keep trying to figure out which of you bottom dwellers is dumbest and just when I think I know which one, somebody like you makes the list again.


You worthless fuckers can do whatever you want with the stats.........voters know you're full of shit.

Talk to me in three weeks, shit for brains.

 

[EconChick]

You know what conservatives never did when Bush was president?

They never complained that U-3 was a bad measure of unemployment that artificially created a low rate that didn't reflect the real rate.

I wonder why that was?

You know what else they never spoke of ... the Labor Force Participation Rate.

Not once.

Even though it dropped from 67.2% to 65.7% on Bush's watch.

You know who did? The far left said it was the unemployment was at 4.8% under Bush and the labor force was at 70+%.

Now under Obama 5.9% unemployment and 61% labor participation is the best thing since sliced bread.

Just goes to show the far left will not blame their own, even six years in..

Post a link to the far left saying that while Bush was president ........ g'head, I'll wait .........

So you deny that the far left drones like you were not saying anything of the sort with the numbers in first Bush term?

No one had to say it. When Bush took office unemployment was at 4%. It immediately started going up and Bush never saw 4% again.

You can check it right here:

Unemployment Rate - US Portal Seven

I know you stupid liberal bottom dwellers are too inept to know 9/11 had an impact on the economy, but trust me, even the cave dwellers that attacked us had more economic acumen then you little girls