Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[Faun]

This isn't a new pattern that unemployment gets worse under Republicans and better under Democrats. Here is the last 30 years for each party:

Change in unemployment rate by party of president

It's not just the last 30 years. It's a trend seen in the entire history of the BLS keeping track of these stats with the one exception of Reagan. Reagan is the only Republican president to leave office with an employment rate lower than when he started. On the flip side, there hasn't been a Democrat to leave office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started.

 

[edthecynic]

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

Funny you never bitched about Bush's 92 million unemployed Americans when he left office!!!!!!

Bush didn't have 92 million Americans out of the work force.sorry try again

He had 92 million UNEMPLOYED as the Right defines unemployed.

Nope Bush never had 92 million out of the work fore.

But he DID have 92 million UNEMPLOYED as YOU defined unemployed.

 

[edthecynic]

obama's war on women continues
Benefit inequality

Hey dumb ass, benefits are based on earnings, not sex! Any woman earning as much as a man up to the max will collect the same max benefit as a man.

 

[hipeter924]

There are not 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. There are about 10,000 baby boomers hitting retirement age every day. There are about 8,000 baby boomers retiring every day.

10000 - 80000 depending on your source. Both numbers are in the same ball park; but, in actuality, the true figure is elusive.

Actually the true figure of WORKERS retiring from full time work is not as elusive as you think, the SSA publishes the yearly total. In Obama's first 5 full years 13,522,923 workers retired from full time work. That comes to 2,704,585 per year and 7,410 per day.

View attachment 32847

Thanks for finding that. However, I disagree with you about the data being elusive. Who would have thought that the Social Security Administration would be the place to look? Never the less, the figure you posted for the daily retirement number is not a constant. The number is going to be different every day; so, in effect, one day it could be 10000, the day after that 8000, and the day after that as low as 5 thousand or less. Agree?

Don't think it is a 'lie of the left', in the sense that administrations always fudge figures to make things look better than they really are, like was pointed out in 2013: The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

And that would jack the unemployment rate up to about 11 percent. Which, yikes.

You're being dishonest. Your link shows that Dr. Hall does say that the UE rate does not tell the whole story, but he does NOT say the numbers are fudged. In fact, he has said the opposite:
Unemployment manipulation impossible says former Labor official - Los Angeles Times

"I think it would be impossible to really manipulate the numbers," said Keith Hall, who served from 2008 to 2012 as commissioner of the independent statistical agency, which produces the report. "Certainly, it would be impossible to manipulate the numbers and not be found out."[/qutoe]

No I am not being dishonest, also I would find yourself a dictionary because fudge doesn't mean 'manipulate': fudge - definition of fudge by The Free Dictionary
vb
6. (tr) to make or adjust in a false or clumsy way

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

7. (tr) to misrepresent; falsify

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

8. to evade (a problem, issue, etc); dodge; avoid

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

If you read the article, the point was if you omit or add measures the actual data is quite different. But guess that went over your head.

I read the article. It's all "actual data." His point was that the UE rate by itself does not tell the whole story and that other measures can give a better picture especially in the context of the recession. He in no way implied that the UE rate was made or adjusted in a false or clumsy way or was intended to misrepresent or falsify (because yes, the implication from that definition is intentional act) or that it evades, dodges or avoids anything.

The UE rate measures the percent of the labor force that is not employed. That's it. That's all it's meant to. Of course that doesn't always tell the whole picture. It doesn't claim to. So no fudging.

Doging the point, you said I said 'manipulate', when I said 'fudge', which is the real 'dishonesty' here. If none the meanings match the word usage, then it is not 'dishonest', but incorrect. As dishonesty relies on intent to deceive - which I don't have, as I believed I used the correct meaning.

Though it was the correct usage, to fudge the numbers is to present some measures in public announcements and not present others, whether or not they are freely available on the internet is irreverent in that case.

The measures have their own flaws which that article didn't point out, it only measures those on the books, it doesn't measure all the people living with family doing chores for free as unemployed, it doesn't measure obviously all the homeless, nor does it measure illegals, nor does it measure every citizen of the US. The figures in the measures are estimates as they are measures of a fraction of the population, not the entire population.

 

[tuhaybey]

It's not just the last 30 years. It's a trend seen in the entire history of the BLS keeping track of these stats with the one exception of Reagan. Reagan is the only Republican president to leave office with an employment rate lower than when he started. On the flip side, there hasn't been a Democrat to leave office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started.

Indeed. In fact, when you go back further, you hit FDR who saw the unemployment rate fall from 26% when he took office to 2% when he left office...

The thing is, Republicans don't seem to even be phased by the total imbalance of results. They seem to vote on slogans or something rather than actual results. It is flat out bizarre. Caring about this country doesn't mean waving a flag around and demeaning people from elsewhere, it means actually doing things that actually improve the situation of the people who live here, and on that score, the Democrats beat the Republicans by every measure by a wide margin.

 

[hipeter924]

Indeed. In fact, when you go back further, you hit FDR who saw the unemployment rate fall from 26% when he took office to 2% when he left office...

Actually the way unemployment was measured was different back then to what it is today, since you insist on being technical you can't make a comparison with today's census data and that in the 1930s-1940s as the questions were different, along with how people were categorized. At best you can claim unemployment decreased dramatically when compared to Reagan - but the measures were different, and the questions are changed all the time: The 1940 Census Employment and Income

 

[pinqy]

Actually the way unemployment was measured was different back then to what it is today, since you insist on being technical you can't make a comparison with today's census data and that in the 1930s-1940s as the questions were different, along with how people were categorized. At best you can claim unemployment decreased dramatically when compared to Reagan - but the measures were different, and the questions are changed all the time: The 1940 Census Employment and Income

True to a point. The only times unemployment was measured prior to 1942 was in the 1920, 1930, and 1940 Censuses and in a special postcard survey in 1936. The "Official" unemployment data comes from a 1948 paper by Stanley Liebergott where he used the then current methods (very similar to current) to estimate the UE rates of prior years. One controversial aspect is that he included those on Government Works projects as unemployed.

 

[JQPublic1]

It's not just the last 30 years. It's a trend seen in the entire history of the BLS keeping track of these stats with the one exception of Reagan. Reagan is the only Republican president to leave office with an employment rate lower than when he started. On the flip side, there hasn't been a Democrat to leave office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started.

Indeed. In fact, when you go back further, you hit FDR who saw the unemployment rate fall from 26% when he took office to 2% when he left office...

The thing is, Republicans don't seem to even be phased by the total imbalance of results. They seem to vote on slogans or something rather than actual results. It is flat out bizarre. Caring about this country doesn't mean waving a flag around and demeaning people from elsewhere, it means actually doing things that actually improve the situation of the people who live here, and on that score, the Democrats beat the Republicans by every measure by a wide margin.

By Jove you really laid it on the line. Do you mind if I keep this post for future reference?

 

[pinqy]

10000 - 80000 depending on your source. Both numbers are in the same ball park; but, in actuality, the true figure is elusive.

Actually the true figure of WORKERS retiring from full time work is not as elusive as you think, the SSA publishes the yearly total. In Obama's first 5 full years 13,522,923 workers retired from full time work. That comes to 2,704,585 per year and 7,410 per day.

View attachment 32847

Thanks for finding that. However, I disagree with you about the data being elusive. Who would have thought that the Social Security Administration would be the place to look? Never the less, the figure you posted for the daily retirement number is not a constant. The number is going to be different every day; so, in effect, one day it could be 10000, the day after that 8000, and the day after that as low as 5 thousand or less. Agree?

Don't think it is a 'lie of the left', in the sense that administrations always fudge figures to make things look better than they really are, like was pointed out in 2013: The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

And that would jack the unemployment rate up to about 11 percent. Which, yikes.

You're being dishonest. Your link shows that Dr. Hall does say that the UE rate does not tell the whole story, but he does NOT say the numbers are fudged. In fact, he has said the opposite:
Unemployment manipulation impossible says former Labor official - Los Angeles Times

"I think it would be impossible to really manipulate the numbers," said Keith Hall, who served from 2008 to 2012 as commissioner of the independent statistical agency, which produces the report. "Certainly, it would be impossible to manipulate the numbers and not be found out."[/qutoe]

No I am not being dishonest, also I would find yourself a dictionary because fudge doesn't mean 'manipulate': fudge - definition of fudge by The Free Dictionary
vb
6. (tr) to make or adjust in a false or clumsy way

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

7. (tr) to misrepresent; falsify

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

8. to evade (a problem, issue, etc); dodge; avoid

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

If you read the article, the point was if you omit or add measures the actual data is quite different. But guess that went over your head.

I read the article. It's all "actual data." His point was that the UE rate by itself does not tell the whole story and that other measures can give a better picture especially in the context of the recession. He in no way implied that the UE rate was made or adjusted in a false or clumsy way or was intended to misrepresent or falsify (because yes, the implication from that definition is intentional act) or that it evades, dodges or avoids anything.

The UE rate measures the percent of the labor force that is not employed. That's it. That's all it's meant to. Of course that doesn't always tell the whole picture. It doesn't claim to. So no fudging.

Doging the point, you said I said 'manipulate', when I said 'fudge', which is the real 'dishonesty' here.

Fudge implies an intentional effort to make appear different and in the context of data and figures is often used synonymously with "manipulate."

If none the meanings match the word usage, then it is not 'dishonest', but incorrect. As dishonesty relies on intent to deceive - which I don't have, as I believed I used the correct meaning.

You were using an extremely non-standard use of the word "fudge" if you did not mean to imply intentional tinkering.

Though it was the correct usage, to fudge the numbers is to present some measures in public announcements and not present others, whether or not they are freely available on the internet is irreverent in that case.

No, that's not what it means. I've never heard of such a usage, except in cases of intentional deceit.

The measures have their own flaws which that article didn't point out, it only measures those on the books,

ummm what books?

it doesn't measure all the people living with family doing chores for free as unemployed,

Yes, it does. Household chores are not considered employment, so if the person was looking for a job, then s/he would be classified as unemployed.

it doesn't measure obviously all the homeless,

Well, no...there's no way to measure the homeless in a household survey. Looking at homeless shelters has been considered, but it's way too variable to be useful.

nor does it measure illegals,

They're not excluded. No questions about citizenship are asked in the survey, so illegal immigrants will show up to the extent that they are willing to answer the survey.

nor does it measure every citizen of the US.

But it does represent them.

The figures in the measures are estimates as they are measures of a fraction of the population, not the entire population.

Because that would be impossible.

 

[JQPublic1]

There are not 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. There are about 10,000 baby boomers hitting retirement age every day. There are about 8,000 baby boomers retiring every day.

10000 - 80000 depending on your source. Both numbers are in the same ball park; but, in actuality, the true figure is elusive.

Actually the true figure of WORKERS retiring from full time work is not as elusive as you think, the SSA publishes the yearly total. In Obama's first 5 full years 13,522,923 workers retired from full time work. That comes to 2,704,585 per year and 7,410 per day.

View attachment 32847

Thanks for finding that. However, I disagree with you about the data being elusive. Who would have thought that the Social Security Administration would be the place to look? Never the less, the figure you posted for the daily retirement number is not a constant. The number is going to be different every day; so, in effect, one day it could be 10000, the day after that 8000, and the day after that as low as 5 thousand or less. Agree?

That was the AVERAGE daily rate for Obama's first 5 full years, each individual day's number can and does vary.

Thanks. I knew that but I just wanted clarification for the sake of low comprehension readers like Rabbi(t) and his rabid fan base.
.

 

[hipeter924]

You were using an extremely non-standard use of the word "fudge" if you did not mean to imply intentional tinkering.

It was adjusting data to make it appear better than it is, sugar coating if you want me to put it another way.

No, that's not what it means. I've never heard of such a usage, except in cases of intentional deceit.

You have never heard of Benjamin Disraeli then, who coined the phrase 'lies, damn lies and statistics'. In political terms what fudge the numbers or the books means is to play with the numbers, a government doesn't have to manipulate numbers to make them look better than they appear. But you obviously think that no government can pick and choose data, even though that is what the unemployment rate is - a selection of data.

ummm what books?

The data of those it has surveyed or estimated from available data.

it doesn't measure all the people living with family doing chores for free as unemployed,

Yes, it does. Household chores are not considered employment, so if the person was looking for a job, then s/he would be classified as unemployed.

That is a separate category, searching for work is a different category entirely: How the Government Measures Unemployment

• Garrett is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, Garrett does help with the regular chores around his parents’ farm and spends about 20 hours each week doing so.

Basically according to how it is gathered, if you do chores around a family farm or business for no pay, you are considered employed - unless you apply for work. So you are wrong there.

it doesn't measure obviously all the homeless,

Well, no...there's no way to measure the homeless in a household survey. Looking at homeless shelters has been considered, but it's way too variable to be useful.

Homeless aren't only in homeless shelters, but in cars, or even living with other people on and off with no place to stay of their own.

They're not excluded. No questions about citizenship are asked in the survey, so illegal immigrants will show up to the extent that they are willing to answer the survey.

That wasn't my point, you are not going to get a full scope of data on illegals, when they do their best to keep out of the system.

But it does represent them.

The census was given to roughly 1 in 6 households in 2010, a representation but less than 20%.

For off years, take the American Community Survey, where only 3.551 million of population were selected, and only 2.208 million interviewed. It might represent the population, but not sufficiently when the population of the US is about 316+ million. 2.2 million isn't even one percent of the US population: Sample Size - Data 8211 Methodology 8211 American Community Survey 8211 U.S. Census Bureau

The figures in the measures are estimates as they are measures of a fraction of the population, not the entire population.

Because that would be impossible.

Much more expensive maybe, but hardly impossible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obama's war on women continues
Benefit inequality

Hey dumb ass, benefits are based on earnings, not sex! Any woman earning as much as a man up to the max will collect the same max benefit as a man.

Sure they are based on earnings but I see no change with obama than with any other president. I guess you've got kool aid shock.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS *****

Funny you never bitched about Bush's 92 million unemployed Americans when he left office!!!!!!

Bush didn't have 92 million Americans out of the work force.sorry try again

He had 92 million UNEMPLOYED as the Right defines unemployed.

Nope Bush never had 92 million out of the work fore.

But he DID have 92 million UNEMPLOYED as YOU defined unemployed.

No Bush never had 92 million not working 92 million is a record obama carries dumb ass.

 

[edthecynic]

Funny you never bitched about Bush's 92 million unemployed Americans when he left office!!!!!!

Bush didn't have 92 million Americans out of the work force.sorry try again

He had 92 million UNEMPLOYED as the Right defines unemployed.

Nope Bush never had 92 million out of the work fore.

But he DID have 92 million UNEMPLOYED as YOU defined unemployed.

No Bush never had 92 million not working 92 million is a record obama carries dumb ass.

Bush had 80 million not working because they were not in the labor force and 12 million not working because they were unemployed. 80 million plus 12 million = 92 million not working everywhere but in Right-wing looney-world.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

You don't lie about unemployment figures because 16 million Americans who used to have jobs have exhausted their government unemployment benefits. Those people didn't just disappear. They weren't alien abducted.

They're still unemployed or way underemployed. "But they don't count," says the White House. "If they aren't on some kind of government dole, well then that means they're not unemployed."

What research did you do and what's your source that says that the unemployment rate doesn't include those not receiving benefits?

My guess, you now won't even try to find a source, but just try to insult me. And then I'll post a cite from BLS that shows that Benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

I believe this is what you are looking for pingy.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

(page 13 - 14)

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all

workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:
1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.

2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).

3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.

4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.


SOURCE: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

 

[pinqy]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

You don't lie about unemployment figures because 16 million Americans who used to have jobs have exhausted their government unemployment benefits. Those people didn't just disappear. They weren't alien abducted.

They're still unemployed or way underemployed. "But they don't count," says the White House. "If they aren't on some kind of government dole, well then that means they're not unemployed."

What research did you do and what's your source that says that the unemployment rate doesn't include those not receiving benefits?

My guess, you now won't even try to find a source, but just try to insult me. And then I'll post a cite from BLS that shows that Benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

I believe this is what you are looking for pingy.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

(page 13 - 14)

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all

workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:
1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.

2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).

3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.

4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.


SOURCE: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

Well, I wasn't looking for it, I knew where that was. I wanted to make Tom Sweetnam do the work to do d out HD was wrong. Spoiling my fun

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

You don't lie about unemployment figures because 16 million Americans who used to have jobs have exhausted their government unemployment benefits. Those people didn't just disappear. They weren't alien abducted.

They're still unemployed or way underemployed. "But they don't count," says the White House. "If they aren't on some kind of government dole, well then that means they're not unemployed."

What research did you do and what's your source that says that the unemployment rate doesn't include those not receiving benefits?

My guess, you now won't even try to find a source, but just try to insult me. And then I'll post a cite from BLS that shows that Benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

I believe this is what you are looking for pingy.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

(page 13 - 14)

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all

workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:
1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.

2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).

3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.

4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.


SOURCE: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

Well, I wasn't looking for it, I knew where that was. I wanted to make Tom Sweetnam do the work to do d out HD was wrong. Spoiling my fun

Sorry ... Didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag so soon. I definitely found it a good source of information with regard to how the government tracks unemployment.

 

[Faun]

obama's war on women continues
Benefit inequality

Hey dumb ass, benefits are based on earnings, not sex! Any woman earning as much as a man up to the max will collect the same max benefit as a man.

Sure they are based on earnings but I see no change with obama than with any other president. I guess you've got kool aid shock.

I can actually believe you are stupid enough to think that 75 years of paying into social security can be reversed in just 5 years.

 

[Kosh]

obama's war on women continues
Benefit inequality

Hey dumb ass, benefits are based on earnings, not sex! Any woman earning as much as a man up to the max will collect the same max benefit as a man.

Sure they are based on earnings but I see no change with obama than with any other president. I guess you've got kool aid shock.

I can actually believe you are stupid enough to think that 75 years of paying into social security can be reversed in just 5 years.

And you are so far to the left that you think Social Security is solvent because of Obama.

 

[Faun]

Funny you never bitched about Bush's 92 million unemployed Americans when he left office!!!!!!

Bush didn't have 92 million Americans out of the work force.sorry try again

He had 92 million UNEMPLOYED as the Right defines unemployed.

Nope Bush never had 92 million out of the work fore.

But he DID have 92 million UNEMPLOYED as YOU defined unemployed.

No Bush never had 92 million not working 92 million is a record obama carries dumb ass.

You never cease being retarded, do you?

January/2009: 92,587,000