Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

Publius1787

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
6,211
Reaction score
668
Points
190
Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Change in Number of Unemployed
11,616,000 Jan 2009
10,351,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 1,265,000 less workers unemployed

Change in the Number of Employed
142,099,000 Jan 2009
144,586,000 Dec 2013
Difference = + 2,487,000 net jobs created

Change in Labor Force Participation Rate
65.5% Jan 2009
62.8% Dec 2013
Difference = 2.7% of the labor force stopped participating.

Total Not in Labor Force
49,455,000 Jan 2009
55,220,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 5,765,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

Jobs to Dropouts
Average net Jobs Created Per Year: 497,400
Average # of Labor Force Dropouts per Year: 1,153,000
Difference: For Every 1 net job created under Obama 2.32 people have given up looking for work.

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office. In real numbers, Obama can boast that 2,487,000 net jobs were created for Americans under his stewardship in 5 years (497,400 net jobs per year average). He can also boast that those eligible for work and able to work while not looking for work increased by 5,765,000 (A labor force participation drop out rate of 1,153,000 per year). In other words, for every net job created since January 2009, 2.32 people have given up looking for work. If we were to start on the month Obama took office, fair or not, and compared the employment situation to today, we are still worse off today in terms of employment than the day he took office.

Conclusion: Ceteris paribus (and they are not) Thus far, though we look to be catching up and the economy is growing, the economy has not grown enough in accordance with the increase in workforce population so as to maintain an employment rate that would be less than that of when Obama took office.

I hope I used ceteris paribus correctly :eusa_think:

Your Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,658
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
It's like many said in the past and now the media is finally unable to not report on... The UE rate going down is due to people leaving the work force and that is a bad thing. Less people are working today than 1-2-3-4-5 years ago, take your pick. Obama and his policies have been devastating coming after 8 years of horrible policies under Bush.

If the FED-R actually starts to taper off spending, things will probably get far worse and the media simply can't avoid reporting it. Make no mistake, the Media will place the blame on anyone and anything other than the policies in place that caused the problem.
 
Last edited:

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
Those numbers will be manipulated for the uninformed until they get all the guns, then they won't care who knows.
 
OP
Publius1787

Publius1787

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
6,211
Reaction score
668
Points
190
It's like many said in the passed and now the media is finally unable to not report on... The UE rate going down is due to people leaving the work force and that is a bad thing. Less people are working today than 1-2-3-4-5 years ago, take your pick. Obama and his policies have been devastating coming after 8 years of horrible policies under Bush.

If the FED-R actually starts to taper off spending, things will probably get far worse and the media simply can't avoid reporting it. Make no mistake, the Media will place the blame on anyone and anything other than the policies in place that caused the problem.
Indeed, less people as a percentage of the total labor force are working than 5 years ago, however, more people are in fact working due to a small amount of economic expansion. Nevertheless, the expansion has not been enough to bring employment back up to the amount Obama started with. The labor force has in fact grown due to kids graduating into the workforce, which makes unemployment go down all the slower and labor force participation go down all the faster.
 

Joe Steel

Class Warrior
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
97
Points
83
Location
St. Louis, MO
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
 

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,658
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
I think the real issue is accountability and credibility. If there is good news people give all that credit to Obama, and he arrogantly accepts that credit. When things are bad, get worse or are discovered under Obama's watch and policies.... It's Republicans fault, or conservatives, or ATM's, or Rush L, Glenn B, TP, Bush. Reagan, Harding and all whites that don't agree with Obama.

On one had many claim Obama saved the US from a depression, Obama accepts that. On the other hand less people are working, the poor and middle class are more poor than when Obama took over and that can all be explained by "It's out of the Presidents power!" Yet staving off a depression was well with in Obama's powers apparently....
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
Nothing's ever his fault.
 
OP
Publius1787

Publius1787

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
6,211
Reaction score
668
Points
190
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
I agree. I thought I made this clear when I noted "rightfully or wrongfully" in the above post. Nevertheless, Obama was the one who has noted many times that the government can play a role in creating jobs and thus far in his presidency he is at a net loss in employment as a percentage of the population. Indeed it was him who coined terms such as "recovery summer," and his administration, that predicted such a demonstrably inaccurate economic reaction to his recovery plan, that according to the White House's own predictions it did nothing to help the employment situation.



How many pivots toward jobs has Obama made?
How many times have we seen Obama state that he has a "laser like focus" on jobs?
Wasn't the trillion dollar stimulus supposed to create jobs?
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to create jobs?
Wasn't cash for clunkers supposed to create jobs?
Wasn't a two year unemployment extension supposed to create jobs?
How many other Democrat championed bills has Obama signed into law that were supposed to create jobs?
If the chart above was supposed to be the case for stimulus job creation then shouldn't all of Obamas "job creating" measures have at least brought employment back to the blue/lightblue line?
The fact of the matter is that the White house assumed that the job market was within their control, which is why they released the above chart. Therefore it is only right that Obama should be held accountable to such economic assumptions and promises.
 
Last edited:

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,658
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
I agree. I thought I made this clear when I noted "rightfully or wrongfully" in the above post. Nevertheless, Obama was the one who has noted many times that the government can play a role in creating jobs and thus far in his presidency he is at a net loss in employment as a percentage of the population. Indeed it was him who coined terms such as "recovery summer," and his administration, that predicted such a demonstrably inaccurate economic reaction to his recovery plan, that according to the White House's own predictions it did nothing to help the employment situation.



How many pivots toward jobs has Obama made?
How many times have we seen Obama state that he has a "laser like focus" on jobs?
Wasn't the trillion dollar stimulus supposed to create jobs?
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to create jobs?
Wasn't cash for clunkers supposed to create jobs?
Wasn't a two year unemployment extension supposed to create jobs?
How many other Democrat championed bills has Obama signed into law that were supposed to create jobs?
If the chart above was supposed to be the case for stimulus job creation then shouldn't all of Obamas "job creating" measures have at least brought employment back to the blue/lightblue line?
The fact of the matter is that the White house assumed that the job market was within their control, which is why they released the above chart. Therefore it is only right that Obama should be held accountable to such economic assumptions and promises.

I fully agree, we have trillion spent on stimulus that the use was defined to be for "creating jobs." Here we are at a net loss of jobs and even pointing the the incredibly misleading and inaccurate u3 UE stats we are still doing terrible. We look at the workforce participation rate for one reason under Obama, because ever single person knows things are worse off and claiming the official UE rate at 7% is bullshit.

Obama himself has made looking at the UE pointless. Obama used it as a lie to cover his tracks on trillions spent with no actual "recovery' in jobs. We are in the first ever recorded "recovery" in the history of the world were we have less jobs than when we started (where no mass death has taken place from a war).

I despise Obama because he is in fact so bad at his job that an honest person that wanted the best would have not run a second term, an honest person would resign. Then again, Obama said he wouldn't run a second term if things were not fixed and yet he did.... because it's well documented Obama is not an honest person.
 

expat_panama

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
2,948
Reaction score
356
Points
130
...trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control...
The administration's website says--

--but I agree with you that current government policy has been unable to provide any beneficial affect. Now that we know what doesn't work let's decide what we want. I want lower taxes so I can hire people. So if we got no better ideas on the table (which we don't yet) let's just go w/ lower taxes.
 
OP
Publius1787

Publius1787

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
6,211
Reaction score
668
Points
190
...trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control...
The administration's website says--

--but I agree with you that current government policy has been unable to provide any beneficial affect. Now that we know what doesn't work let's decide what we want. I want lower taxes so I can hire people. So if we got no better ideas on the table (which we don't yet) let's just go w/ lower taxes.
The White Houses claim of 7.2 million jobs created does not take into account jobs lost under his stewardship, but only the job gains. Essentially they just ignored the job losses and paid attention to the job gains when the job losses should have canceled out a very large portion of the job gains. If he is going to take credit for one he might as well take credit for the other. They also have a very screwed up way of measuring job creation via counting jobs "created/saved." In any case, there is no evidence that his policies have worked, more people as a percentage of the total US population are still out of work than the day he took office, and the labor force participation rate is the lowest since the Carter years?
 
Last edited:
OP
Publius1787

Publius1787

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
6,211
Reaction score
668
Points
190
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
Nothing's ever his fault.
Unless it's positive of course. If something positive happens he was instrumental in seeing it through to achievement. Just think about the brave decision he made to single handedly take out OBL with his bare fists before the SEALS asked his benevolence for permission to do the job so as to boast up the reputation of the military already overshadowed by their dear leaders combat skills. Indeed, the president spent days personally researching OBL's whereabouts and personally did a number of undercover missions to Pakistan so as to gather the intel that only his expertise could accomplish. Then he was kind enough to allow the SEALS to get 2% of the credit! What a great man! In this case, the death of OBL was all Obamas fault. The underperforming recovery? No, that belongs to his racist and homophobic political opposition who has waged a war on jobs, a war on minorities, and a war on women as they scheme to take poor peoples healthcare away, sabotage the Obamacare website, deport the parents of Mexican children, and shove granny over a cliff.
 

pinqy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
708
Points
200
Location
Northern Virginia
Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Change in Number of Unemployed
11,616,000 Jan 2009
10,351,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 1,265,000 less workers unemployed

Change in the Number of Employed
142,099,000 Jan 2009
144,586,000 Dec 2013
Difference = + 2,487,000 net jobs created

Change in Labor Force Participation Rate
65.5% Jan 2009
62.8% Dec 2013
Difference = 2.7% of the labor force stopped participating.

Total Not in Labor Force
49,455,000 Jan 2009
55,220,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 5,765,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

Jobs to Dropouts
Average net Jobs Created Per Year: 497,400
Average # of Labor Force Dropouts per Year: 1,153,000
Difference: For Every 1 net job created under Obama 2.32 people have given up looking for work.

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office. In real numbers, Obama can boast that 2,487,000 net jobs were created for Americans under his stewardship in 5 years (497,400 net jobs per year average). He can also boast that those eligible for work and able to work while not looking for work increased by 5,765,000 (A labor force participation drop out rate of 1,153,000 per year). In other words, for every net job created since January 2009, 2.32 people have given up looking for work. If we were to start on the month Obama took office, fair or not, and compared the employment situation to today, we are still worse off today in terms of employment than the day he took office.

Conclusion: Ceteris paribus (and they are not) Thus far, though we look to be catching up and the economy is growing, the economy has not grown enough in accordance with the increase in workforce population so as to maintain an employment rate that would be less than that of when Obama took office.

I hope I used ceteris paribus correctly :eusa_think:

Your Thoughts?
You can't use the archived news release for seasonally adjusted numbers, as they get revised every December

Your Not in the Labor Force numbers are way off…it was 80,259,000 and 91,808,000

And an increase in Not in the Labor Force is not necessarily a decrease in the Labor Force, or people "dropping out.
 

Politico

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
13,855
Reaction score
942
Points
175
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
Quit toting the party line. Pukilus hates Obammy because he's black but he happens to be right. He is 6 years into his term. It is his baby like it or not.
 
Last edited:

Joe Steel

Class Warrior
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
97
Points
83
Location
St. Louis, MO
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
I think the real issue is accountability and credibility. If there is good news people give all that credit to Obama, and he arrogantly accepts that credit. When things are bad, get worse or are discovered under Obama's watch and policies.... It's Republicans fault, or conservatives, or ATM's, or Rush L, Glenn B, TP, Bush. Reagan, Harding and all whites that don't agree with Obama.

On one had many claim Obama saved the US from a depression, Obama accepts that. On the other hand less people are working, the poor and middle class are more poor than when Obama took over and that can all be explained by "It's out of the Presidents power!" Yet staving off a depression was well with in Obama's powers apparently....
In this case, yes. The Republicans explicitly declared their opposition to the President. Obama saved the economy so he had a record of success. The Republicans obstructed him so the blame is their's.
 

Joe Steel

Class Warrior
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
97
Points
83
Location
St. Louis, MO
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
...

The fact of the matter is that the White house assumed that the job market was within their control, which is why they released the above chart. Therefore it is only right that Obama should be held accountable to such economic assumptions and promises.
I think they underestimated the intensity of the Republicans' opposition. One of Obama's biggest faults is faith in the process and his trust in the good faith of policy-makers. He never expected what he got.
 

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,658
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
I think the real issue is accountability and credibility. If there is good news people give all that credit to Obama, and he arrogantly accepts that credit. When things are bad, get worse or are discovered under Obama's watch and policies.... It's Republicans fault, or conservatives, or ATM's, or Rush L, Glenn B, TP, Bush. Reagan, Harding and all whites that don't agree with Obama.

On one had many claim Obama saved the US from a depression, Obama accepts that. On the other hand less people are working, the poor and middle class are more poor than when Obama took over and that can all be explained by "It's out of the Presidents power!" Yet staving off a depression was well with in Obama's powers apparently....
In this case, yes. The Republicans explicitly declared their opposition to the President. Obama saved the economy so he had a record of success. The Republicans obstructed him so the blame is their's.

At no point did Obama ever "save the economy." We are technicality worse off today than we were at any point over the last 5 years... "Saving the economy" by showing the rich with .02% credit or just giving them money does and did not not work to do anything else other than make the middle class and poor more poor and the rich fantastically more wealthy.

The bleeding of jobs would have naturally slowed, finding the malinvestment and getting rid of it is the point of a recession/depression. Creating a massive new bubble as Obama did simply replaced a correction with more malinvestment.

How do we know Obama didn't save the economy? Because despite trillion in continued stimulus the results have been the opposite. Or has the something like 10 trillion in stimulus over 5 years not count as stimulus spending?
 
Last edited:

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,449
Points
2,165
a poor OP without the context of what was going to happen economically because of the GOP and complacent Dems policies before 2009
 

Joe Steel

Class Warrior
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
97
Points
83
Location
St. Louis, MO
... trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control ...
... but I agree with you that current government policy has been unable to provide any beneficial affect. Now that we know what doesn't work let's decide what we want. I want lower taxes so I can hire people. So if we got no better ideas on the table (which we don't yet) let's just go w/ lower taxes.
Lower taxes don't create jobs. Instead, we need higher taxes to fund more government spending focused on the disposable income of the poor and working class; raise the minimum wage, expand Medicaid nationwide, move TANF to the federal government. Income redistribution is the only thing we have left to save our economy.
 

Joe Steel

Class Warrior
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
97
Points
83
Location
St. Louis, MO
... Your Thoughts?
You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.
Quit toting the party line. Pukilus hates Obammy because he's black but he happens to be right. He is 6 years onto his term. It is his baby like it or not.
I don't think so. In other times you might be able to say that but not now. No other president has had to face the publicly declared obstructionism Obama has had to face. He can't be subjected to the same kind of analyses other presidents faced.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top