Rapunzel52
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 233
- Location
- The Great Midwest
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Cherry pick much ... ROFLMFAO ....
Hey. From his first full month in office, which includes 11 months you skipped cherry-picker, Obama has overseen the creation of less than 250K private sector jobs. Whoopty ****ing doo.
Meanwhile, if you factor out the housing bubble burst, which was a joint creation by Repubs and Dems, Bush created over 6 million private sector jobs. By your liberal-progressive analysis system, we include all the bad with Bush, and take out all the bad with Obama. That's one uber-retarded turd you got going there. :doh
Its also what we expect from the Left ... and Obama math. :roll:
I think some supporting data to back up those claims would be in order.Because people who have given up on finding work do not count against the unemployed.............Bottom line the unemployment rate is 8.2% higher then it ever was under GWB and there are 1.2 million more unemployed then there were when Hussein Obama took office................
Where did the problem go haywire at? Bush...
Its called historical analysis to see how and where we are at now...
Oh, wait...never mind... Im not a liberal.. :roll:
I think some supporting data to back up those claims would be in order.
I asked for data to support his claim that unemployment is 8.2 percent higher then it was under any point during the Bush administration. Your link not only doesn't support that claim it also conveniently ignores the fact that the 1.2 million "correction" in the work force was apparently due largely to a census adjustment.
Is that Detroit?
I asked for data to support his claim that unemployment is 8.2 percent higher then it was under any point during the Bush administration. Your link not only doesn't support that claim it also conveniently ignores the fact that the 1.2 million "correction" in the work force was apparently due largely to a census adjustment.
Obamaville. Prolly a community organizer down there somewhere too.
Sorry, misunderstood what you wanted.
Sure you did. :lol:
The fact is that the unemployment rate now is almost exactly what it was when Shrub left office.
Yes, the labor force participation rate has declined, and some of that is due to the economy. But a lot of it is due to the baby boomers hitting retirement age ... something I don't think the President has much control over.
In 2011 The Baby Boomers Start To Turn 65: 16 Statistics About The Coming Retirement Crisis That Will Drop Your Jaw
There are not enough boomers to account for what you said above. Numbers are something like 20K per week get to retirement age while population growth adds about 150K per month. Also with savings depleted it is reasonable to suspect that many boomers are not willingly retiring at age 65.
Why can't folks on this site be a but honest. People fall of the employment rolls when their unemployment benefits expire. Also there are many who work in construction and related industries that fall in to the discouraged worker category as there are no jobs to be had for people with their skills.
Not so, says the macro-economic team at Barclays. They ran models showing that demographics, and especially retirement amongst baby boomers, has played a larger role in pushing the labor participation rate down than other factors have. “Only about a third of the drop in the labor force participation rate is accounted for by those who say they want a job, and only about 15% by those who want a job and are also of prime working age – i.e., between 25-54,” says the report issued Thursday. What’s more, historically, re-entrants into the labor force haven’t really played much of a role in changing the unemployment numbers.
Read more: A Barclays report suggests that the recent decline in the labor participation rate has more to do with demographics than discouraged workers | Business | TIME.com
[/B]
Sure your not..........:lamo
I asked for data to support his claim that unemployment is 8.2 percent higher then it was under any point during the Bush administration. Your link not only doesn't support that claim it also conveniently ignores the fact that the 1.2 million "correction" in the work force was apparently due largely to a census adjustment.
Socialist and liberal two different ideologies.
So your a liberal socialist...........
"Baby Boomers" ...... ROFLMAO. That is the most pathetic crock of crap hyped up by the libtard media and their sychophants.
Real Jobless Rate Is 11.4% With Realistic Labor Force Participation Rate | ZeroHedge
A bit disappointing, but 6 digit job growth is still moving in a positive direction. Last month's report was revised upward to 240,000+ (from 227,000), and i have little doubt this current survey will be revised upward as well. To put it into perspective, roughly 1.9 million jobs were created from March, 2011 to March, 2012.
Yeah, that damned liberal media and their made-up baby boom thingy! :lol:
Interesting, though, that the labor force participation rate was actually lower in Reagan's first term. Guess that was a conservative conspiracy?
If I pay someone to fix my car when it breaks and they fail to fix it, do I blame the mechanic or do I blame Ford?
You tell me.
It was lower before than too. The big nudge through that era were women entering the work force. Working Mom's. That is the structure of our current workforce.
Fact remains that we still need to add about 140K jobs per month just to hold steady, as we still have an increasing population. About 1.7 million per calendar year just to stay even. Actual unemployment is close to 11%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?