• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

DA60 said:
Sure pal...the U-6 unemployment rate is not an unemployment rate at all.



Keep spinning...it seems to be what you do best.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
It's a measure of utilization. A metric that includes over 10 million individuals who are employed cannot be rightly labeled an unemployment rate.
 
a351 said:
It's a measure of utilization. A metric that includes over 10 million individuals who are employed cannot be rightly labeled an unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...oyment-falls-7-5-april-23.html#post1061771569

I realize you (and many Dems/Obama administration workers) believe that someone who needs 40 hours a week of work to support his/her family, but because they cannot find such a job are forced to (out of desperation) take a 20 hour a week job at McDonald's - are 'employed' in your eyes.

Many of us do not share that opinion.

Including many respected 'economists'/organizations.


So, by your standards, if the entire nation were working 12 hours a week at a minimum wage job...then America would have total employment.

Noted.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. A metric that includes 10 million employed individuals is not an unemployment rate. Never has been, never will be.

There isn't an actual debate here. Opinions don't come into play at all.
 

You have it right, Obama is lowering the unemployment rate because people are dropping off the roles of the unemployed because of a terrible job market

You are right over a million discouraged workers a month in 2010-2011-2012 aren't unemployed

You are right, 345000 people filing for first time unemployment claims is an excellent number for liberals

And you are right 21.5 million unemployed/discouraged/under employed, millions of small businesses out of business, and over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assisted welfare are all benefiting from that improving stock market.

Amazing how naive, gullible, and poorly informed you are which bodes the question what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 

You have a number of questions that you ran from which means you have a very short selective memory
 

Just goes to show how much you love your country that is burdened by an additional 6 trillion dollars in debt, record numbers on food stamps, record numbers on disability, and record numbers of businesses out of business. That is the America that you seem to support especially being "anti? Republican. The European model of course is more to your liking as you need a massive central govt. to provide for you
 
a351 said:
Over the course of 2007-2009, sure. In net form and in the time span which Fenton and others claimed? Of course not.
Click to expand...


I suggest you look and try to comprehend what the economic numbers today actually show. It only cost 6 trillion added to the debt to get back to the employment, unemployment numbers that Obama inherited. And then of course there is the booming labor market that has grown from 154 million in December 2007 to 155.2 million in April 2013. Do you know what a discouraged worker is? Do you know that in 2010-2011-2012 that number exceeded a million many months? Are those people unemployed and benefiting from the stock market?
 
You were incorrect.
 
a351 said:
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. A metric that includes 10 million employed individuals is not an unemployment rate. Never has been, never will be.

There isn't an actual debate here. Opinions don't come into play at all.
Click to expand...

So is it your contention that 10 million under employed individuals is a sign that Obama is doing a good job stimulating the private sector to grow, expand, and increase employment? So in other words you have no problem with 10 million under employed Americans?
 
 
a351 said:
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. A metric that includes 10 million employed individuals is not an unemployment rate. Never has been, never will be.

There isn't an actual debate here. Opinions don't come into play at all.
Click to expand...

If the entire nation was employed part time for 5 hours a week BUT EVERYONE wanted full time work but no full time jobs were available - would you say then that no one in America was unemployed?

Yes or no, please?

And, if 'yes', - then would you call America (in that scenario) at full employment?

Yes or no, please?


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
a351 said:
You were incorrect.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted. Do people like you ever admit when wrong?

 
DA60 said:
If the entire nation was employed part time, no exceptions BUT EVERYONE wanted full time work but no full time jobs were available - would you say then that no one in America was unemployed?

Yes or no, please?


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it certainly wouldn't represent a healthy labor market. Under /= un
 
a351 said:
Sure, but it certainly wouldn't represent a healthy labor market. Under /= un
Click to expand...

So, if every single American had a 1 hour per week job (but every American wanted full time employment), then you would (based on your answer) consider the unemployment rate at zero.

Noted.


It is because of (no offense) anal retentive attitudes like that that many people consider the U-6 'underemployment rate' (if you will) the 'real' unemployment rate.


Have a nice day.


For everyone else, once again, the U-6 rate (what many call the 'real' unemployment rate) went up last month from 13.8% to 13.9%.

Plus, zero new manufacturing jobs were created PLUS thousands of construction jobs were lost.
 
Last edited:
a351 said:
Not even posting the right statistic. Full on trainwreck.
Click to expand...

How about posting the "right" statistic chart for us? I gave you the chart showing discouraged workers which aren't under employed so tell me how that chart isn't accurate?
 
DA60 said:
The 'real' unemployment rate - the U-6 - went UP last month from 13.8% to 13.9%.
Click to expand...
Before Obama: 14.2% U6 and rising - After Obama: 13.9% and falling

Thank you, President Obama.

Source: Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

But (as I pointed out before) Obama did drop the U-3 rate (from when he took office) from 7.8% to 7.5% today...but it took him 52 months and a 50+% rise in the national debt to do it.
Click to expand...
You think everything which has been added to the national debt has totally been on economic policies? Of course it wasn't.

That is not to mention - since he took office - the drop in average home prices
Click to expand...
Compared to what, the overinflated market in the years leading up to the crash?

and the 40+% rise in food stamp usage.
Click to expand...
You say that like it's a bad thing more people are eating. :shrug:

And btw - I am neither a Dem or a Rep.
Click to expand...
That makes two of us.
It just KILLS you our country is heading in the right direction, doesn't it? Our country has already passed the level it was at when Obama first took over and is continuing to improve.

Just shows that facts and data have no place in an Obamahater's world as they buy the rhetoric, spin positive information negatively, and then run when challenged. Wonder what it is about conservatism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Conservative said:
Just goes to show how much you love your country
Click to expand...
Thank you, I very much do. I love my country, I'm proud of the fact we're better off now than we were when Bush left office and I'm happy more and more Americans are better off now than they were when Bush left.

I guess the question becomes, "Why aren't you"?

a351 said:
You were incorrect.
Click to expand...

I assure you, that will not matter to him.
 

So...

1) the U-6 rate dropped 0.3% in 52 months to 13.9%...and you think that warrants a 'thank you' to POTUS Obama.

Noted.


2) Fine, then where is your unbiased factual source that details exactly how much of that added debt did not go towards helping Americans - either directly or indirectly - get back to work?


3) So it is not a 'bad thing' that 40+% more Americans are so poor since Obama took office that they require government assistance so that they do not starve.

Okaaaaay.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
How about posting the "right" statistic chart for us? I gave you the chart showing discouraged workers which aren't under employed so tell me how that chart isn't accurate?
Click to expand...
This entire exchange centered around you doubling down on a obviously wrong, inexcusably stupid claim that we've experienced a loss of 9 million jobs over the course of the past four years. You've managed to copy/paste figures that don't even fit into that category, let alone validate your claim, yet still proclaim victory at every turn. Anywho, here's the raw job figures for the past four years. LMK when you find that net loss of 9 mill.

 

I know this escapes you but the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth and further use the right chart to measure the employed and note what it was when the recession began in December 2007 and here we are 3 million jobs less after adding 6 trillion to the debt. You call that an improvement?


Still cannot admit you are wrong, can you?
 
Four year time table Rainman. Four. You're using the completely wrong time span and still coming up six million jobs short. This is embarrassing. Have some self respect.
 
a351 said:
Four year time table Rainman. Four. You're using the completely wrong time span and still coming up six million jobs short. This is embarrassing. Have some self respect.
Click to expand...

What amazes me is your lack of understanding of population growth, discouraged workers, under employed, and debt service as it impacts even you. BLS Data gives the number, you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

Do you think a 155.2 million labor force in a country of 310 million people is an indication that the Obama economic policies have been successful? Please explain how growing the labor force by 1 million people in four plus years is an example of good economic policies?

Do you think over 800,000 discouraged workers in April 2013 is an indication that the economy is improving under Obama? Did you bother to even look at the discouraged worker chart of 2009?

Do you think under employment of 10 million Americans(your number) is an indication of an improving Obama economy?

Explain why that during the Bush term the labor force grew at 1.3 million per year but under Obama that has been 300,000 per year yet Obama economic performance good, Bush bad?

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
There isn't an actual debate here
Click to expand...

LOL!

13.9% of americans are either unemployed or working less than they want

10 million more have given up altogether

large, surprising numbers of the latter are youth, according to the nyt friday

wages are pathetic, net incomes are down

the fed has obligated almost 4T of public trust in mortgage backed garbage

the stimulus was a complete failure, it's become a dirty word, obscene, the s-word

Just don't call it a 'stimulus' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO

Obama wants to boost economy - just don't call it stimulus - CNN

Just Don't Call It a Jobs Stimulus - Washington Post

Barack Obama's economic proposals: Just don't call it stimulus | The Economist

Obama's Next Economic Plan: Don't Call It a Stimulus - TIME

Don't call it a stimulus - Los Angeles Times

why?

keynes is kaput
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…