Be careful! You'll invite the republicans and other Obama haters and OOOP- too damn late.

Generally I avoid politics conversations on forum boards but I can't resist. Regardless of how unemployment is calculated the reality is that it has been calculated that way for MANY MANY years. Its not like just with this President have they not counted certain groups of people. It has always been done like that. Not that I am a huge Obama fan persay but seems people give him more shit than past Presidents that had WAY less steady growth and improvement.

Yes we had a few bad years but there has been a steady improvement. While one could argue for days what caused the huge shift in unemployment rising at the end of 2008 the numbers don't lie. We are looking better, steadily, using the same unemployment factoring that has been used for decades.




Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.8 9.3
2011 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9
2013 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6
2015 5.7 5.5

Yep, that is where it is the government's issue. They have too much of a safety net in place, which makes it easier for these lazy bastards to just stay at home, collect the check and watch tv, surf the web and play video games.

The 25 to 54 year olds ratio is at a 6 year high.

25 to 54 is at 77%.
Over 55 is at 33%.
Every year more baby boomers cross that border. We can debate the other facts but that one there is pretty powerful as far as this goes.

that makes 110% ... not counting 1 to 24 ...:warning

He's saying 77% of the 100% eligible 24-55 year old are employed. Not out of the 100% possible all ages.

yawnnnnnnnnn..

I do not understand why this is a political conversation. It isn't.

We've determined the unemployment rate the same way since the beginning of time, so we must use the same method to compare it to past months and years.

It's obvious that the unemployment rate was going to drop (a lot) and the economy was going to get much better. Both of these two couldn't have gotten much worse no matter how bad the President fucked up.

While Fox news might be telling us the economy sucks, even the Republican party has given up on using the economy as a debating issue. That ship has sailed.

This isn't a political issue. I want the economy to do better no matter what party is in the white house.

I agree.

My older brother collected two years of unemployment because he could. He didn't need to work, did the bare minimum to keep getting the benefits, and when they ran out it was no big deal.

Another friend works full time under the table and feeds his family using food stamps.

Come to think of it, how many people are working full time under the table but still list themselves as unemployed?

How it is impossible to draw conclusions from employment ratio? It is self-explanatory: the amount of work age folks who are employed. It describes just what it is meant to.

By the way, doing business counts as "employed" in that ratio.

The rest of the stuff, you are right. It doesn't give you reasons why people are or aren't employed, but isn't even supposed to do so. It is just one fucking measurement. Even businesses use balanced scorecards.

My claim that there is no job for the most non-employed is based on; that no economy can suddenly create jobs for almost half of their work age population if they all want to be employed. At least with private sector, socialism style yes. As there is also much unemployed folks, who are registered to be wanting a job, it is easy to conclude that if there isn't job for the 5,5 % of folks, there isn't job for the rest 35 %:ish neither.

Better for who? Maybe the wife wants to work? How about the work hours in the society in general? Also this model relies for traditional family cohesion, that isn't the case in modern societies. There is huge amount of singles and divorced folks. If there is just one job per family; either one is fucked before marriage or after divorce. Although USA is famous for the big after divorce payments for either one; usually for the wife. But still, considering the requirement that people can (if wanting) independently support themselves economically; it requires jobs for everyone.

Also not everyone like the old model: "woman gets sold" to a man, so that the selling (and still paying) family gets someone to support her. In the model you presented; women aren't very independent.

Credit where it's due. Rochard's right about how strong the US economy is: the economy is so robust that 92,898,000 of the 249,899,000 Americans in the potential labor force (16 or older who were not in the military or an institution) are so well off that they don't have to work anymore! This is an unprecedented amount and this incredible level of economic health has not been seen since women first entered the labor force en masse in the 70s!

Source: 62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months | CNS News

yea, it's a random statistic, but what does that statistic mean? why is it going up or down?

Look at 60s to 2000s in the US:
57.4 59.2 62.8 64.4

What does that mean? Did economy improve? or did our society become more materialistic so work became more desirable? Maybe fewer people became married in that time range, leading to more people seeking work? etc


Isn't it safe to say that work is generally undesirable (from that person's perspective)? So when someone works he does so because he is forced to... Do you honestly think that wife would rather work at some meaningless job whole day, or spend time with her kids? or would 60 year old guy rather retire at 60 or put in few more years of work in? There are of course exceptions, but generally you want less work, not more...

So like I said, it's debatable whether low or high "employment-population ratio" is "good"...


p.s.
it's not about "traditional family", that example was just used to illustrate a point... same point can be made about 60 year old guy that chooses between continuing to work or retiring...

Unemployment % dropping is great but wages have been flat for years while companies rake in the profits...

With these low interest rates it sure is a great time to run a biz and sure shitty time for a lot of others

It is not random statistic. It is the most precise one that can be gotten regarding this issue. Far from random. It is already said what it describes. It is accurate because it is not subjective and has little variables. It gives the best overal picture. For example women may stay as housewives because there isn't jobs for them. Or there isn't jobs for them because they don't want it at the first place. Employment ratio doesn't care about this. It just measures the employment ratio, thus it is realiable indicator through times and between societies.

It isn't safe to say that work is meaningless or undesirable, far from that. Traditionally work has defined your social position, your income and brought meaning to life (not the only source, but important). This has changed somewhat; somewhat as a necessity (as so many haven't job).

About the wifes; why you assume the work she would be doing is meaningless? And the kids, excluding young children, they are at school during day. Work has social aspect too, of course being homemom can be too if moms hang out together. But, the one who brings the money, usually has the most influence to how it is used and who uses it.

This discussion in general is not about whether doing work is a good or bad thing. You can keep it as you want, but keeping not working as a good thing and at the same time requiring everyone making their living, doesn't equal. If people can't make their living; either their closest ones have to support them or society in general.

I don't agree, I don't think it's a reliable indicator of anything, I still think it's impossible to draw any conclusions...

one society where everyone retires at 60 would have lower employment ratio, than society where everyone retires at 70... same can be said about society where everyone is spending half their life getting PhDs instead of working... same can be said about society where money is easily made, so one person can easily support 5 family members... same can be said about societies where it's taboo or perhaps even illegal for women to work, etc...

so comparing different societies, or time periods and then concluding that low "employment-population ratio" means "jobs are not available" is a bit flawed...

I haven't said that employment ratio the only indicator to be used, but from single indicators; it gives the best overal picture. With unemployment rate you have all the same questions; but for example with 5,5 % unemployment rate you don't know that is 94,5 % of folks employed or 1 %.

It describes what it describes; I already said that you aren't even supposed to get answers to all your questions from one single indicator. There is no fucking indicator that can do that.

In 2014 auto manufactures sold 1 million more cars than they did in 2013..

Every car manufacturer sold more cars in 2014 than they did in 2013 with the exception of Ford, because they redesigned their full size truck and it didn't do so good. That means despite Ford doing wore ans being the number one in sales the entire industry still out sold the previous year with Chrysler having a 16% increase.

They are projecting 2015 will top 2006's sales which was the sales level prior to the crash..

Sorry Debbie Nay Sayers but the economy is doing just great no matter how much you don't want it to be, we know it's bad for your team and you hate Obama.. We know, we know..

Hell even in the Republican strong hold of Houston Texas one of the hardest hit in foreclosures at the start of the crash, just broke the all time record of homes sold. Looks like Texans think the economy is doing just fine and they are gobbling up the McMainsions once again..

Again I agree with you :thumbsup

Another question to ask is whether 300k jobs makes any difference to the almost 48 million who are on food stamps:

Why are 47 million Americans on food stamps? It’s the recession ? mostly. - The Washington Post

Altman: 5.5% jobless not telling true labor story - Yahoo Finance

Real figure closer to 11%

This is the modern day problem with controlling society in all nations. Anyone can go online and see the truth or see a different opinion. It's harder to fool the masses. Where do we go from here?

truth == MEDIAN(all the bullshit);

This has nothing to do with politics for me. I am not a huge fan of Obama.

I remember when the economy was bad. I've said this over and over again - Exactly half of the twenty houses on my street were vacant. People weren't just loosing their jobs; They were also loosing their houses. My town went from the fastest growing town in the United States to nearly bankrupt; All construction stopped. They were building a Sonic drive in restaurant up the street and stopped half way through - the walls were up, but they never finished it and years later they took it down.

This isn't about politics; It's about reality. The economy isn't better because of Obama; The economy is better because it couldn't get any fucking worse. The main solution to this problem was time; Obama just happened to be in office during the uptick.

Ignoring the facts just means you refuse to accept the truth.

How does someone "drop out of the workforce" and just give up totally looking for a job? If all of these new jobs are supposedly being added, wouldn't their chances of getting a job increase?

Is there some rule that says you'll never work again if you can't find a job in x amount of time, so don't bother looking anymore? That seems like some made up bullshit to perpetuate the doom and gloom. I agree with Crockett, it sounds more like a problem of the people who give up -- if that actually is what's happening.

There is no such thing as living in an area that doesn't have jobs as long as the internet exists. There is money to be made in so many ways.

Some people are content to just do nothing and complain about everything.

What about if the Internet doesn't exist

Too bad you live in the same country with the rest of the folks.

Pony Express. So much money to be made with it. Like by robbing it.

46 million Americans are 65 and over. And it is only going to get worse. Those worthless sob's need to get jobs acordo-me to the republicanos. But aint going to happen.

baddog beat him to it lol. denial ain't a river in egypt ladies.

This MK Ultra dude said something so relevant, even if his username does sound like new Colgate toothpaste :1orglaugh

We had source critical reading lessons in school. But it included every source. Including "The federalist", or whatever is the source for your graph (we were also taught to put trackable source; link or where it was published, when, page, etc.).

Just saying.

Nice .... :thumbsup

:1orglaugh

Project MKUltra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm no conspiracy theorist that shit really happened and went on for 20 years.

Government cannot be trusted, ever. I am baffled by people who can't grasp that simple fact.

Government is run by people and people can be counted on to invariably move in the direction that promotes their own self-interest over that of all others.
Our Founders understood this and tried to limit the size and scope of the federal government but I'm afraid they just didn't put in enough safeguards.

Altruism is a fine word, but in Washington DC all other seats of government that's all it is, just a word.

The word that's much more relevant is power.

Sorry I must have slept through that class :error

Simple - they weren't really looking for a job in the first place.

My older brother lost his job and went on unemployment. His (common law) wife has a full time job and makes enough to support the two of them if they cut back a little. Although my brother is pushing age fifty, the truth is he really has only had one job his entire life and only recently; He isn't qualified to do anything more than entry level work. At that point, why bother with working if you don't have to?

Three words: Upside down mortgage

What made this last recession especially bad was that the ability to simply pickup and move is no longer a viable option for all too many.

It's good you're awake enough to understand that...... 99% of people blindly believe their governments and trust them implicitly.

Are you talking about this 93 million? You're right they've decided they don't actually need a job to survive comfortably..... better to sit at home, browse facebook, watch tv and get paid for it.