Jobs report

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#2
The actual unemployment rate (uncooked books version) is WAY higher.
There are several different unemployment figures that are put out and we know how each one is calculated. Not "cooked books" so much as different methodologies and different uses for each. If you have an issue with the actual methodology or calculations, feel free to share.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#4
You know that the labor force participation rate includes unemployed folks, right? It isn't a measure of what percentage of Americans are working as you seem to think it is, but instead a measure of what percentage of Americans are looking to work (regardless of whether they are employed or unemployed at the time) based on the definitions used for looking to work.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#5
True, which means the delta between % of Americans actually having a job under the Bush years and now is even GREATER than it appears!!! (Under the 66% to 63% comparison). :eek:
You can't draw that conclusion just based on the labor force participation rate. You have to look at both unemployment and labor force participation. But that aside, your argument seems to be purely political at least in the way you are framing it. For one, the burst of the housing bubble and financial crises obviously had a large impact on both unemployment and labor force participation and Bush had much more to do with both of those things than Obama did. The policies of a President are reflected in more than just the term they served, so for Obama's Presidency it is a reflection of his polices plus the policies of every President before him (as well as Congress, and a million other things). Time period arguments alone aren't very strong.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#6
Re-read what I said. You'll see I did.That's the whole reason I said the employment situation was actually worse than it looked.
You can't really say that without data on why those who dropped out of the labor force are no longer looking/included in the figure.

Looking at the big picture though, it is pretty obvious that the failure of the Bush administration and Greenspan Fed to stop the housing bubble (and subsequent financial crisis) and perhaps the reluctancy of the Bernanke Fed early on to act aggressively were large reasons for the increase in unemployment to begin with (Obama more inherited that crisis than anything). I'll add though that I personally think the Bernanke Fed did a great job overall- especially with the actions it took as the financial crisis came to fruition and onwards (also given that hindsight is 20/20, can't hold some of the shortcomings against them too much given what we all knew at that time). I give much more of the credit of recovery, etc. to the Fed than the politicians.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#7
Lol, okay Aufgeblassen. I've read enough of your stuff on here to know you like to look at things along partisan lines and you are doing it again here. The truth is far more complex, but if you want to stick to what the political cover story is, that is your choice. Good luck with it.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#8
Nothing partisan about the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The partisanship comes from how the data is used, and how individuals ignore other data to make it all agree with preconceived notions. To blame our current housing/economic/banking problems on current policy while it obviosly occured before it was in place, is silly and disingenuous.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#9
Encouraging & prodding people to use public assistance and go on Disability, instead of actually finding and taking (any) job did not occur prior to this Administration, I assure you. :confused:
Actually it has been a problem since the programs came into existence...and still is. Again we note the partisanship and ignoring of data to fit your agenda.

"
The New Deal policies of President franklin d. roosevelt included new federal initiatives to help those in poverty. With millions of people unemployed during the 1930s economic depression, welfare assistance was beyond the financial resources of the states. Therefore, the federal government provided funds either directly to recipients or to the states for maintaining a minimum standard of living.
Following the 1930s, federal programs were established that provided additional welfare benefits, including medical care (Medicaid), public housing, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). By the 1960s, however, criticism began to grow that these programs had created a "culture of dependency," which discouraged people from leaving the welfare rolls and finding employment. Defenders of public welfare benefits acknowledged that the system was imperfect, noting the financial disincentives associated with taking a low-paying job and losing the array of benefits, especially medical care. They also pointed out that millions of children are the prime beneficiaries of welfare assistance, and that removing adults from welfare affects these children.
During the 1980s and 1990s, criticism of public welfare escalated dramatically. Some states began to experiment with programs that required welfare recipients to find work within a specified period of time, after which welfare benefits would cease. Since job training and Child Care are important components of such programs, proponents acknowledged that "workfare" programs save little money in the short term. They contended, however, that workfare would reduce welfare costs and move people away from government dependency over the long term."
a Brief History of Welfare Reform legal definition of a Brief History of Welfare Reform


Attempting to blame current policy for long standing problems doe very little to change how your position is seen.
 

Similar Discussions