|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 20, 2018 13:20:57 GMT
Very interesting, some continuing the trend, some reversals:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42748243Look at the Unemployment Rate chart - it consistently drops under Obama. Sounds great! But then look at the Labour Force Participation chart (the % of the population who are employed or are looking for employment). Note how that number also dropped and dropped and dropped under Obama. How can the unemployment rate drop but the participation rate drop as well? Surely if more people are in work, the participation rate should go up. What you need is a policy whereby people can be excluded from being counted as unemployed while still being out of work. Bingo! Let's move loads of unemployed over to disability benefit. The unemployment rate drops and Obama looks like a hero. BUT... that pesky Participation Rate chart gives their game away. It wasn't that more people were going into work, it was just that they were being put onto disability and reclassified. Bottom line: the Obama administration enabled vast numbers of people not to work. Which is typical of left wings - they want people out of work, dependent on their benefits programmes so they will continue to vote for them. Quite disgusting policies which ultimately destroy a country. |
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Jan 20, 2018 14:34:54 GMT
The flaw with unemployment statistics is they always lump in the unable to work/retired etc in the statistics.
What does this tell us? Answer; people are generally too dumb as fuck to look deeper into statistics than what they see in clickbait headlines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 20, 2018 15:33:19 GMT
The flaw with unemployment statistics is they always lump in the unable to work/retired etc in the statistics. So only 4% of your population are retired, unable to work etc? 10 seconds of googling shows that there are 40 - 45 million people retired in the US. That's 14% of the population. Add 'unable to work, etc' and you would probably have a rate, according to you, of 18-20%. Much bigger than 4%. Even 30 seconds of thinking should tell you that 4% cannot possibly include retired people - it just doesn't make sense. What does this tell us? Answer; people are generally too dumb as fuck to look deeper into statistics than what they see in clickbait headlines. Before you call other people 'dumb as fuck', you might want to check that what you are saying makes any semblance of sense before you post it. Your partisanship is noted! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 19:15:02 GMT
Very interesting, some continuing the trend, some reversals:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42748243Look at the Unemployment Rate chart - it consistently drops under Obama. Sounds great! But then look at the Labour Force Participation chart (the % of the population who are employed or are looking for employment). Note how that number also dropped and dropped and dropped under Obama. How can the unemployment rate drop but the participation rate drop as well? Surely if more people are in work, the participation rate should go up. What you need is a policy whereby people can be excluded from being counted as unemployed while still being out of work. Bingo! Let's move loads of unemployed over to disability benefit. The unemployment rate drops and Obama looks like a hero. BUT... that pesky Participation Rate chart gives their game away. It wasn't that more people were going into work, it was just that they were being put onto disability and reclassified. Bottom line: the Obama administration enabled vast numbers of people not to work. Which is typical of left wings - they want people out of work, dependent on their benefits programmes so they will continue to vote for them. Quite disgusting policies which ultimately destroy a country. The Labour Forced Participation rate chart they used was bullshit monkies. From January 1950 to December 2017 the average LFP has been 63% Currently as of December 2017 the LFP stands at 63.7%. The highest and lowest LFP's ever recorded have been: Lowest 58.1% December 1954. Highest 67.3% January 2000. So somebody started that graph from the highest LFP month in 70 years and tried to show a downward trend under Obama and now Trump,instead of that month being counted as an ananonmoly. The fact is Labour participations rates have remained fairly constant through successive governments,especially in recent years. I'd have expected better from the BBC but all news stations are dropping in quality these days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 20:21:11 GMT
Very interesting, some continuing the trend, some reversals:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42748243Look at the Unemployment Rate chart - it consistently drops under Obama. Sounds great! But then look at the Labour Force Participation chart (the % of the population who are employed or are looking for employment). Note how that number also dropped and dropped and dropped under Obama. How can the unemployment rate drop but the participation rate drop as well? Surely if more people are in work, the participation rate should go up. What you need is a policy whereby people can be excluded from being counted as unemployed while still being out of work. Bingo! Let's move loads of unemployed over to disability benefit. The unemployment rate drops and Obama looks like a hero. BUT... that pesky Participation Rate chart gives their game away. It wasn't that more people were going into work, it was just that they were being put onto disability and reclassified. Bottom line: the Obama administration enabled vast numbers of people not to work. Which is typical of left wings - they want people out of work, dependent on their benefits programmes so they will continue to vote for them. Quite disgusting policies which ultimately destroy a country. A few friends of mine were looking for jobs under Obama and couldnt find shit despite being all college grads- even having masters, 20+ exp, great references. Black unemployment lowest ever. Jobless rate down lowest since 1973.. and the market has been said but people out there is actually GOOD. Normally I wouldnt believe the unemployment rate after reading this news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspxbut i think its actually is low now if people are calling the job market good out there. Even when Obamas WH press corps was claiming it was low , NOBODY looking for a job was calling the market good. the ACA ruined everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 21, 2018 0:00:21 GMT
The Labour Forced Participation rate chart they used was bullshit monkies. From January 1950 to December 2017 the average LFP has been 63% Currently as of December 2017 the LFP stands at 63.7%. The highest and lowest LFP's ever recorded have been: Lowest 58.1% December 1954. Highest 67.3% January 2000. So somebody started that graph from the highest LFP month in 70 years and tried to show a downward trend under Obama and now Trump,instead of that month being counted as an ananonmoly. The fact is Labour participations rates have remained fairly constant through successive governments,especially in recent years. I'd have expected better from the BBC but all news stations are dropping in quality these days. It's not the BBC, the data source is the US. Do you see the sources below each chart? Now, show charts to prove what you say. |
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Jan 21, 2018 0:05:14 GMT
Trumps doing a great job, his tax cut that supposedly would only help the rich got every worker at Wal-Mart a $1000 bonus, and numerous other companies are offering bonuses and increasing US hiring, but the problem is the media. They are insanely biased, the little media that isn't cant counter the Trump hate Tsunami.
The current shutdown is blamed on Trump, but Trump wants a clean spending bill while Democrats are demanding an amnesty for illegal immigrants, or "dreamers" as they now call them, to be tied to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jan 21, 2018 1:10:07 GMT
Very interesting, some continuing the trend, some reversals:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42748243Look at the Unemployment Rate chart - it consistently drops under Obama. Sounds great! But then look at the Labour Force Participation chart (the % of the population who are employed or are looking for employment). Note how that number also dropped and dropped and dropped under Obama. How can the unemployment rate drop but the participation rate drop as well? Surely if more people are in work, the participation rate should go up. What you need is a policy whereby people can be excluded from being counted as unemployed while still being out of work. Bingo! Let's move loads of unemployed over to disability benefit. The unemployment rate drops and Obama looks like a hero. BUT... that pesky Participation Rate chart gives their game away. It wasn't that more people were going into work, it was just that they were being put onto disability and reclassified. Bottom line: the Obama administration enabled vast numbers of people not to work. Which is typical of left wings - they want people out of work, dependent on their benefits programmes so they will continue to vote for them. Quite disgusting policies which ultimately destroy a country. The Labour Forced Participation rate chart they used was bullshit monkies. From January 1950 to December 2017 the average LFP has been 63% Currently as of December 2017 the LFP stands at 63.7%. The highest and lowest LFP's ever recorded have been: Lowest 58.1% December 1954. Highest 67.3% January 2000. So somebody started that graph from the highest LFP month in 70 years and tried to show a downward trend under Obama and now Trump,instead of that month being counted as an ananonmoly. The fact is Labour participations rates have remained fairly constant through successive governments,especially in recent years. I'd have expected better from the BBC but all news stations are dropping in quality these days. Wrong. Labor force participation rate had always been increasing because of women entering the workforce. It’s not normal to see a decline. It’s also not normal to see a decline in life expectancy, but that happened too. Moochelle Obama promoted low fat high carb dogma, and Hussain Obama mandated unaffordable health care. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 3:33:42 GMT
Very interesting, some continuing the trend, some reversals:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42748243Look at the Unemployment Rate chart - it consistently drops under Obama. Sounds great! But then look at the Labour Force Participation chart (the % of the population who are employed or are looking for employment). Note how that number also dropped and dropped and dropped under Obama. How can the unemployment rate drop but the participation rate drop as well? Surely if more people are in work, the participation rate should go up. What you need is a policy whereby people can be excluded from being counted as unemployed while still being out of work. Bingo! Let's move loads of unemployed over to disability benefit. The unemployment rate drops and Obama looks like a hero. BUT... that pesky Participation Rate chart gives their game away. It wasn't that more people were going into work, it was just that they were being put onto disability and reclassified. Bottom line: the Obama administration enabled vast numbers of people not to work. Which is typical of left wings - they want people out of work, dependent on their benefits programmes so they will continue to vote for them. Quite disgusting policies which ultimately destroy a country. I know alot of people who were looking for a job under Obama- and believe me, The market was not good- no matter what the WH said then. Obama is such a BS artist. I could tell you many stories of well educated well experienced( at least 20 years) people who couldnt even find a job for measly 20 bucks/ hour full time. twenty bucks an hour. 20 This is only 3200 buck/month (gross- not net which is maybe 2300-2400 in some midatlantic states?) that is if you are lucky to work 40 hours a week. When you throw in car payments, mortgage, gas, electric, food, internet, etc, there isnt much left. And dont get me started on health insurance becuase ever since the ACA none of the employers wanted people to work full time( so they didnt have to offer the expensive insurance to their employees) |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 21, 2018 12:17:08 GMT
Trump wants a clean spending bill while Democrats are demanding an amnesty for illegal immigrants, or "dreamers" as they now call them, to be tied to it. He's right - keep the subjects separate. All this linking one thing to another is a load of nonsense and ends up with everything being a mess. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 2:33:41 GMT
The Labour Forced Participation rate chart they used was bullshit monkies. From January 1950 to December 2017 the average LFP has been 63% Currently as of December 2017 the LFP stands at 63.7%. The highest and lowest LFP's ever recorded have been: Lowest 58.1% December 1954. Highest 67.3% January 2000. So somebody started that graph from the highest LFP month in 70 years and tried to show a downward trend under Obama and now Trump,instead of that month being counted as an ananonmoly. The fact is Labour participations rates have remained fairly constant through successive governments,especially in recent years. I'd have expected better from the BBC but all news stations are dropping in quality these days. It's not the BBC, the data source is the US. Do you see the sources below each chart? Now, show charts to prove what you say. ![]()  |
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Jan 22, 2018 22:52:50 GMT
The flaw with unemployment statistics is they always lump in the unable to work/retired etc in the statistics. So only 4% of your population are retired, unable to work etc? 10 seconds of googling shows that there are 40 - 45 million people retired in the US. That's 14% of the population. Add 'unable to work, etc' and you would probably have a rate, according to you, of 18-20%. Much bigger than 4%. Even 30 seconds of thinking should tell you that 4% cannot possibly include retired people - it just doesn't make sense. What does this tell us? Answer; people are generally too dumb as fuck to look deeper into statistics than what they see in clickbait headlines. Before you call other people 'dumb as fuck', you might want to check that what you are saying makes any semblance of sense before you post it. Your partisanship is noted! The point is economic statistics and recovery don't just start and stop like using a lightswitch. I'm tired of hacks thinking the opposite. The level of education on basic concepts is pathetic, so yeah a lot of people are 'dumb as fuck' if they mistakenly think Trump waved a magic wand and the economy turned around. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 23, 2018 21:34:26 GMT
That matches the chart in the article I posted. I don't see your point. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 23, 2018 21:44:00 GMT
So only 4% of your population are retired, unable to work etc? 10 seconds of googling shows that there are 40 - 45 million people retired in the US. That's 14% of the population. Add 'unable to work, etc' and you would probably have a rate, according to you, of 18-20%. Much bigger than 4%. Even 30 seconds of thinking should tell you that 4% cannot possibly include retired people - it just doesn't make sense. Before you call other people 'dumb as fuck', you might want to check that what you are saying makes any semblance of sense before you post it. Your partisanship is noted! The point is economic statistics and recovery don't just start and stop like using a lightswitch. I'm tired of hacks thinking the opposite. The level of education on basic concepts is pathetic, so yeah a lot of people are 'dumb as fuck' if they mistakenly think Trump waved a magic wand and the economy turned around. Yes I know that and that's why I said some trends were continuing because they are long cycles and there's nothing anyone can do about those in the short term. However some actions can have a shorter term result. (Tariffs, tax cuts, etc.) I note that you do not acknowledge that your assertion that 4% unemployment includes retired people was maybe not accurate..... :) |
|
|
|
Post by Earthlings on Jan 23, 2018 21:51:01 GMT
Very interesting, some continuing the trend, some reversals:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42748243Bottom line: the Obama administration enabled vast numbers of people not to work. Which is typical of left wings - they want people out of work, dependent on their benefits programmes so they will continue to vote for them. Quite disgusting policies which ultimately destroy a country. So true. And how un-amarican is wanting people out of work just to get their vote. Another post hit the nail on the head saying: Trumps doing a great job, his tax cut that supposedly would only help the rich got every worker at Wal-Mart a $1000 bonus, and numerous other companies are offering bonuses and increasing US hiring, but the problem is the media. They are insanely biased. |
|
