Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 862056)
it doesn't matter about them. all that matters is the current rate is bonkers and not good.
but your facts are wrong: 7.37.47.37.47.57.97.88.18.79.39.49.6 u6 rate jan - dec 2001. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp Unemployment, even according to your metric, is going down. |
Santorum's out.
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 862057)
Unemployment, even according to your metric, is going down.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Employment-population ratio is probably my favorite metric for measuring the labor force:
BLS website link https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1334081222 |
No arguments about it being awful, but unemployment stabilized shortly after Bush left office, and now it's provably going down.
You can say "But..but...bad unemployment!", but look at Reagan's unemployment numbers using similar time scales. While Reagan's numbers didn't reach Obama's, he also started at much lower numbers than Obama and the recession then wasn't nearly as bad - and if put in the same time scale, you see the same net effects on unemployment. Or, to put it in TLDR form: The financial industry has too much political power/money. |
but we added 200,000 jobs after we lost 18,000,000
|
And? If Obama gets Reagan's full 8 years, I will bet you $50 that we see Obama having better unemployment then what he came into office with Brainy.
You care to take that bet? (Disclaimer: I'm basing this on the economic theory of...our gov't can't do a damn thing for recessions. R or D, the best thing they can do is get outtatheway to let us recover from a recession.) |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 862082)
And? If Obama gets Reagan's full 8 years, I will bet you $50 that we see Obama having better unemployment then what he came into office with Brainy.
You care to take that bet? |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 862086)
Using what metric?
I'm interested in that bet. Assuming no action if Obama's defeated? |
Hmm, U6 huh? When's the next census?
EDIT: Not till 2020. Tempting. |
Also, I propose Scrappy Jack judge the bet, if Scrappy's cool with that?
|
What's to judge?
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 862097)
What's to judge?
I mean, we're using official numbers, right, and not Brainy's 19.1% U6? |
And you know what?
Anyone would be retarded to take this bet. I bothered to look up the numbers. Obama's U6 is already lower than when he came into office. |
You're right, let's use Scrappy's metric instead.
|
lol
|
Hey, Scrappy, you have a lot more detail/articles available on your metric?
I don't want to place a bet on something I have no focking clue about. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 862149)
Hey, Scrappy, you have a lot more detail/articles available on your metric?
I don't want to place a bet on something I have no focking clue about. The proportion of persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces that is employed. |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 862197)
The link I posted above takes you to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and includes data downloadable in Excel format (but is down at the moment, likely due to updating). The definition of the Employment-Population Ratio is:
I prefer this metric because you don't have to disect whether the unemployment rate percentage dropped because a lot more people found jobs or a lot more people "fell out of the workforce" or "gave up trying to find a job." It incorporates public and private sector employment (except for active duty Armed Forces). |
Santorum dropped out. Not posting a source because...well, you know
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:16 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands