Obama economy continues to roar ahead

[Indigenously Abled]

The current unemployment rate is already at healthy levels. If you're claiming unemployment is an issue, then you don't understand the issue.

Any amount of unemployment is an issue.

[Endus]

You know you have this way this about you where you come to any given thread and just boldly tell people they're wrong when they're not.

When we're dealing with things like facts and numbers, then people are either wrong, or right. In this case, the people I was responding to were wrong.

If you want to have an ideological discussion about theory, I'll be much less firm, because we're talking about theory. This stuff isn't theory, and it isn't ideology. If you think unemployment has been getting worse for the last 6 years, you're just flat-out wrong.

Completely recovered? The new jobs have been increasingly part-time, lowly-paid jobs in domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses and bartenders. Our economy is basically doing the same shit as before the 08' crash and will likely simply repeat the same mistake and rinse and repeat.

The crash wasn't because of that stuff, it was largely due to the housing market.

Which is kind of why nations like Canada, which didn't allow similar loan structures due to greater government controls on the banks, didn't have nearly the same impact.

Any amount of unemployment is an issue.

I can't think of a single economist, anywhere, who'd agree with that.

0% unemployment is the kind of thing that sounds good, until you realize that it means there are jobs that simply can't be filled, and leads to its own economic woes. An ideal amount of unemployment is anywhere from 2-5%, depending on who you talk to.

[Logwyn]

Any amount of unemployment is an issue.

Its not the number of unemployment but WHY they are unemployed. Husband and Wife. Wife works and husband stays home with the kids. They have no issues paying their bills, bills, food, etc. Husband being unemployed isn't a bad thing at all.

Single man just got laid off because company has no work for him. Is could be an issue.

There are reasons why people are unemployed that aren't bad. Going back to school, kids, won the lottery, changing careers, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Wages are rising.

Why is wages just going up a good thing if the amount doesn't pay for crap? The buying power of the dollar would be a better indicator.

Also why do we always credit a president with the economy? Is it not the people that cause it?

[Endus]

Its not the number of unemployment but WHY they are unemployed. Husband and Wife. Wife works and husband stays home with the kids. They have no issues paying their bills, bills, food, etc. Husband being unemployed isn't a bad thing at all.

Uhh, no. If the husband isn't looking for work and is happy not working, he isn't "unemployed", he's a homemaker. He isn't counted in any unemployment measure.

Unemployment has never measured people who don't want to work. It's always been about people who seek work but can't find it.

[Logwyn]

Uhh, no. If the husband isn't looking for work and is happy not working, he isn't "unemployed", he's a homemaker. He isn't counted in any unemployment measure.

Unemployment has never measured people who don't want to work. It's always been about people who seek work but can't find it.

Yeah. Sorry its getting late. I guess I'm going with the people that want to throw out those people that just stop looking should be counted. But I think it falls into the section of manipulate the stats to meet your argument category.

And so right on the housing situation as being the cause.

[Milchshake]

I'd say Obama and Bernake deserve plenty of credit for saving the economy. Considering that Congress has been idle or obstructionist that past few years.
Technically congress has more power to influence the economy, but not the current guys. These are the guys that nearly botched a highway bill, among other basic bills. Threatening to shut down the government, or default on US debt certainly did not help the economy.

So in spite of these obstacles, Obama has steered the ship quite well.

[Endus]

Yeah. Sorry its getting late. I guess I'm going with the people that want to throw out those people that just stop looking should be counted. But I think it falls into the section of manipulate the stats to meet your argument category.

And so right on the housing situation as being the cause.

Discouraged workers are included, in the U6 unemployment numbers, which have been just as widely available as the standard U3 numbers.

There's been no spike in people giving up looking for work. That claim is simply false, and does not show up in the data. The U6 also includes people working part-time who want full-time work, FWIW.

Here's the BLS for the unemployment data, which explains the differences between the measures; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm All that stuff's been tracked since the early '90s, when the U4-U6 were created and tracked.

[WiggleTillFriday]

No spike in ppl giving up looking for work? Chew on this http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-un...el-survey.html

[spinner981]

Why do people keep referencing this 4.9% unemployment rate when the actual number of jobless adults is actually a lot closer to 33%? The amount of employed adults is going down, yet people think that just because the percentage of jobless adults looking for work is going down therefore it's a good sign? What?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/06/news...obama-us-jobs/

[xChurch]

Why do people keep referencing this 4.9% unemployment rate when the actual number of jobless adults is actually a lot closer to 33%? The amount of employed adults is going down, yet people think that just because the percentage of jobless adults looking for work is going down therefore it's a good sign? What?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/06/news...obama-us-jobs/

Where in that article does it say that it's closer to 33%?

[spinner981]

Where in that article does it say that it's closer to 33%?

"Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working."

Plus the big blue graph.

[xChurch]

"Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working."

Plus the big blue graph.

But using that number while ignoring the 2 of the 3 points explaining it seems disingenuous.

[spinner981]

But using that number while ignoring the 2 of the 3 points explaining it seems disingenuous.

Why? How do points 2 and 3 in that article somehow explain a 62.7%% labor force (and here am I just realizing, like an idiot, that 100 - 63 does not equal 33) to be something else that isn't a number representing the statement that about 37% of American adults aren't working?

[xChurch]

Why? How do points 2 and 3 in that article somehow explain a 62.7%% labor force (and here am I just realizing, like an idiot, that 100 - 63 does not equal 33) to be something else that isn't a number representing the statement that about 37% of American adults aren't working?

Because 2 of the reasons for that number aren't bad. In fact, both of those reasons are considered good and reason one alone is half of that number.

[spinner981]

Because 2 of the reasons for that number aren't bad. In fact, both of those reasons are considered good and reason one alone is half of that number.

The inability for American adults to find a job while wanting a job is a good thing? A low annual wage growth rate is a good thing? Are we looking at different websites?

[Bollocks]

Any amount of unemployment is an issue.

No it isn't. Too low unemployment leads to inflation
.

[Sunseeker]

But you can bet he would get the brunt of the complaints if it was worse. if we went back to losing jobs again like under Bush. You can bet that the right wingers would blame it fair and square on Obama. heck they even try to set up this narrative of the economy being in the shitter and Obama is the reason for it right now as we speak.

Of course, the President's detractors always blame the Pres when things go south, and the President's supporters always cheer them when things go well. The reality is that the president has very little control over the economy, other than setting the tone of the country.

[xChurch]

The inability for American adults to find a job while wanting a job is a good thing? A low annual wage growth rate is a good thing? Are we looking at different websites?

I'm talking purely about the 33% number you used, because it being that high isn't really an issue. Yes long-term unemployment and wage stagnation is still a problem, but overall employment really isn't a problem.

[spinner981]

I'm talking purely about the 33% number you used, because it being that high isn't really an issue. Yes long-term unemployment and wage stagnation is still a problem, but overall employment really isn't a problem.

My original comment was with people who use the 4.9% number when it isn't even close to the number of adults who are actually jobless.

[Endus]

No spike in ppl giving up looking for work? Chew on this http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-un...el-survey.html

"Almost all of the decline that we've seen over the last decade or so is due to three factors: retiring baby boomers just leaving the labor force, college students getting more education than ever and disability,"

I'd say it's funny when your own source explains why your argument is nonsense, but it's not really that funny. Just kind of depressing.

We've known the Boomer retirement bubble was coming for decades. Nobody was surprised by this.

Why do people keep referencing this 4.9% unemployment rate when the actual number of jobless adults is actually a lot closer to 33%? The amount of employed adults is going down, yet people think that just because the percentage of jobless adults looking for work is going down therefore it's a good sign? What?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/06/news...obama-us-jobs/

Because the 62.7% of adults in the labor force excludes, among others;

1> Retirees
2> The disabled
3> College students focusing on their studies

All three have increased, which is what's led to that drop. #1 is a demographic bubble we've known was coming for 50 years. I haven't seen explanations for #2, but it's certainly not gonna be due to economic policy. And #3 is a positive long-term sign, because it will result in a more-educated labour force down the line.

What matters is whether there's a growing number of people who've stopped looking for work because they feel it's pointless. And there isn't. That number has been dropping since 2009.