#ThanksObama: US Weekly Jobless Claims Fall To Lowest Rate Ever

[Zabatakis]

Why even say something as moronic as "Obama got Osama" when you know damn well if just about anyone else were in that position they would of *pulled the trigger* as well? Trying to tell me Bush wouldn't have done it at all if this all happened say 5 years earlier? Do you think people would of been praising Bush like that did Obama for that?

I can't presume to know that bush would or would not have stuck his neck out after the WMD debacle. The report Osama was there was not a sure thing either, there was the very real chance the Intel could have been wrong. I will go off on a limb here and guess you don't think Russia had shit to do with meddling in our elections and hacking the dnc to help install Trump as our president. That being the case you got to give him even more credit for having the eggs to go through with an operation that would have been an immense disaster if Osama had not been there.

As for the Obama got Osama thing you are being obtuse I think. Or do you similar ly get upset at sports fans when they say "we won!" Despite having less to do with a sports game than Obama did with Osama's death. Try to realize how hypocritical your thoughts are. If the opp went wrong would you really be as mad at the people saying Obama fucked it up as you are at those praising him? If you simply think the president gets too much or too little blame regardless of political affiliation? I can respect that stance but it's definitely not how you are coming off.

[TrumpIsPresident]

So care to provide truth then? because i have provided some data but you only attack.?

oh that's right, its fake news. that's your proof.

The proof is basic math.
People run the term on their unemployment benefits.
The government takes that as people not longer being unemployed.
Did they find jobs or did they simply exhaust their UI?
The government doesn't care it just reports a win.

After eight years of joblessness the amount of people left to claim first time unemployment recedes at a rate faster than the number of newly unemployed people.
The government takes that as people not losing their jobs.
Is the job loss dropping or are there simply fewer people left claiming that first time UI?
The government doesn't care it just reports a win.

[Daerio]

We could use a million Syrian refugees right about now, as long as they're willing to work and won't shoot up a shopping mall for ISIS or something.

What makes you think those people are going to want to work as a janitor or some other slave labor? What sort of jobs were those people actually working before they fled? What are the chances any of those people will actually assimilate under the circumstances of their arrival?

[Zan15]

No. What you did was attempt to preempt the dismantling of yet another Obama jobs lie by satirically listing the very FACTS that expose it.

Then I exposed that lazy and obvious attempt.

Losing.

what's this your third post and you still have not posted any facts vs mine?
Guess you really are a Trumpet

[TrumpIsPresident]

what's this your third post and you still have not posted any facts vs mine?
Guess you really are a Trumpet

Trumpet haha, I like that.

There really is a lot of creative ways to use Trumps name.

Hillary's name doesn't lend well to parody.

Best one I heard was Hillary Clotin ...cause of the health thing.

[Zan15]

The proof is basic math.
People run the term on their unemployment benefits.
The government takes that as people not longer being unemployed.
Did they find jobs or did they simply exhaust their UI?
The government doesn't care it just reports a win.

After eight years of joblessness the amount of people left to claim first time unemployment recedes at a rate faster than the number of newly unemployed people.
The government takes that as people not losing their jobs.
Is the job loss dropping or are there simply fewer people left claiming that first time UI?
The government doesn't care it just reports a win.

Geeze do you even know how unemployment is calculated. hint, it has nothing to do with unemployment benefits

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information.

There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state.


etc etc etc

you can read the rest



its been the same for 40+ years


and you call my post fake news?

[Forgettable]

why are all those stores closing?

Because of Amazon.

[Daerio]

Claiming unemployment is at historic lows while LFPR is also at an all-time low is about as crazy as it gets.

#Liberallogic #Kingobamacandonowrong

[Vyxn]

The economy continues it consistent strengthening and continues to get better every month with 40% of the country still thinking we are in the worst financial crisis ever in this country.



Of course the mantra will be
- WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION (the new boogy man)
- low wage jobs
-they just gave up looking
-fake numbers......did i miss any??

Can't wait till Trumps first couple unemployment reports, and the number does not magically go up to the 12-20-24-47% numbers he said the real unemployment is and how quickly rags will stop talking about Workforce participation. You can bet for the first time in 2 years, Drudge won't have Workforce participation numbers on his website in Feb.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#7b499f787601

However, in general the reports are that the number is low, the number is near historical lows. But that's not really true, what is rather more important is that the rate is lower than it ever has been. Or, at least, lower than since we started collecting this particular statistic:

The number of Americans who applied for first-time unemployment checks fell sharply last week to one of the lowest levels in four decades, bolstering the Federal Reserve’s view that the labor market is tightening.

True, our jobless claims numbers only go back to 1967, we just didn't collect them in this manner before that. And the lowest that I can see there is 181,000 in 1969. And today's number is 235,000, which the perceptive will note is higher than 181,000.

However, that's not really the important thing here. Much more valuable is the rate. That is, the percentage of all jobs, or of the labor force, subject to involuntary separation. And the civilian labour force has changed a lot in size. Today it's 160 million, close enough, giving us a rate of 0.147%. Back in 1968 the labor force was only 79 million meaning that the rate then was 0.229%.

So it really is true to say that the jobless claims *rate* is the lowest it has ever been, even if the number claiming initial benefits is higher than that low point.

The implication of this is something I've remarked upon before. We're continually told that jobs today are more precarious, that we're all more likely to be fired than was true back in the good old days. Interesting to note that this is flat out untrue, isn't it? We're actually about half as likely to be fired as those in the good old days of the 60's were. Rather makes you wonder what other fake news we're being fed about the economy really....

why do you Obama supporters keep quoting these irrelevant statistics because if you use the relevant statistics like the amount of working age that are actually employed makes your quoted statistics smoke and mirrows

[Merie]

Trump hasn't even taken office yet and our economy has been improving for years.

America goes through cycles in this way. Elect one party to the White House for eight years and the economy improves, elect the other party and have 8 years of deep losses, swing back and the economy improves again, now it's time to swing back the other way.

[Elegiac]

why do you Obama supporters keep quoting these irrelevant statistics because if you use the relevant statistics like the amount of working age that are actually employed makes your quoted statistics smoke and mirrows

The U6 trend follows the U3 trend for people of working age, so 'workforce participation' remains a fucking stupid metric to point at.

[Vyxn]

The U6 trend follows the U3 trend for people of working age, so 'workforce participation' remains a fucking stupid metric to point at.

No it isn't because the way the unemployment rate is calcuted you can just wait a few years and it will drop with out ever creating one job because they stop counting the unemployed after a decided amount of time

[Elegiac]

No it isn't because the way the unemployment rate is calcuted you can just wait a few years and it will drop with out ever creating one job because they stop counting the unemployed after a decided amount of time

U3 is the 'unemployment rate' that is most commonly talked about. U6 includes 'workforce participation', which again shows the same trend as U3 for working age people.

In any case, why should we be counting people not actively looking for work?

[Endus]

No it isn't because the way the unemployment rate is calcuted you can just wait a few years and it will drop with out ever creating one job because they stop counting the unemployed after a decided amount of time

All you're demonstrating is a complete failure to understand what unemployment measures.

It was never meant to measure how many people weren't working. Ever. It was intended to measure how many people wanted to work, but were currently not working.

If you haven't looked for work in years, you don't want to work, you're retired, or living off savings, or some such thing. You're literally complaining that retirees and homemakers aren't counted, when they never were in the first place, and doing so would be measuring something completely different.

If you want to talk about labour force participation rate, then talk about that. But a lowering of that item is not automatically a "bad thing"; getting back to a society where a single-income household is once again feasible and comfortable would be a good thing, even if it meant more people were full-time homemakers and not part of the labour force as a result.

And really, we've known that labour force participation was going to drop as Boomers retired for, well, pretty much 40+ years now. Demographic bubbles are hugely predictable phenomena.

[Zan15]

Claiming unemployment is at historic lows while LFPR is also at an all-time low is about as crazy as it gets.

#Liberallogic #Kingobamacandonowrong

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

expand it out to pre baby boomers.

https://postimg.org/image/mktfqw8ef/

1948- 1977 it was lower then today and considered normal. 58.6% is the lowest. historical averages pre-baby boom population spike was 60%.




scroll up and read all about LFPR if you want to educate yourself.


This was all predicted many many years and presidents ago, there is nothing you can do against basic math except pray for another baby boom, slaughter all your old or just close your eyes and yell "fake fake fake"

#LiberallogicFactsHurt

[drakensoul]

why do you Obama supporters keep quoting these irrelevant statistics because if you use the relevant statistics like the amount of working age that are actually employed makes your quoted statistics smoke and mirrows

I don't get it. Someone actually posts data, whether or not you agree with it... actual data and explains it.

And you, disagreeing, can't be bothered to post actual data to support yourself? Just "Why do you Obama supporters..." "irrelevant" "use the relevant ones."

Really? So instead of actually trying to post data that support what you're saying (i.e.: explain the opposition), you just call people liberals and say "use the right statistics!!" with nary a glimmer of an attempt to provide said statistics?

Man they don't teach debate like they used to...

[Vyxn]

All you're demonstrating is a complete failure to understand what unemployment measures.

It was never meant to measure how many people weren't working. Ever. It was intended to measure how many people wanted to work, but were currently not working.

If you haven't looked for work in years, you don't want to work, you're retired, or living off savings, or some such thing. You're literally complaining that retirees and homemakers aren't counted, when they never were in the first place, and doing so would be measuring something completely different.

If you want to talk about labour force participation rate, then talk about that. But a lowering of that item is not automatically a "bad thing"; getting back to a society where a single-income household is once again feasible and comfortable would be a good thing, even if it meant more people were full-time homemakers and not part of the labour force as a result.

And really, we've known that labour force participation was going to drop as Boomers retired for, well, pretty much 40+ years now. Demographic bubbles are hugely predictable phenomena.

or they stop looking because their is no jobs to be found but you will ignore that fact because as usual it counters your argument


People who are unemployed, but who have stopped looking for work because they don't believe they can find one in their line of work, they were previously unable to find work, or because they feel they are too old, or too inexperienced to work, are considered to be "marginally attached to the labor force" and are therefore not considered to be part of the labor force.
http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Unemployment-Rate

40 percent of unemployed have quit looking for jobs
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/20/40-pe...-for-jobs.html
- - - Updated - - -

I don't get it. Someone actually posts data, whether or not you agree with it... actual data and explains it.

And you, disagreeing, can't be bothered to post actual data to support yourself? Just "Why do you Obama supporters..." "irrelevant" "use the relevant ones."

Really? So instead of actually trying to post data that support what you're saying (i.e.: explain the opposition), you just call people liberals and say "use the right statistics!!" with nary a glimmer of an attempt to provide said statistics?

Man they don't teach debate like they used to...

are you in denial that the labor percolation rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years? I thought that was common knowledge and I didn't need to give proof but because you are in denial here you go

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

[drakensoul]

are you in denial that the labor percolation rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years? I thought that was common knowledge and I didn't need to give proof but because you are in denial here you go
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

Blindingly brilliant wit aside, a conversation would require you to explain what you think the graph that you linked means in some kind of context. Let's start with the fact that it has nothing to do with percolation. Probably not the word you meant to use, though I'm always up for some good old school Mary J. Blige.

Then we move to the first obvious question which is what do you think the low labor participation rate means in terms of Obama having destroyed the economy? And also: What group of people are you suggesting is being left out of the official employment rate that is accounted for by the labor participation rate? This implies what I would consider an obvious truth: they're different measures, which doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other. Different. The appropriate one depends on what you're trying to measure.

Just to provide context to the graph itself: people love using graphs because they can make even a small change look massive. The difference between the peak of the graph and today is 5%, although the shape and scale of the graph makes it look like it's 50%. Something to keep in mind.

If you're trying to say that the unemployment rate is artificially low because it doesn't include discouraged workers:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

You can use the U-5 definition which does include them. A seasonally-adjusted 5.8%.

And on the incredibly unlikely and off chance that you are actually interested in other factors affecting the labor participation rate:

https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obam...uth-behind-it/

Aging population, baby boomers falling out of the work force, the majority of people falling out of the work-force are outside of prime work years (old), etc.

No doubt there are some discouraged workers being missed by U-3 definition, but I don't think it's as profound as you've convinced yourself it is.

U-3: 4.6% (official unemployment rate, used by everyone forever, including republicans)
U-5: 5.8% (including discouraged workers)

And since we're talking about unemployment rates and you're linking to a stand-in measure of discouraged workers, I'm assuming that's what you're talking about. If, however, you're not trying to say that the current administration is ignoring discouraged workers and that including them would suddenly and drastically prove Obama has destroyed the economy, then I guess we have to start at the beginning:

What are you trying to say with the labor force participation rate?

[Underverse]

Trumpet haha, I like that.

There really is a lot of creative ways to use Trumps name.

Hillary's name doesn't lend well to parody.

Best one I heard was Hillary Clotin ...cause of the health thing.

Really? I personally like Clintron, haven't seen it used much though. Or at all. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks it's funny?

[Zan15]

guess all the facts scared them away, i was enjoying being called names