"Last Economic Snapshot Before the Election Shows Healthy Job Growth"

[Filliam H. Muffman]

Ca Bob wrote:
And by the way, there are more than 2 categories, do you can claim that the real rate of unemployment is even higher, but again, it's an apples to tangerines comparison.

Thanks for stopping in Ca Bob and providing a brief glimpse of reason.

U6 is the lowest it's been since May 2008.

[max]

Dennis S wrote:
[quote=max]
[quote=Steve G.]

"unemployment rate dipped to 4.9 percent"

No, SteveG, real unemployment is double your fudged up fantasy, it is actually at 9.5 percent...
So that would make it around 20% after Bush left office.
No, Dennis the S, about 15% and that was 7 years ago....
http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?2...sg-1804985

[max]

Ca Bob wrote:
[quote=max]
[quote=Steve G.]

"unemployment rate dipped to 4.9 percent"

No, SteveG, real unemployment is double your fudged up fantasy, it is actually at 9.5 percent...
It's true that there are different categories for reporting unemployment, but you have to compare U1 with U1, etc. If you want to use a different category and claim that the number is twice as high as the 4.9% figure, then let's also have the same category for the end of George W Bush's presidency and for the first 6 months of Obama's presidency. (It's like the pitcher who is taken out of the game with a couple of runners on base is charged for any runs scored by them -- the president has to make things happen, and it takes a while, say six months to a year.) For more than a century, Democratic presidents have done better than Republican presidents in job creation and economic growth. One theory is that the Republicans are obsessive about curbing inflation, whereas the Democrats are equally obsessive about job growth.

And by the way, there are more than 2 categories, do you can claim that the real rate of unemployment is even higher, but again, it's an apples to tangerines comparison.
Wrong, Bob, if anything I have been very consistent in my comparisons:
http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?2...sg-1801383
I do understand how numbers work and that is why I use U6 for these purposes, since it is closest to the pre-1978 unemployment algorithm and it is the most stable one since then. The politically expedient U3 formulas cited by the weak minded has ben repeatedly tweaked for political reasons several times since 1978, most recently under Clinton in 1994, and is pretty much useless for long range statistical comparisons.

So, Bob, I do have a pretty good idea what I am talking about, or otherwise I would have kept my mouth shut....

[DevoBill]

max wrote:
[quote=Steve G.]

"unemployment rate dipped to 4.9 percent"

No, SteveG, real unemployment is double your fudged up fantasy, it is actually at 9.5 percent...
13 per cent here.

[SteveG]

As usual, the wingers prefer their own set of 'facts'.

(How's that Obama birth certificate working out for you?)

[SteveG]

You probably don't remember this...
US economy was on the brink of collapse, with panicked credit markets, huge banks and insurance companies about to topple into the void, a flatlining auto industry, the Dow Jones plunging toward 6500, and job losses topping 700,000 a month, not to mention the wars that had turned the budget surpluses of the late Bill Clinton years into massive deficits, all courtesy of a two-term Republican president whose party controlled Congress for six of the last eight years. Yes, please! Take us back to the good old days of 2008!

[max]

Steve G. wrote:
As usual, the wingers prefer their own set of 'facts'.

"As usual, the left wingers prefer their own set of 'facts'."

You are a set example of this, SteveG, after years of us discussing the subject and the general agreement on U-6, you still think it must be some sort of a rock band....

[$tevie]

max, people post articles and graphs and charts and all you can ever respond with are animated gifs and insults. You really sound like the exact sort of uneducated white guy who supports Trump. Why you want to appear to be stupid is beyond me.

[Lux Interior]

$tevie wrote:
Why you want to appear to be stupid is beyond me.

Shhh...

He thinks he's stickin' it to the libs.

[$tevie]

He ran around saying he liked Jill Stein when he obviously had never even looked at her platform. It's just sad.