150 reasons why Obama is the worst president ever!

[traderjake]

Americans quit seeking jobs, unemployment rate drops
 
Roughly 347,000 Americans gave up looking for work in December, allowing progressives to claim a sharp drop in the formal unemployment rate during the month.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/10/americans-quit-seeking-obs-unemployment-rate-drops/#ixzz2uTe33MBk
 
 
End of extra benefits may send jobless rate lower
 
 By denying extra benefits to jobless Americans, Congress could trigger a faster drop in the nation’s 6.7% unemployment rate and paradoxically make the labor market look much healthier than it is.
 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/end-of-extra-benefits-may-send-jobless-rate-lower-2014-01-08
 
Just because you can't pull your head out of the false Left Right paradigm doesn't mean the employment situation is improving.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

What you posted about is not the unemployment number.

If you choose to use a different measurement, fine. You cannot dismiss a measurement number and substitute it with a different measurement tool.

I am not debating your point about underemployment or the labor participation rate.

However, you cannot come here and say "do you really believe that the unemployment rate is 6.7%?" And then start posting figures using a different metric.

That unemployment measurement has been used as the benchmark for decades. Just because it is not going the direction you wish, does not make it untrue.

Do you understand?

 

[traderjake]

Do you understand?

 
Do you understand that that number is skewed and meaningless just like the inflation numbers that exclude food and energy? 
 
Excluding people who quit looking for work or lose their unemployment benefits does not produce a true picture of unemployment.

 

[Dog Wonder]

When did that start?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The unemployment number has been measured the same way for a long time. It has also been used by people running for office for a long time. Just because it does not currently support your objective does not make it invalid.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

"Is there only one official definition of unemployment?

Yes, there is only one official definition of unemployment, and that was discussed above. However, some have argued that this measure is too restricted, and that it does not adequately capture the breadth of labor market problems. For this reason, economists at BLS developed a set of alternative measures of labor underutilization. These measures are published every month in the Employment Situation news release. They range from a very limited measure that includes only those who have been unemployed (as officially defined) for 15 weeks or more to a very broad one that includes total unemployed (as officially defined), all persons marginally attached to the labor force, and all individuals employed part time for economic reasons."

So they manipulate the numbers.
 
Now tell us something everybody on the forum does not already know.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

What you posted about is not the unemployment number.

If you choose to use a different measurement, fine. You cannot dismiss a measurement number and substitute it with a different measurement tool.

I am not debating your point about underemployment or the labor participation rate.

However, you cannot come here and say "do you really believe that the unemployment rate is 6.7%?" And then start posting figures using a different metric.

That unemployment measurement has been used as the benchmark for decades. Just because it is not going the direction you wish, does not make it untrue.

Do you understand?

 
What I understand is that piece of garbage chart was posted by 700UW to try and convince us that Obama has "done such a great job" over the last 5 years.
 
He procured these facts from a leftist Facebook page.
 
Keep trying to spin it though. 
 

 

[700UW]

Once again, deflect and change.
 
You still havent refuted one fact in that post.

 

[traderjake]

There's only one fact that matters.
 
Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

There's only one fact that matters.
 
Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?

I can honestly say yes. 
 
I am luckier than most though.

 

[traderjake]

What percentage of American's do you think would answer yes? 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Once again, deflect and change.
 
You still havent refuted one fact in that post.

That is because I am not going to waste time refuting something that is so obviously flawed. If people want to believe that garbage let them.
 
Only an idiot would believe the economy is rebounding when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt and that the unemployment rate is 6.7%.
 
I think most people see your facts for what they really are.

 

[700UW]

I guess you arent smart enough, all those numbers are available from the original sources.
 
If you cant prove them wrong, then its time to shut up.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I guess you arent smart enough, all those numbers are available from the original sources.
 
If you cant prove them wrong, then its time to shut up.

I will "shut up" when I please.
 
Stop having sour grapes just because you made yourself look stupid.
 
You hardly needed me to point it out but it was my pleasure to do so.

 

[700UW]

The only one making themselves look ignorant is you.
 
You say the facts are wrong, grow a set and prove them wrong.

 

[Ms Tree]

There's only one fact that matters.
 
Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?

Yep.  And I think we are better off than we would have been with Romney/Ryan.  Especially since the budget ideas that Ryan proposed were nothing more than a fantasy.