Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Real unemployment numbers

According to the official US Debt Clock.org...

In 2008 the Bush unemployment was 10.696 million (and moving)

In 2011 the Obama unemployment is 13.896 million (and moving)

The difference is only 3.2 million, not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe.
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:19 PM
Waluigi's Avatar
Waluigi Waluigi is offline
ne'er-do-well
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCXXVI
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

3.2 million, but a 30% increase, which is non-trivial.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:36 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMCCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

It would probably be better to compare the numbers from when the economy bottomed out or a few months into Obama's presidency, rather than the numbers right before Bush left office, considering things were on a steep downward trajectory when Obama took office, and he couldn't do anything to immediately change that.

Graph: Unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted)

The unemployment rate was around 8% when Obama took office, but continued to fall to about 10% over the next few months. It has since improved to 9%. Not a big improvement, but nonetheless I would say that it would be more fair to say that it has improved (quite slowly, true) under Obama than to blame Obama for the fact that it's higher than it was on the day he took office.

It's also true that most Americans don't/didn't blame Obama for the state of the economy in the few months after he took office, so they would tend to assign responsibility to him for the slow recovery but not for the initial decline. Of course, some, such as myself, would assign most of the blame for the slow recovery on the obstructionist GOP caucus in Congress, and blame Obama to the extent that he was unable to push a larger stimulus through or negotiate well with the Bush tax cuts/debt ceiling debate (austerity measures are the opposite of what we should be doing right now). That's a failure with regards to dealing with the piece of shit Republicans, but obviously that's much better than actually being the piece of shit Republicans.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Sauron (11-22-2011), SR71 (11-18-2011)
  #4  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:43 PM
Waluigi's Avatar
Waluigi Waluigi is offline
ne'er-do-well
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCXXVI
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

And actually, comparing unemployment numbers to presidents is somewhat an exercise in futility. I know every presidential candidate promises jobs, but that's actually a pretty tall order now that the ever-expanding credit boom of the last 30 years has finally busted.

In my non-expert opinion, job growth is going to be slow and gradual, and recovery will be long and unpleasant, and it doesn't really matter who is in the White House.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:46 PM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMCL
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

You've done this thread before.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (11-17-2011), Ari (11-18-2011), chunksmediocrites (11-18-2011), Crumb (11-17-2011), Dingfod (11-17-2011), Kael (11-18-2011), livius drusus (11-17-2011), Sauron (11-22-2011), SR71 (11-18-2011), Stormlight (11-18-2011), Waluigi (11-17-2011), Watser? (11-18-2011)
  #6  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:51 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Cmurb!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LVMMCCLXXIX
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

:derp:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
:glare:
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-17-2011, 10:06 PM
Waluigi's Avatar
Waluigi Waluigi is offline
ne'er-do-well
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MCCXXVI
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea View Post
This thread is better because I'm in it. I have embiggened this thread with my cromulent presence.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stormlight (11-18-2011)
  #8  
Old 11-17-2011, 10:07 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMCCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waluigi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea View Post
This thread is better because I'm in it. I have embiggened this thread with my cromulent presence.
You mean with your "cromulence" - you can't just use words like their meanings are made up.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (11-18-2011), Demimonde (11-18-2011), Kael (11-18-2011), livius drusus (11-17-2011), Pan Narrans (11-18-2011), Stormlight (11-18-2011), Waluigi (11-17-2011), Watser? (11-18-2011)
  #9  
Old 11-17-2011, 11:46 PM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea View Post
Today's unemployment numbers are much more improved than back then.

Only 3.20 million unemployed... Rejoice, be happy
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-17-2011, 11:58 PM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

So what you're going to post this exact same half-assed OP every two weeks with slightly different numbers?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stormlight (11-18-2011)
  #11  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:03 AM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
It would probably be better to compare the numbers from when the economy bottomed out or a few months into Obama's presidency, rather than the numbers right before Bush left office, considering things were on a steep downward trajectory when Obama took office, and he couldn't do anything to immediately change that.

Graph: Unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted)

The unemployment rate was around 8% when Obama took office, but continued to fall to about 10% over the next few months. It has since improved to 9%. Not a big improvement, but nonetheless I would say that it would be more fair to say that it has improved (quite slowly, true) under Obama than to blame Obama for the fact that it's higher than it was on the day he took office.

It's also true that most Americans don't/didn't blame Obama for the state of the economy in the few months after he took office, so they would tend to assign responsibility to him for the slow recovery but not for the initial decline. Of course, some, such as myself, would assign most of the blame for the slow recovery on the obstructionist GOP caucus in Congress, and blame Obama to the extent that he was unable to push a larger stimulus through or negotiate well with the Bush tax cuts/debt ceiling debate (austerity measures are the opposite of what we should be doing right now). That's a failure with regards to dealing with the piece of shit Republicans, but obviously that's much better than actually being the piece of shit Republicans.
They are not my numbers, here, check it out for yourself...

CompuServe Search
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-18-2011, 01:39 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMCCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

That has nothing to do with what I said :whoosh:
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-18-2011, 01:54 AM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
That has nothing to do with what I said :whoosh:
The thread is about official unemployment numbers, not percentages, and that was what I was referring to.
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-18-2011, 04:06 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLI
Images: 294
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea View Post
Sister, you ain't just whistling Dixie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickoshay75
only 3.2 million, not nearly as bad as we have been led to believe.
Dear Rickoshay75 Pollyanna: thanks for the pick-me-up about how things really aren't so bad.... I mean unless you're one of the millions of unemployed or underemployed. Or their kids. Or unless the high unemployment rates have a negative effect on pay increases for the working class in general. Or the ripple effect of lower consumer spending results in a weak economy. But other than that, it is really rosy.

In related news, unemployed people now have a lot more free time, and zero work-related injuries! And we've been led to believe that unemployment is a bad thing!
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (11-18-2011), Qingdai (11-18-2011), SR71 (11-18-2011), Stormlight (11-18-2011), The Man (11-19-2011), Waluigi (11-18-2011), Watser? (11-18-2011)
  #15  
Old 11-18-2011, 04:35 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLI
Images: 294
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Also, funny that you use the word REAL in your title: your source lists a cell that reads
Quote:
ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS [2008]: 13,526,729.
Then on the 2011 current page, it reads:
Quote:
ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS [2011]: 25,006,947.
So the increase in ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT, according to the site you're using, is 11,480,218 more people really unemployed and underemployed.

Plus roughly 15 million more Food Stamp recipients from 2008 to 2011.

Back to how things are actually better than we think
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (11-18-2011), Dingfod (11-18-2011), The Man (11-19-2011)
  #16  
Old 11-21-2011, 11:56 PM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: Real unemployment numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Also, funny that you use the word REAL in your title: your source lists a cell that reads
Quote:
ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS [2008]: 13,526,729.
Then on the 2011 current page, it reads:
Quote:
ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS [2011]: 25,006,947.
So the increase in ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT, according to the site you're using, is 11,480,218 more people really unemployed and underemployed.
It was either the official count and the actual count, and official sounded more official.
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.50477 seconds with 15 queries