Clinton's follies: I hate when that happens
Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 5 months ago to Economics
"Since the turn of this century, 5.7 million American manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the US trade deficit has soared. According to a Council on Foreign Relations study, "between 2000 and 2012, the cumulative total of U.S. spending on imports of goods and services exceeded U.S. export earnings by $7.1 trillion dollars." For manufacturing workers and, for that matter, most Americans, there has been no recovery from the recession of 2008. Two of the Willies that deserve special thanks for this misfortune are former President Bill Clinton — for his role in causing the recession — and current President Barack Obama — for his role in causing the non-recovery."
SOURCE URL: http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/1482
No one should have such power.
It reeks of dictatorship.
Part One Part Two is the next add on comment
For those that think it's hunky dory and all this job creation let's review HOW that is determined.
When Reagan was President he used the formula that had been in effect since WWII ended. Prior to that 100% of the Job Force was 100%. After five percent was lopped off to account for those who would never have a job, and those who were between jobs. Students were not used in the first figure Nor were members of the military. Straight forward. Labor Force one 100 or one million slice 5% - 95 or 950,000 become the new 100 percent.
Then came Bubba and he change the formula to 10% off the top. 100 became 90 and one million became 900,000.
Stop a moment. Ten percent unemployment would be 95 minus 9.5 or 89.5 and the 900,000 of one million became. 810,000 at 10 percent unemployment. Real figure was 19 percent unemployment for various reasons. Still not toooo bad but rarely explained. Clinton was also not above changing the first figure and recomputing.
Then we have Obama....actually I got a little lost along the way to quote Joan Jett ... until I found this source
http://useconomy.about.com/od/suppl1/...
Real Unemployment Rate Formula Using Current Statistics
In October 2015, the real unemployment rate (U-6) was 9.8%, nearly double the widely-reported unemployment rate (U-3) of 5.0%.
Here's how to calculate both:
Step 1. Calculate the official unemployment rate:
U-3 = 7.908 million unemployed workers / 156.028 million in the labor force = 5.0%.
Step 2. Add in marginally attached workers: There were 1.916 million people who were marginally attached to the labor force.
Ads
The Unemployment Rate
Unemployment
US Economy in 2015
Part Time Employment
Real State
Add this to both the number of unemployed and the labor force.
U-5 = 9.824 million / 158.944 million = 6.2%.
Step 3. Add in part-time workers: There were 5.767 million people who were working part-time because they couldn't get full-time work, although they'd prefer it. Add them to the unemployed, they're already in the labor force.
U-6 = 15.591 million / 158.636 million = 9.8%. (Source: BLS, Table A-15)
Compare the Real Unemployment Rate
To put things in perspective here's the official unemployment rate compared to the real rate since 1995 (the first year the BLS collected data on U-6). The rates given are for January of each year.
You can quickly tell that the official rate is a little more than half the real rate. This remains true no matter how well or poorly the economy is doing. Even in 2000, when the official unemployment rate was at the natural unemployment rate of 4.0%, the real unemployment rate was just about double, at 7.1%. In 2010, when the unemployment rate was its highest at 9.8%, the real rate was still nearly double, at 16.7%.
Year (as of January) U3 U6 % Comments
1994 6.6% 11.8% 56% This is first year BLS reported U6.
1995 5.6% 10.2% 55% the official rate was 5.6% vs the real rate of 10.2%
1996 5.6% 9.8% 57% U3 only reflects 57% of the total jobless.
1997 5.3% 9.4% 56%
1998 4.6% 8.4% 55%
1999 4.3% 7.7% 56%
2000 4.0% 7.1% 56% When unemployment was the lowest, right before the stock market crash in March.
2001 4.2% 7.3% 58%
2002 5.7% 9.5% 60% The unemployment rate captures the highest percent of the total jobless.
2003 5.8% 10.0% 58%
2004 5.7% 9.9% 58%
2005 5.3% 9.3% 57%
2006 4.7% 8.4% 56%
2007 4.6% 8.4% 55%
2008 5.0% 9.2% 54%
2009 7.8% 14.2% 55%
2010 9.8% 16.7% 59.% When both unemployment rates were the highest (in January)
2011 9.2% 16.2% 57%
2012 8.3% 15.2% 55%
2013 8.0% 14.5% 55%
2014 6.6% 12.7% 52%
2015 5.78% 11.3% 50%
The point is to make sure you compare apples to apples. If you want to say the government is lying with its statistics during the recession, and the 2010 unemployment rate was really 16.7%, then you've got to make the same argument when times are good. (Source: BLS, Table A-1. Historical Household Data)
Was the Real Unemployment Rate Ever as Bad as During the Depression?
The unemployment rate during The Great Depression was 25%. Did the real unemployment rate during the Great Recession ever reach that level? Despite what many people say, a simple calculation will show this is not true.
In October 2009, the official unemployment rate (U-3) reached its height of 10.2%. There were 15.7 million unemployed among 153.98 million in the labor force. Add to that the 2.4 million marginally attached, including 808,000 discouraged workers, and you get a U-5 rate of 11.6%. Then add in the 9.3 million part-time workers who preferred full-time, and you get the U-6 rate of 17.5%. This was very high, and gives a better sense of unemployment..
Therefore, if you stretched the definition of unemployed to include marginally attached and part-time workers, unemployment was not as bad as during the height of the Great Depression. However, unemployment wasn't at that high a level throughout the entire Depression, which lasted for ten years. Therefore, if you really wanted to make the case, you could say the real unemployment at the height of the Great Recession was as high as during parts of the Great Depression. Article updated November 6, 2015
We all know that the un-employment numbers from Obama’s lips are bogus lies in part, because the measurement rules have been changed. The previous U6 measurement would have un-employment closer to 11%.
But here is another way to look at it:
America’s workforce is considered to be people between the ages of 16 and 68.
There are approximately 210 million people in this country between the ages of 16 and 68.
*There are 93 million people currently without employment, many of whom have stopped looking for jobs.
Therefore, should we not express un-employment as 93 million divided by 210 million………………..or……………….. 44.3% ????????
Robert Rossoford
I remember when The Great And Powerful O was on some TV show and said some of his shovel ready jobs aren't so shovel ready.
He laughed, everyone on a stage laughed and even an audience laughed. Oh, that was so funny!
Yes, my children, look forward to when his retired excellency constructs a library that shall tell visitors all about how Mr. Wonderful saved the economy, set race relations ahead by a zillion years, had the most transparent presidency ever, made the world love and respect us, created Hispanic voters without birth certificates, sent Al Qaeda running, contained ISIL, refused to call ISIL ISIS for noble religious and racial reasons and how anything else he could not fix is all Bush's fault.
Yep, everything is just swell y'all. So quit complaining so you won't be called terrorist racists or something.
Conservative commentators would be laughing at that for years to come.
The spell checker does not like "unaffordable,' though it is a real word.
I automatically clicked to remove the red wavy line without really looking at what I was doing.
Guess I looked like I was being "affordable" sarcastic.
parts of the essential industries covered. . bought a new knife
for my tiny collection ... Hoffman-Richter ... made in china.
we are specializing in losing to the rest of the world.
will buy a buck knife, next time. . u.s.a. made. -- j
.
.
p.s. the family is of Czech import to the u.s. but I don't find
whether they make their knives in the u.s.
.
made in china. . grrrrrrrrrr. -- j
defender.com -- and they're expensive. . unhhhh. -- j
.
.