Don't drink the koolaid, man. If I wanted this kind of BS, I'd watch MSNBC. Care to elaborate, or are you just high?
lets see now, the facts, Unemployment is at 16%, that's an increase.
No, it doesn't. ACTUALLY 60% of it is tax cuts, another chunk is roads and bridges, some of it is for unemployment and then a small portion - about 10% overall - is money to keep teachers employed in the face of local and state level austerity. Now, you think this is just a gesture towards the teachers unions(because you're obviously biased), but if you had any sort of economic training you'd know that state and locla level austerity is a HUGE drag on our economy ATM and reducing it's impact will be a critical task towards recovery and therefore it makes absolute sense to try and retain teachers that would otherwise be laid off at no fault of their own.
Shouldn't we be doing the statistics the same way we did in the past so as to make these times at least comparable? If we did unemployment the way it was done in the 70's , well we are at 26% unemployment, which is just as bad as the great depression. But we do unemployment under a new system that does not count half the unemployed people. No jobs have been gained at all, just because 1 job is created and 3 are lost is a net LOSS.
Jobs may have been lost, but just as many have been gained. ND, that's my only real gripe about your posts... You are constantly trying to say that we've "lost jobs"... How about a little intuectual honesty? Can we agree to use the NET numbers for employment? Is that so hard?
As you can see, the employment to population ratio is flat - there is no decline - and so the overall number of jobs in the US has not been in decline since Obama has been in office. It hasn't gone up either, obviously, so why dont you focus on the fact that employment hasn't improved rather than trying to overstate how bad things are?
Also, since Obama has been in office the stock market is up; Obviously there have been declines lately but the market is still up overall over the course of Obama's term.
And I still dont see how you're getting 16% unemployment...
That's all well and good, but you didn't address the claim that we've "lost jobs". I posted the employment
opulation ratio, which includes everyone including the retired, disabled and children and as you can see the E
has remained steady, which means the economy as a whole is not still losing jobs as you keep insisting. If one guy loses his job, and another guy gains a job thats a net zero effect for the economy as a whole. What you are doing is you're looking at the "jobs lost" column of the data without looking at the "jobs gained" column and it paints a harsher picture than what reality is.Your graph actually proves nothing since it isn't taking into consideration that 150,000 jobs must be created each and every month just to keep unemployment numbers the same. So to actually improve the numbers they must create MORE THAN 150,000 jobs each month. When unemployment goers from 8% to 9.6% officially, that means more jobs were lost than created, it matters not what a graph shows. BTW your graph shows a definitive decrease all the way from beginning to end, granted lately the increase has not been as bad as previous years, but it is still heading down. The graph also uses the faulty u3 statistics which are highly suspect as they have changed the methodology 28 times in the last 30 years.That's all well and good, but you didn't address the claim that we've "lost jobs". I posted the employment
Going down? You mean from a low point of ~58.25% down to 58.10-58.15% or so? Sure, that's a decrease - barely I guess... Most people would chalk that up as close to no change, although I guess if you want to be picky... Certainly most wouldn't consider such a minor change to be much of a trend.