Obama fights for credit as unemployment rate hits new low

Do you count children as unemployed?
Do you count retired people as unemployed?
Do you count disabled people as unemployed?
Do you count stay-home parents as unemployed?
Do you count college students as unemployed?
Do you count people in prison as unemployed?

 

The rate was consistently under 60% through the 50's and 60's, which were economically good times. Notice how it started climbing in the 70's and peaked around 2000? Why do you think that is?

 

Stats are nice, but I do think it is how the people feel the economy is doing is much more valuable than statistics in this case. That is rare for me as I am a numbers guy. How do the people feel the economy is doing? I think if one looks at the president's approval numbers on how he is handling the economy can be a better stat than unemployment numbers as they do not take into account those not looking for a job among a lot of other things.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_economy-2820.html

The above shows 44.8% of Americans think the president is doing a good job with the economy while 49.2% say no. Still that is not all that bad. Perhaps a bit below average, but not bad. Consider where he stood in November of 2014 when the Republicans took back the senate, then the president had a 40% approval rating vs. a 51% disapproval which showed up in the election results that November.

Since then, people are starting to feel better about the economy. That in my opinion is better than any stat being thrown around. Elections revolve around the mood of the people, where that mood on the economy hurt the Democrats in 2014, it may be a wash in 2016 and if people continue to feel the economy is improving and the presidents approval numbers on the economy continue to climb, it may even be a plus for the Democratic nominee. Time will tell.

 

The recession was primarily caused by the housing bubble, which was not caused by Republican policies. If any political action contributed majorly to the housing bubble which led to the recession, it would have been the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, signed by Clinton. This allowed people interested in real estate, mortgages, etc. to avoid taxes on the first $250,000 of a house sale. The justification for this act was to "encourage wealth creation," but all it did was cause a major increase in the demand for housing. What happens when the demand for something increases largely and quickly--beyond the available supply, for instance? Prices go up. That is some very simple macro economics. It's also how the bubble began and most economists are in agreement that the housing bubble was the primary contributing factor to the recession. Bush inherited the problem after it had barely begun and the recession started toward the middle or end of his presidency. Obama's policies during his first term only made the economy and unemployment worse. During his second term, things have improved slightly, that's true. However, the unemployment rate is still not back to where it was at its best even when Bush was in office. Obama doesn't actually have a lot a lot to brag about. Please revisit the causes of the recession before throwing around flagrantly inaccurate partisan accusations next time

 

The link I posted DOES count those jobs. BTW, I am one of the people you are talking about.

 

Fantastic jobs--------------like-----------------do you want fries with that burger?

 

because women where very little in the work force at that time period

 

It was married women joining the workforce. Which led to a parallel rise in such as the cost of housing, and inflation in general.

 

Hey. If unemployment was doing so well, and all is coming up roses, why are there 50% (17 million) more folks on food stamps than when Obama took office ?

 

The recession was primarily caused by the housing bubble, which was not caused by Republican policies

Yea it was. Bush pushed housing because it was the only sector of the economy that was doing well. Interest rates that were too low for too long also contributed.

And of course there is Graham-Bleech-Liley...GOP legislation that allowed the banks and financial institutions to get heavily into CDOs

 

That's ridiculous.

No one has ever made that claim before. Nor is there any evidence to support it.

The housing bubble was caused by the a flood of cheap money. You failed to mention that the Bush adminstration DID do everything it could to fuel the boom, lowering bank reserve requirements in 2004, and significantly raising the limit on FHA jumbo loans.

Previous conservative sponsored "reforms" destroyed the firewall between investment and deposit banks, encouraging Wall Street to gamble with their depositors money. Just as conservative "modernization" freed the derivitives industry from regulation, allowing it to manufacture the illusion that swaps covered by real estate were a risk free bet.

Your claim that Obama's policies only made the situation worse are blatantly false, and not supported by even the most cursory evidence. Unemployment has dropped steadily since just a few weeks after the Stimulus Bill was passed, and the stock market has doubled.

Things could be a lot better.

But the austerity program the GOP wanted, coupled with not doing things they belatedly opposed (bailing out banks, GM and Chrsler) would have delivered us into a depression. We know because that was the GOP recipe in 1930. It didn't work then. It hasn't worked for David Cameron in the UK and it wasn't going to work in the US either.

 

your chart is cheery picked garbage

 

Because during the 50's and 60's, the nuclear family (which doesn't really exist anymore) was able to get by with one income while the wife stayed home and took care of the children.

Today, both parents have to work and even at that they struggle to get by and today than 50% of Americans receive some sort of check from the government.

We have become a top heavy society which will lead to our demise.

 

Sorry to hear that, so are both of my sons. But really... do you actually believe 4.9% is at all accurate and not been cooked??

 

Because wages for the bottom half of the workforce haven't kept up with inflation.

 

and wouldn't that suggest everything thats being said, the jobs are all low paying crap jobs so why would we celebrate that?

haha see how when you try to defend the logic, it begins to fall apart and points to the very things people are saying... and for the record employment numbers don't "typically exclude" disabled or too young to work people, they DO exclude them as its a very specific process... you have to fall within the working age, and not be disabled... hence too young and disabled are not counted... but you hit the nail on the head, those working, aren't making enough, why, cause the jobs pay little... they're all like others have chimed in countless times in this thread, low wage service jobs close to minimum wage because they aren't anything special or skilled...

 

Authoritarian policies are what drive business out. More of it will not be a positive.

 

Great, let's go back to Clinton welfare reform.

 

You understand how capitalist markets work, don't you? When unemployment is high, employers are able to replace high-wage workers with low-wage workers because of the competition for jobs. Wages won't rise until employers have to compete for workers instead of the other way around. So having unemployment below 5% again is definitely something to celebrate. Supporting an increased minimum wage would be another way to improve everyone's wages.

 

The 50% increase in Food Stamps happened all under Obama. Now, folks can "blame Bush", or whatever, but the point is that it contradicts the proclamation that unemployment has been cut in half under Obama, and that the economy is rebounding. Were the latter two actually true, then the food stamp rolls would be shrinking accordingly. Rather, the fact is that Unemployment of 4.9% is all smoke and mirrors.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that actual unemployment is not under 5%. and that is why all other indicators reflect a worse employment situation. 4.9% is all one big sham.

 

nice attempt to use something that would normally be logical, but doesn't apply anymore since we've long passed the thresholds where this logic would be applicable...

the problem is still the types of jobs being created... we're still creating low wage jobs in service industries... those jobs don't dramatically rise in wages historically... so we know they will never amount to much more than they already are... this isn't a capitalist problem of high-skilled people making low wage incomes due to an over-supply of labor... in fact quite the opposite is true today... there are plenty of skilled jobs open at above average wages today, because there are simply not enough skilled people to take them... meanwhile we have a flood of low wage service jobs that have no reason to pay more because they can still quite easily find warm bodies, and even when warm bodies for this industries are hard to find, they are not likely to raise rates, because it becomes cheaper to pay those people over-time then absorb the additional overhead of higher wages for all employees plus benefits they are now mandated to pay such as health insurance etc etc...

so the logic you use, I completely understand it, I completely accept it WAS a reality 5 years ago... but its simply no longer the truth today for reasons I cited...

now I will say low unemployment IS good going forward to put pressure on wages, same reason social security was created, to force an artificial labor shortages in order to do just what you propose... problem is... we have an estimated 10-30 million illegals filling the gaps and keeping wages lower artificially... thats a HUGE part of this problem... jobs that would HAVE to pay more, simply don't have to because there is an immense amount of low skilled people who can work under the table still... nobody ever seems to want to address that as part of this issue and a major reason why wages in america have sputtered the past few decades as the problem increased...

I mean come on its not rocket science... its first year economics...

 

This is like rewarding Bernie Madoff for being a great accountant.

Any fool can look good by cooking the books.

Cheers
Labour

 

- - - Updated - - -

They calculate it the same way for any other President, but somehow this President should be held to a different standard? Not surprising for people who have had a vested interest in him failing from the begining. Very un-American behavior.

 

I just haven't seen anyone celebrating in the steets that their lives are so much better now than 8 years ago.

I haven't seen anyone who believes that.

 

Mine is, and really who cares what you have seen? What I have seen is an unemployment rate totally turned around exactly what the President said would happen. Can't anyone give the guy credit for anything? It's always a vast conspiracy with you people.