Read the red line. The other lines are previous recessions.FBM wrote:Obama took office in '48?
Due to people dropping entirely out of the labor market, yes.Down to 7.8% from 8.1 at present.
Read the red line. The other lines are previous recessions.FBM wrote:Obama took office in '48?
Due to people dropping entirely out of the labor market, yes.Down to 7.8% from 8.1 at present.
Good point. If we'd done that instead of Obamacare, we could have Greek style 20% unemployment now!Tero wrote:This is bullshit. Congress let America down.Warren Dew wrote: I think there may be a deeper parallel here. Bush in 1992 campaigned like he wanted to lose. It really seemed like he was tired of the presidency, and maybe he realized deep down that he wasn't doing a very good job and didn't really want to continue to do that.
Obama's handlers have kept his campaign sufficiently detached from reality to avoid campaigning to lose, but now it looks like that perhaps involved keeping Obama himself out of the loop. After all, they don't care whether he does a good job for the country, as long as he stays in power and they benefit from it. Obama himself, though, might feel like Bush did: he does care about Americans, and it looks from the debate like he realizes deep down that he's letting America down.
The fact that US reacted to Obamacare etc in 2010 should not have been a surprise.
With a cooperative congress we could have European Socialism, Swiss flavor, tomorrow.
The numbers come from two different surveys. For what it's worth, the job creation survey is considered more accurate.Coito ergo sum wrote:I do. 114,000 jobs created in September, and a revision up, for some reason, of 86,000 jobs from previous months, totally 200,000 jobs created. However, the labor force participation rate, from what I read, increased (which raises the unemployment rate because more people are looking for work and are in the job market). So, just based on that, it seems odd that the unemployment rate would drop from 8.1% to 7.8% given the total number of workers involved.
I think the U6 number is still at 10% isn't it?Warren Dew wrote:The numbers come from two different surveys. For what it's worth, the job creation survey is considered more accurate.Coito ergo sum wrote:I do. 114,000 jobs created in September, and a revision up, for some reason, of 86,000 jobs from previous months, totally 200,000 jobs created. However, the labor force participation rate, from what I read, increased (which raises the unemployment rate because more people are looking for work and are in the job market). So, just based on that, it seems odd that the unemployment rate would drop from 8.1% to 7.8% given the total number of workers involved.
mistermack wrote:
I think it's highly likely that he's been groomed for years as a first Mormon President, including a substantial fortune having been put his way behind the scenes to enable it.
The Mormons aren't doing this for nothing. They will expect, and get, a substantial payoff for their investment in Romney.
Labor force participation has dropped about 4% since then (2.5 percentage points), so if it were the same today, unemployment would be around 12%.Coito ergo sum wrote:And, what would the number be if we were at the same number of workers in the work force as in January, 2009?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 18 guests