http://washingtonexaminer.com/wall-...isery-index-worst-in-40-years/article/2542604
Nice move, Democrats. Do we need more stimulus?
Actual unemployment is 37.2%
- Thread starter MAGA MAN
- Start date
Nice move, Democrats. Do we need more stimulus?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Because the last 10 rounds worked so well? If they worked we shouldn't need it right?
Cue the "yeah but Bush excuse" in 3-2-1 GO!!!
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
MM gets it right once again. Even if it is 37 percent...what are the republicans going to do....vote to defund Obamacare again and offer a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans?
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Nahhh....Bush isn't smart enough to create the gigantic clusterfuck our economy became on his own. He had 25 years of supply side economics putting wind in his sails, and republicans held congress and also the senate until 2006.
Let's mint those $1T coins that your Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman loves so much. Yeah, that's the ticket. LOL!
Last edited:
Spending bills must begin in the house. Perhaps you have forgotten.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Clinton was a supply sider? Interesting
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Well if he's going to make up some ridiculous bullshit, then why shouldn't he make it ASTOUNDINGLY IDIOTIC bullshit?
And here we go...from the article you posted:
"This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment."
How bout that?
Turns out it's just another attack piece from another hate filled Rightie.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
The wealthiest americans are still getting rich, while most are doing with less. All under Obamas watch.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
People who aren't looking for work are still unemployed. Aren't liberals supposed to be for the people? You do the majority of americans a disservice when you paint a rosy picture of the economy just because YOUR GUY is in office.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
But the guy who wrote the article being cited does a disservice to everyone when he fudges the numbers to make Obama look bad.
37% Unemployment?
Come on...and he admits he included people who are RETIRED. What else can "not employed or never plan to seek employment" mean?
If he's going to fudge the numbers like that he needs to expect some skepticism.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... you think 'supply side' economics is what caused the clusterfuck? Please... elaborate...
christiefan915
Catalyst
Bet David John Marotta's motto is "never give a sucker an even break."
"Here is the headline: “Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, ‘misery index’ worst in 40 years”. Now what sort of mathematical and economic wizardry did Marotta use to arrive at the “real” unemployment rate of 37.2%? Prepare to have your mind blown as I reverse engineer his sophisticated calculations.
Marotta went over to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site and found the current labor force participation rate, which is 62.8%. That number represents the share of the adult, non-military, non-jailed population who have a job or are actively seeking work.
Then Marotta subtracted that number from 100. That’s it. 100 – 62.8 = 37.2. Voila! Since 37.2% of the civilian, noninstitutional population is neither employed nor actively seeking working, then are “unemployed.” Hey, that’s even higher than the unemployment rate during the Great Depression! Doom! Gloom!
ut wait, isn’t Marotta including as “unemployed” people who really aren’t in the job market such as retirees and college students and stay-at-home moms — as well as discouraged potential workers? He sure is — which is why the 37.2% number is absolutely ridiculous and tremendously overstates labor market weakness. A total joke. Using Marotta’s “logic,” maybe the “real” unemployment rate is merely the share of of the civilian noninstitutional without a job. That comes out to a whopping 44.5%! The Greatest Recession!
Now the current unemployment rate probably does understate job market weakness because of the sharp decline in the labor force participation rate. But there is lots of debate as to how much of that LFPR decline is due to demographics and how much is due to anemic labor demand. Maybe the “real” unemployment rate is 8% or 9% or 10%. But anyone who tells you it’s nearly 40% is selling the apocalypse. Indeed, Bedard notes that Marotta “recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun.” What’s more, I am guessing his take on the “real” inflation rate is similarly dubious. Drudge and the Examiner are pretty widely followed on the right. I hope this 37.2% number doesn’t metastasize into a GOP talking point. That would be embarrassing."
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/01/is-the-real-unemployment-rate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aei-ideas%2Feconomics+%28AEIdeas+%C2%BB+Economics%29
More info on how these fear mongers get their numbers.
Shadow Government Statistics
"Here is the headline: “Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, ‘misery index’ worst in 40 years”. Now what sort of mathematical and economic wizardry did Marotta use to arrive at the “real” unemployment rate of 37.2%? Prepare to have your mind blown as I reverse engineer his sophisticated calculations.
Marotta went over to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site and found the current labor force participation rate, which is 62.8%. That number represents the share of the adult, non-military, non-jailed population who have a job or are actively seeking work.
Then Marotta subtracted that number from 100. That’s it. 100 – 62.8 = 37.2. Voila! Since 37.2% of the civilian, noninstitutional population is neither employed nor actively seeking working, then are “unemployed.” Hey, that’s even higher than the unemployment rate during the Great Depression! Doom! Gloom!
ut wait, isn’t Marotta including as “unemployed” people who really aren’t in the job market such as retirees and college students and stay-at-home moms — as well as discouraged potential workers? He sure is — which is why the 37.2% number is absolutely ridiculous and tremendously overstates labor market weakness. A total joke. Using Marotta’s “logic,” maybe the “real” unemployment rate is merely the share of of the civilian noninstitutional without a job. That comes out to a whopping 44.5%! The Greatest Recession!
Now the current unemployment rate probably does understate job market weakness because of the sharp decline in the labor force participation rate. But there is lots of debate as to how much of that LFPR decline is due to demographics and how much is due to anemic labor demand. Maybe the “real” unemployment rate is 8% or 9% or 10%. But anyone who tells you it’s nearly 40% is selling the apocalypse. Indeed, Bedard notes that Marotta “recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun.” What’s more, I am guessing his take on the “real” inflation rate is similarly dubious. Drudge and the Examiner are pretty widely followed on the right. I hope this 37.2% number doesn’t metastasize into a GOP talking point. That would be embarrassing."
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/01/is-the-real-unemployment-rate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aei-ideas%2Feconomics+%28AEIdeas+%C2%BB+Economics%29
More info on how these fear mongers get their numbers.
Shadow Government Statistics
zappasguitar
Well-known member
And just like that...POOF...someone brings some rational thought to the thread and it in turn brings an abrupt end to the discussion!
Of course the Obama haters just lap that crap up despite the fact it's crap.