Posts Tagged ‘labor force’

My Final Say On Why Barack Obama Does NOT Deserve Reelection

November 5, 2012

Obama has added a fourth dimension to dishonesty.  They used to say, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Now it’s “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Obamanomics.”  Because Obama’s entire economic policy is a giant turd.  And while it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd if you’re idiot enough to touch it, Obama tells you it’s actually gold-plated.

The unemployment rate is HIGHER than it was when Obama took office.  It is HIGHER than it EVER WAS under George W. Bush.  But in spite of that reality, it somehow never stopped Obama from just demonizing Bush.  Obama has never taken personally responsibility for anything.

George Bush’s unemployment rate was 5.26% over eight years.  At this point near the very end of Obama’s failed first (and hopefully ONLY term), Obama has given us an average unemployment rate of over 9 percent (9.03%).

You’d think that a man who never came CLOSE to George Bush’s unemployment rate – and frankly a man who never WILL come close to Bush’s unemployment rate – wouldn’t talk so much smack about George Bush.  BUT THAT’S ALL OBAMA DOES.  And the reason that’s all he does is simply because it’s all he has: demagoguery and demonization and blame and Marxist class warfare.

I suppose I can understand why those monthly unemployment rates under Bush looked bad to Democrats.  Because people would expect them to get off their lazy little roach asses and get a damn job back then instead of Obama giving them food stamps for life.  Obama has increased food stamps by 53 percent under his presidency; and what the hell, if you go back to when Nancy Pelosi took over the House of Representatives and Harry Reid took over the US Senate in 2007, Democrats have increased food stamps by 70 percent.  And all you welfare parasites ought to really like that trend – at least until you’ve sucked more blood out of the increasingly few Americans who are actually producing anything and the country implodes and you starve because Obama trained you to be completely dependent sponges.  It will be bad for you then, but then again none of you have EVER been capable of thinking about tomorrow and actually taking steps to avoid catastrophe before, so why start now?  You don’t need a damn job; YOU’VE GOT OBAMA.

You also need to understand that Barack Obama has in no way, shape or form lowered the unemployment rate.  What he has done is massively increase the number of discouraged workers – who don’t count in the official unemployment rate calculations.

There’s a vital statistic called the “labor force participation rate.”  What is it?  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a job.  And that rate has plunged and plunged and plunged every single year of Obama’s presidency.  I’ve written about this: if you look at November of 2010, the labor participation rate under Obama was at a 25-year low (i.e., worse than it EVER was under Bush) at 64.5%.   The next year, 2011, the participation rate was at a 27-year low at 63.9%.  In May of this year, the participation rate was at 63.6% and was the worst in thirty years.  And at that point just a few months ago the labor participation rate for men was the lowest it had EVER been since they started keeping records in 1948.  By August of this year it declined yet again to 63.5% to the lowest level in thirty-one years.

When our unemployment rate drops precipitously because four discouraged workers give up ever getting a job under this failed presidency for every one who actually gets a job, you need a new president.

If we applied the labor force participation rate that George Bush handed off to Obama, the unemployment rate would be well over 10 percent.

And what about the businesses that would be creating jobs if it weren’t for the fact that a turd is sitting in the White House where a president ought to be?

What is true of the labor force participation is also true of business start ups in America under Obama.  Two years ago – and this being during the so-called Obama “recovery,” the number of U.S. business start-ups and dropped 24% – and how the hell does that happen in a “recovery” when you’re supposedly coming out of a recession that you blame Bush for?  Last year the number of business start-ups had plunged to a 25 year low which was THE LOWEST level ever measured since the statistic began to be tracked in 1986.  Now under Obama’s utterly failed leadership and under his Marxist class warfare, the number of business start-ups is at a 30 year low.

Obama isn’t adding anywhere NEAR enough jobs to keep up with the 10 million people who have joined the workforce by virtue of becoming adults during his presidency.

I don’t understand.  Why do so many Democrats want America to weaken, to fail and to implode?  What is it about this country that so many people call “The Great Satan” that you Democrats despise so much?

You can look at America’s global competitiveness under Obama and see the same failure.  Last year, America dropped to fifth place.  This year, thanks to Obama’s leadership, America has plunged to seventh place in global competitiveness.  And in fact we have dropped down the ladder under Obama every single year of his failed presidency in global competitiveness.

And wait, I’m not done, because the United States has now also plunged in a manner described as “unprecedented” to TWELFTH place in prosperity under Obama.

We were #1 in the world in global competitiveness when George Bush handed the presidency to Barack Obama.

If you vote Democrat, I guess you think our decline is good.  You clearly do, because you thought that our being number one in the world under George W. Bush was somehow bad.  You want America to drop to twelfth place, to twentieth place, to fiftieth place.  Why?  What is morally and psychologically wrong with you?

And don’t think for a second that Democrats want more money in the pockets of working people.  Because the median household income has dropped $4,520 since that evil day that President Obama took officeBetting on Obama cost you 8.2% of the average American’s income.  That’s how much the average American has basically lost every year as a result of their lousy bet on Obama.  I don’t understand: why on earth do you want more of that?  Or maybe I should be asking you why on earth you want less and less money and freedom as long as you can have more Obama?

Democrats are NOT people who want more money in working people’s’ pockets; they’re bitter, hateful people who want LESS money in other people’s’ pockets; they’re Marxists who want more and more and more money in the government’s pocket instead.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy.  You first need to understand that Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt in only four years after demonizing George Bush for adding over $4 trillion over eight years.  If Obama is reelected, he is on pace to TRIPLE the George Bush debt that he demagogued.  And this from a president who promised he’d cut spending and would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but was upbraided by Tom Brokaw who said Obama would have to answer for his “out of control” $1.1 trillion deficit “that happened on his watch.”  And let’s not even think about the fact that our REAL debt that will ultimately bankrupt us all is the $222 trillion we owe when we consider the unsustainable Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid debt that we have to pay.

On the foreign policy front, let me just sum it up this way: our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have massively lost confidence in Obama as commander-in-chief.  Obama paraded himself around as the president who got bin Laden (never mind that he depended enormously on the waterboarding-obtained intelligence that he demonized).  And Obama claimed that in getting bin Laden he had fatally wounded al Qaeda and that the war on terrorism was basically over.  And as a result Ambassador Chris Stevens was completely safe in Benghazi, Libya, and Obama could therefore cut his security even though the ambassador who was just about to be murdered in an al Qaeda terrorist attack was begging for MORE security.  The fact that Obama was utterly and completely wrong about his core foreign policy ought to matter.  But instead Obama has lied and then lied again when confronted with past lies such that the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi won’t hurt him until after the election is already over.  Which is exactly how a profoundly unworthy commander-in-chief would think.

Meanwhile, Obama’s cockroach media is working overtime to censor the news about this story so that Obama’s gamble will work.

Speaking of war zones, how about that Hurricane Sandy devastation?  Much of the country is lining up in gas lines that are taking as long as seven hours to get through.  Whole regions are devastated and thousands of victims have received absolutely no help at ALLAnger is beginning to increasingly erupt over the disastrous relief effortIt’s always amazing to watch as the same media that pounded George Bush day after day over Katrina refuse to cover the suffering Obama is responsible for after Hurricane Sandy.  Obama got his photo op pretending to be “commander-in-chief” and now he can leave victims out in the cold.  Literally.

Oh, did I mention “gas”?  How about them prices?  Obama has made gasoline TWICE as expensive as it was when he took office.

Obama summed it up pretty well: Democrats are people who vote with a heart full of revenge; Mitt Romney is a man who says that Republicans vote because of love of country.

And that bit of deceit is frankly stunning: why the hell is Obama demanding that people take revenge on Mitt Romney WHEN IT WAS INSTEAD BARACK OBAMA WHO HAS IMPLODED AMERICA YEAR AFTER YEAR OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS???  Just what did Mitt Romney do that Obama thinks people should take revenge on him for???  Why the hell doesn’t Obama realize that HE’S the man the American people need to take their revenge on, if they take revenge out on anyone at all???  Why is it that Barack Obama is that pathologically incapable of accepting any kind of responsibility at all???

Advertisements

Gallup Predicts New Unemployment Rate Will Skyrocket To 8.6 Percent

March 6, 2012

Note that the actual official unemployment rate ought to be 9.1 percent in February.  Note that the last few months of snowjob from the Obama media was a giant crock of crap.

You should also note that the REAL unemployment rate is actually over NINETEEN PERCENT!!!

Note that the dire CBO prediction regarding the weak and faltering US economy under Obama is coming to pass (and see a more detailed explanation of the CBO report here).

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Gallup’s Unadjusted Unemployment Data Suggest Increase in BLS Adjusted Figure

Gallup finds U.S. unemployment, as measured without seasonal adjustment, to be 9.1% in February, based on almost 30,000 interviews with a random sample of Americans. When Gallup applies the 0.5-percentage-point seasonal adjustment that the government applied to its unadjusted data for February last year, it produces an adjusted unemployment rate for February 2012 of 8.6% — a substantial increase from the 8.3% adjusted rate the government reported for January.

The findings provide a preview of what Gallup will report in its monthly employment release next Thursday, March 8. Because Gallup’s data are collected continuously throughout the month, the data are available now, one week ahead of the BLS report scheduled for Friday, March 9.
 
Three key factors help determine the relationship between Gallup’s measurement of the unemployment rate and the unemployment rate reported by the government. The first involves the relationship between Gallup’s and the government’s unadjusted survey results. Data from the past two years show that on an unadjusted basis, Gallup’s and the government’s unemployment measurements track fairly closely in both direction and magnitude.
 
 
Gallup reported an unadjusted rate of 8.6% for January 2012 and the government reported an unadjusted rate of 8.8%. Gallup’s and the government’s unadjusted results also tracked closely in January 2011 (9.9% versus 9.8%, respectively) and January 2010 (10.9% compared with 10.6%).
 
The results were similarly close in February 2010 (when Gallup found 10.6% versus the government’s 10.4%) but diverged significantly in February 2011, when Gallup reported an unadjusted rate of 10.3% and the government an unadjusted rate of 9.5%. That is, after the government re-based its unemployment data in January 2011, Gallup’s and the government’s February results differed in both magnitude and direction.
 
Relating Gallup’s current findings to the likely unemployment rate the government will report for February depends on a number of somewhat complex key assumptions. Consider the following scenarios:
Based on its full-month measure, Gallup finds that the unadjusted unemployment rate increased by 0.5 points, to an average of 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January.
  • If we assume the government’s unadjusted unemployment rate experienced a similar 0.5-point increase, it would rise to 9.3% in February from January’s 8.8%. Applying the 0.5-point seasonal adjustment (based on the government’s February 2011 adjustment) to the February 2012 unadjusted rate (9.3%) would result in an increase in the U.S. seasonally adjusted unemployment rate to 8.8% in February 2012 from January’s 8.3%.
  • If we instead assume the government’s unadjusted rate increased by 0.3 points in February to exactly match Gallup’s measurement at 9.1%, this would produce an increase in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate to 8.6% in February 2012 — assuming the use of the February 2011 seasonal adjustment of 0.5 points.
Of course, there are lots of other possible assumptions. For example, the government’s unemployment estimate is based on a mid-month measurement. Gallup’s mid-month measurement for the unadjusted unemployment rate in January 2012 was 8.3% and it was 9.0% in mid-February. If we were to apply this mid-month increase of 0.7 points to the government’s unadjusted January rate of 8.8%, the resulting unadjusted 9.5% would lead to a 9.0% seasonally adjusted rate.
 
On the other hand, the government re-based its household survey once again in January 2012. If the government’s unadjusted survey results are unchanged (8.8%) or go lower in February, the government’s seasonally adjusted rate is likely to do the same.
 
A second factor to consider is the way the government seasonally adjusts its unadjusted unemployment rate for February. As noted previously, the government used a 0.5-point adjustment factor to seasonally adjust its results in February 2011. However, in 2010, it used a slightly different 0.6-point adjustment. Applying this larger seasonal adjustment to Gallup’s full-month results would produce an 8.5% adjusted unemployment rate for February 2012 — up from 8.3% in January.
 
A third factor that affects the unemployment rate might involve shifts taking place in the size of the workforce. If Americans seeking work get discouraged and drop out of the workforce in large numbers, it is likely to reduce the unemployment rate. This appears to have happened at various points in the past. Gallup’s measurement of the participation rate — the percentage of Americans in the workforce — shows a decline to 67.6% in February from 68.2% in January. If the government shows a similar decline in the workforce, it is likely to lower the U.S. unemployment rate that the government reports and that may not be fully picked up by Gallup’s data.
 
In sum, Gallup’s Daily tracking of the U.S. unemployment rate — which is not seasonally or otherwise adjusted — shows an increase in February from January. This reflects a consistent measurement of the job-market reality that Gallup has measured since January 2010. It may be that various factors will lead the U.S. government on Friday, March 9, to release a different unemployment rate than that implied by Gallup’s results, but that report will not change the reality in the marketplace.

Under Obama’s failed leadership millions and millions of Americans have simply given up and dropped out of the employment picture altogether.  And Obama loves it when he’s crushed the spirit of another worker, because that artificially lowers the unemployment rate and makes his failure artificially appear good.

This economy is teetering and on its way to a very hard fall.  And it is simply beyond laughable that the propaganda media would continually tell us that things are going just peachy dandy under their messiah’s marvellous leadership.

Unemployment Rate: At ‘Rate’ We’re Going, We’ll Have 0% Unemployment But No One Will Have An Actual Job

February 4, 2011

The last few months the unemployment rate has gone down even though the number of people who are participating in the workforce has gone down and down and down.  How can this be?

February 04, 2011
Labor Force Participation at 26 Year Low
Steve McCann

The headlines today trumpet a decline in the unemployment rate to 9.0%, however only 36,000 jobs were created.  The rate drop is due to the absurd policy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics not to count those who dropped out of the labor and ceased looking for a job.

A more important but unreported statistic is the massive drop in the labor force.  Today at 64.2%, the labor force participation rate (as a percentage of the total civilian noninstitutional population) is now at a 26 year low.  In January of 2000 it hit 67.5% by comparison.

 This  the lowest since 1984 and is the primary reason the unemployment rate has dropped to 9.0%.   Those not in the labor force has increased from 83.9 million to 86.2 million (a drop of 2.2 million on just one year).

In calculating the unemployment rate the BLS is now counting only 13.9 million as unemployed compared to 15 million two months ago when only 80,000 jobs created.  These are the disenchanted, no longer looking for a job and thus no longer on the BLS rolls.

The unemployment rate is a sleight of hand the reality is far worse.  There is no broad base recovery underway despite the best efforts to report otherwise.

Update from Steve McCann:

The Gallup Organization issues its own unemployment statistics which have been somewhat more accurate than the BLS and take into account more of the effect of those who have dropped out of the labor force.  Yesterday Gallup reported a U.S. unemployment rate of 9.8% up from 9.6% in December.

Further the underemployment rate (those unemployed and working part-time because they cannot find full-time work) in January was 18.9% down from 19.0% in December.  The closest number to this statistic issued by the BLS is the U-6 which showed 16.9% in January.

The summary in the Gallup report is:

Gallup’s measures paint a real-time picture of the current job realities on the ground.  Nearly 1 out of 10 Americans in the U.S. are unemployed nearly 1 out of 5 are underemployed, and the nation’s overall hiring situation has not improved over the past four to six months.

So, we have the dueling unemployment rates.  However Americans on Main Street know the situation for jobs has not improved over the past year as even more people enter the labor force each year.

At the rate that we are going given the bizarre measurements and the constant massaging of the data and the facts, we will literally have a zero percent unemployment rate.  With not one single person having a job in this completely failing and floundering economy.

The most meaningful measurement of our employment situation shows that we’re at 18.9%.  That’s Great Depression levels.  But just look here at this mainstream media headline and you’ll see that everything is fine, fine.  Nothing to see here, folks.

I think of the Soviet Union, which literally blamed the total failure of their entire political philosophy and the ruinous policies that philosophy entailed by claiming that their agricultural output had been adversely affected due to 72 years of bad weather.  And the Soviet Union has gone the way of the Dodo bird for that very reason.

Is America under Obama the next Dodo bird to fall apart while we’re assured that everything is fine while some suitable scapegoat bears the blame for every failure that can’t be ignored???