Trumponomics driving down employement numbers, what a shocker

[Sailor]

You know that is not true!

Why be an obvious liar?

Really? Care to prove it untrue? You ignorant idiot.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

As usual you are a liar. Obama slow recovery was very typical for a financial collapse. this is something educated people know which of course leaves you out.

sorry.....your facts aren't factual.......

 

[Superfreak]

No, it doesn't. Let's move the numbers to something that will clearly show it.

Adult population is 1,000
Labor participation rate is 50%
Unemployment rate is 50%.

That means that the number of adults working is .5 x .5 x 1000
So only 250 people are working.

Now if we have the same 1,000 people
participation rate goes up to 100%
Using your calculation unemployment has to be the 50% plus the 50% increase in participation rate. That would mean the unemployment would be 100% if we use your math.

But 250 people are still working. Do you see the problem with your approach?

No, you are incorrect. In your scenario, if participation rate goes up to 100% and the number of people working remains the same, then the new numbers would be participation rate 100%, unemployment rate 75%. In order for unemployment rate to remain at 50%, you would have to have an increase in the number of people working to 500.

It is simple math. Yet you somehow failed to understand it in your own scenario.

 

[Superfreak]

Have someone explain these to you.

So you cannot read charts? https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/chart-book-the-legacy-of-the-great-recession

I can read charts. Can you? I posted a link to the government data, available in data sets and in chart form.

Now, would you like to explain what you think was wrong with what I stated? Because otherwise, you are simply rambling.

 

[Superfreak]

Have someone explain these to you.

So you cannot read charts? https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/chart-book-the-legacy-of-the-great-recession

Also, try using the actual government data sets and charts rather than someone at a left wing site trying to interpret the data.

 

[Taichiliberal]

It's fascinating to watch the display of stubborn, willfully ignorant right wing flunkies as they regurgitate the lies and half truths of the Orange Oaf. By their revisionism, Obama inherited an economic paradise that he all but destroyed. Forget the FACT that he inherited 8 years of cluster fuck by the Shrub & company that had the country on the brink of depression....AND a GOP congress who's sole purpose was to make him "a one term President", along with conservative corporate entities who REFUSED to do significant domestic hiring, much less bring jobs BACK via proposed economic incentives. And despite all that, Obama managed to put the country on an economic up swing before he left office.

Not that the Orange Oaf would ever admit that, as he takes sole credit for anything he's involved in....and as he and his cohorts whack away at oversight and put form a new version of Reaganomics, the old lies of "things are great, stay the course" echo again.

Sad, but not unexpected.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, you are incorrect. In your scenario, if participation rate goes up to 100% and the number of people working remains the same, then the new numbers would be participation rate 100%, unemployment rate 75%. In order for unemployment rate to remain at 50%, you would have to have an increase in the number of people working to 500.

It is simple math. Yet you somehow failed to understand it in your own scenario.

Unemployment is 75% because you multiply the percentages. You can't add the changes in each rate like you did in comparing Trump to Obama.

My example shows how your attempt to use addition and subtraction of change in unemployment and change in participation is the wrong way to do the math.
Go back and look at how you did your math in the post I was responding to. My example makes it quite clear your method was incorrect. I simply used 50% instead of 3% to make the error evident.