How Was Your Life in January 2009?

Updated comments, 1/19/2017:

I wrote the following article in April 2012.  The 2012 elections were approaching, and the Republican/rightie press was all over Barack Obama for not doing enough about the economy.  I was tired of reading about it.  And then the book by Robert Draper, discussed below, was released, which made the Republican complaints about Obama even more hypocritical.  

The Republicans didn't win in 2012, but they won in 2016, due to voter suppression, Russian tampering, fake news, and FBI intervention. But, as we approach the inauguration of a Republican President, it's a good idea to look back and recall where we were 8 years ago.... and we need to realize how far we've come.  

Under President Barack Obama, we've had the longest string of job growth since WWII.  15 million jobs have been added since the trough of the recession, and that is a NET number, meaning new jobs added after we subtract jobs lost.  Income inequality is starting to come down.  Manufacturing jobs, which declined 26% under Bush II, are starting to increase again.  Inflation-adjusted household average income has turned a corner and is again starting to increase.  And inflation-adjusted wages for "regular" non-supervisory workers have started to increase, something they haven't done since the Clinton years.  (If you don't believe this string of accomplishments, wait; I'll come back and add the links later today and tomorrow.)  And yet the Republicans, Trumpers, and other right-wing hangers on consider Obama's presidency a "failure".  But that is really just more fake news, isn't it?  We'll watch and see if Trump and his merry band of Republicans can do any better.  What do you think? 

Comments about Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives, a new book by freelance writer and New York Times Magazine contributor Robert Draper:  

As found on Amazon.com

In January 2009, while Obama and the Democrats planned policies and laws to help beleaguered Americans, the Republicans plotted to throw us all under the bus.

We all knew that something like the meeting Draper discusses in his book happened... but let's put this into perspective:

Winter 2008-2009 Was Scary

Let's all remember how difficult things were in the fall of 2008 and the winter of 2009. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took office, and weekly first time unemployment claims kept increasing to over 600,000 to 700,000 a week.  We had lost a total of 4,400,000 jobs BEFORE Obama took the oath of office.

The stock market had tanked, the banks were virtually insolvent, the auto industry was bankrupt and on its last legs, and people were scared. I didn't know anybody in those months and weeks who wasn't terrified and unsure of what the future was going to bring.

Though anxious, most of us looked forward to the inauguration, to the stimulus and to new programs that would help to pull the country (and the world) out of the chaos and out of that economic ditch.

While we were afraid of what was happening, we were also full of hope for where we might go in the coming weeks and months. 

Meanwhile, the Republicans were committing to spend their time and efforts to push the bus, along with the 300,000,000 frightened Americans on it, the rest of the way off of the cliff. They cared NOT ONE BIT about the frustrations and concerns of the American people who were embroiled in the worst economic crisis in the last 80 years; they cared only about destroying the man who was about to try his darnedest to do the best he could for the American people. 

These Republicans are a shameful, sorry, repulsive, and despicable lot, and they need to all be tossed out of office, out of any positions of power, onto their pompous and useless rears. And any person who still plans on voting for the Republicans after reading about this meeting needs to pack his/her bags and get the hell out of this country. These Republicans care not one bit about you, me, or the country. 

These Republicans are traitors.

Information about the Draper book discussing this HERE.
More information about this whole event HERE at the Daily Kos.

The excerpt from the Al Sharpton show discussing this HERE.

Why Don't People Want Jobs?

The Unemployment Puzzle:  People Don't Want Jobs

Despite the continued high number of people who are among the long-term unemployed, we also have a record number of people who are not in the labor force and say that they do NOT want a job!

First of all, the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks people who are "not in the labor force" (unemployed and not actively looking for work) whether or not they "want a job".  About 93% of people who are "not in the labor force" say that they do NOT want a job!

The biggest conundrum in unemployment these days is the juxtaposition of these two sets of facts:

• People are exhausting (running out of) unemployment compensation and the average duration of unemployment is still very high.  This means that some people have been unemployed and looking for work in excess of two or three years, and perhaps have exhausted their unemployment benefits a year or even two years ago.  This must be causing a great deal of misery for those people who have exhausted their unemployment compensation, presumably gone through most or all of their savings, and may have NOTHING left in financial resources.  Right now, we still have 3,892,000 people who are officially unemployed and have been for more than 52 weeks!  
• But all numbers of unemployment and underemployment, including the official unemployment rate AND the number of people who "want a job", are DECLINING.  Yes, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does ask people who are not in the labor force (meaning that they are not actively looking for work) if they "want a job".  The number of people who are "discouraged" (meaning: 1. they looked for work in the past year but not in the past month, 2.  they are available for work.  3.  they did not look for work in the past month because they felt no jobs are available for them) is also declining.  Both the percentages and the numbers of people in these categories are declining.  Not only that, but the number of people who have been unemployed for 52 weeks or longer, while high, is also declining.  Last year, in March 2011, 4,430,000 people were unemployed over a year.  This year, in March 2012, 3,892,000 people were unemployed over a year.  At least 600,000 people who were unemployed (actively looking for work) a year ago are no longer looking for work this year.  Where did they go?    

Many people who notice that fewer people are "officially" unemployed claim that people are dropping out of the labor force (meaning that they are no longer actively looking for work and therefore not counted among the officially unemployed) because, while they still "want a job", they are terribly discouraged about finding work and they are no longer even looking for work.  (To be counted as officially unemployed, you need to be actively looking for work within the past four weeks.)    

But the numbers simply don't support this!  ALL numbers of unemployment and underemployment, including numbers of people who are "discouraged" and who "want a job" but aren't actively looking, are decreasing, as seen on this chart:

The number of people who "want a job" (green line) represent people who are officially "not in the labor force" because they haven't looked for work in the past month, but this is a subset of people who are "not in the labor force".  (Only about 7% of people not in the labor force claim to "want a job" now.) 

However, this number of people who "want a job" but haven't looked for work in the past month includes people who haven't looked for a job for over a year.  It also includes people who haven't looked for a job because they are ill, have family responsibilities, are in school, or are simply "not available to work now".  It also includes people who haven't looked for work recently because they are "discouraged" (red line) and believe there is no work available for them.  (Therefore, the red line people are a subset of the green line people.)

How Many with no Resources?

We really don't know how many people are out there with no resources, particularly compared to other years, such as 2005 or 2007.  As you can see from the chart, at the peak of the last economic cycle when jobs were still plentiful, in 2006 or 2007, we still had millions of people who were among the  unemployed; we still had hundreds of thousands of discouraged workers; we still had millions of people not in the labor force who "want a job".   

One thing that we can tell when we put all of these numbers together is that we don't really have a good idea as to what happens to people who exhaust their unemployment benefits.  One year ago there were 8,300,000 people collecting unemployment benefits (down from a peak of about 12,000,000 two years earlier), and now (March) there are about 6,800,000 people collecting benefits.  1,500,000 fewer people are collecting benefits.  We don't know how many of these people went back to work.  We know that, as we mentioned above, there is a DECREASE in the number of discouraged workers since last year (from 921,000 down to 865,000), and there is also a DECREASE in the number of people who "want a job" compared to last year (6,500,000 down to 6,299,000).  So people who are no longer collecting benefits aren't all looking for work, don't all want a job, and aren't filling the ranks of the "discouraged" workers.      


What has happened to the unemployed and the discouraged? 

Facebook groups and websites for the unemployed still attract many people who are miserable.. .and scared.  But other websites for the unemployed, particularly those aimed at 99ers (people who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits) seem to have much less activity than they did a year or two ago, and it is unclear if that is meaningful or not.

So.. if the numbers of people who want a job, the numbers who are unemployed (whether short-term or long-term), the number of "discouraged" workers, the numbers of people working part-time who want full-time work have all decreased..  where did those people go?  The "buckets" that have increased are:  1.  The number of employed (including the number employed full-time) and 2.  The number of people who are not in the labor force and DO NOT WANT A JOB.


More people who DO NOT want a job...

We now have 2,490,000 MORE people who are NOT in the labor force and DO NOT want a job than we did a year ago.  (This is mostly due to the Baby Boomers retiring.)  This is an increase of about 3%.  Remember, these people tell the interviewers that they DO NOT want a job.  They are not dropping out of the labor force because they are so discouraged that they can't find work; they are dropping out of the labor force AND they DO NOT WANT A JOB.

More people who ARE working....

We now have 2,270,000 MORE people who are employed than we did a year ago.  (That's an increase of about 1.7%.)  There are studies that seem to show that, while we have more people back at work, many of these people are working at jobs that are below their skill level and many are working temporary, though full-time jobs.  But, nonetheless, they are working vs. dropping out of the labor market.

If you still have assets, you have a choice.

Which makes sense.  If you are in desperate need of money and you no longer have unemployment benefits, how do you survive?  You don't have a choice; if you can find a lousy job, you take it.  But if you no longer have a job and you no longer have unemployment benefits but you DO have assets, you DO have a choice:  Wouldn't you stop looking for work, drop out of the labor force, and scale back your retirement plans rather than take a lousy job, particularly if you are only a few years away from Social Security?  You might not be able to get hired for those lousy jobs anyway.    

Look for more information and a breakdown on the people "not in the labor force" later this week.

All information and numbers used come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics databases and tables and/or monthly employment situation reports.  Details provided upon request.

Get Rid of Medicare: Zachary Won't Need It

Click HERE:  Let's Get Rid of Medicare:  Zachary Won't Need It

Let's Get Rid of Medicare: Zachary Won't Need It

A Blast From the Past:  The Republicans STILL Want to Dismantle Medicare, Privatize Social Security, etc.

Why We Still Need The Social Safety Net; Why We Can't Elect Trump and other Republicans to Shut These Programs Down  (Updated September 26, 2016):

I wrote the original of the article Let's Get Rid of Medicare; Zachary Won't Need It! back in 2012 during the Presidential primaries.  It was my response to people debating the future of our social safety net.  Perhaps it could be a response today to people who think that Gary Johnson and the Libertarians might have the answers they want.  

Cold Old People Found Here

The social safety net will certainly be at risk if Trump is elected and Republicans hold onto the Senate and the House.  The misery that this would bring to millions of people is hard to even fathom.. What is harder to fathom right now is that this election is so close.

So, before you vote, think.. Think about what you want this country to be.  Think about your own future.  Think about the future of people you know and love. Think about the future of people you don't... but don't want to condemn to a "retirement" of misery and abject poverty.

Let's Get Rid Of Medicare!  Zachary Won't Need It!

Let's Get Rid of Medicare: Zachary Won't Need It!

A Blast From the Past:  The Republicans STILL Want to Dismantle Medicare, Privatize Social Security, etc. 

Why We Still Need The Social Safety Net; Why We Can't Elect Trump and other Republicans to Shut These Programs Down  (Updated September 26, 2016):

The Republicans want to dismantle Medicare:  

The Facebook conversation about Social Security and Medicare was lively with people talking about possible fixes to these programs and about their future financial issues:

Michael wrote:

"Medicare and social security can be fixed! The GOP doesn't consider fixing it an option."

Zachary wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security because, well, he's special! 

Zachary, who must be in his late 20's or early 30's,  replied:

"Getting rid of it seems like a perfect fix to me. I can take care of myself better than the government can, clearly. I mean look, all this money I am paying into Social Security and Medicare and what am I going to get out of it 35 years from now? Even IF I get a little of what I am paying for in the end, I would absolutely get MUCH more if I invested it myself. 

Some people are stupid, I understand that. If you don't trust yourself to prepare for your own future then by all means, give your money to the government and hope that they will take care of you.

But I'm not stupid, and I should have the CHOICE of investing my own money in my own future... it is called liberty! Maybe you have heard of it Linda? If not, you can read all about it in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution ;)

And Linda, I think you are smart for wanting Medicare and SS to stick around. You are close to retirement. I can understand why you want me to keep paying into it... so that you can have that money for your retirement. I can't really hold that against you, after all, you paid into it your entire life too so that your parents generation could retire.

However, can you understand why I want to keep my money? I am afraid it won't be there when it is time for me to retire. Besides that, I KNOW I can create a better retirement for myself if I was able to invest MY own money in MY own retirement.

Robert is right. Eventually we need to stop this kick-the-can-down-the-road Ponzi scheme before we run out of road. It can't work forever and my generation, as it is seeming, is going to be the ones who get screwed. But what does your generation care? You'll be long gone by that time.... like true Ponzi scheme fashion. Shameful!

Ah, Zachary, the folly of youth!

Zachary, it is clear that you are young and don't understand what may yet befall you.

They changed the social security retirement age when I was in my early 30's.  We were all healthy, employed at good paying jobs, and we'd thought we'd keep that good health and those good high-paying jobs (that enabled us to save bundles) forever.  Very few people complained when they raised that retirement age because we thought,   "It won't happen to us; we'll never have to depend on social security."  

What the future holds for us

Now many of those same healthy fully-employed people are disabled, sick, out of work (and not likely to be rehired).  Some wound up with children with disabilities or other problems who required (or still require) significant cash outlays for their care and upkeep.  I know people who were pushed out of their high-paying jobs when they were 50 or 55 and still had children at home to support.  They never again made the money they used to make, and, even though they had been saving regularly, they found that their savings were simply not enough to get through years of low-paying or no-paying jobs until retirement.  I know people who started businesses, sometimes after such a layoff, and the businesses went bust...  taking most of their retirement savings with them.

There is a reason that these social safety net programs were set up and there is a reason that those nasty old liberal Democrats (and some caring Republicans in the past) supported them:  BECAUSE WITHOUT HEALTH CARE and SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE OLD AND the SICK, the ELDERLY and the SICK WERE LIVING IN ABJECT POVERTY, OFTEN SUFFERING AND DYING OF PREVENTABLE DISEASES.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.

Many in the younger generation have NO IDEA what life was like without these "social safety nets" that you scorn.  Most of your parents, people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's, don't know.  The generation that remembers the misery of people who simply could not "save" for retirement is mostly gone.  It's too bad that you didn't pay attention in American history...   There were plenty of books, plenty of stories of people living in misery and squalor here in the United States.  We still have people in poverty, but it is nothing now like it was.        

Zachary, maybe you are one of the superior few who can work enough and save enough and be lucky enough to never need Disability, Social Security, or Medicare... but first of all, as I said, you really have no idea what the future will hold for you, and secondly:  Don't you have one shred of humanity in you to want to make sure that the least of your fellow countrymen don't live and die in misery?  Remember that Social Security and Medicare are not necessarily for you.  They are for all of us. 


Do the words "We the People" mean nothing to you.. despite your seeming desire to invoke the Constitution?

Buffett Rule Blocked. Obama Talks About Being "Blessed"

The Buffett Rule was blocked by the Senate Republicans a few days back.  

Buffett and Obama talk taxes. Newscom 

Here's part of what President Obama said about the Buffet rule: 

"The tax proposal, Obama said on Sunday, is “not an argument about redistribution” of wealth. Instead, he said, "we're making an argument about how do we grow the economy so that it's going to prosper in this competitive 21st century environment," he said. "The only way we're going to do that is if people like me, who have been incredibly blessed, are willing to give a little bit back so that the next generation coming along can succeed as well.”"

Republicans "blessed"?  Naw..  They EARNED every dime!


Republicans will never say that they have their wealth because they were "blessed"; they will say that they have their wealth because they "worked hard".  That they were able to "work hard" because they weren't ill, because they received seed money from an inheritance, or because they were lucky enough to get more brains than the next guy due to the grace of God or the Fates never crosses their minds.

Republicans will never talk about their capacity to walk over people, ignore people, and hurt people in their way to golden riches; they will say they "planned ahead" or "made good choices".  They often see themselves as "superior" to the people they often trashed on the way to the gold mines.


But some people know they are lucky, gifted, blessed..

So, isn't it great to have a graduate of Harvard, a man who is well-off... and could even be better-off if he didn't go into politics... admit that there was some element of "blessings" in the brains that got him to Harvard?       

Obama wants people who are gifted, as he was, to pay back "a little" so that we can all have a stronger country.  But, of course, the Senate did not have the 60 votes needed to get this passed.  Republicans.. again.     


This is no surprise. But hopefully the Democrats can use this in their campaigns against the Republicans in November.

From the article:

Democrats have tried to use the alleged unfairness of the tax code as a campaign weapon against GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who paid federal income tax of $3.2 million on income of nearly $21 million in 2011, for an effective tax rate of 15 percent. Much of Romney’s income came from capital gains on his investments. Capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, while the top marginal tax rate on earned income is 35 percent.

That unemployed guy who made $21 million NEEDS and DESERVES his 15% tax rate while the declining middle class often pays more.  


But the Republicans blocked the Buffett rule.  We don't want to harm those "job creators" now, do we?           

Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Numbers: Yes, No, Maybe So?

Weekly initial first-time unemployment claims were down 2,000 this week.  

But according to the "pundits", this wasn't enough of a drop and the sky is falling.. or at least, starting to fall.  From MSN:

In economic news, the number of first-time requests for jobless benefits fell by 2,000 to 386,000 during the week ended April 14 from a revised 388,000 in the previous week. Economists had expected claims to drop by 10,000 to 370,000 from the originally reported 380,000, according to economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters. The four-week moving average was 374,750, an increase of 5,500 from the previous week's 369,250. 

Bloomberg apparently also had a negative spin on the numbers.: 

More Americans than forecast filed applications for unemployment benefits last week, a sign the improvement in labor-market conditions may be stalling.  

As I mentioned last week, seasonal adjustments are a bit tricky in early April and may make the initial claims numbers seem as though they are going up when they are in fact going down... or they are at least even.

We know that, over the past two years, the unemployment rate has come down and the number of jobs along with the number of people who are employed has come up.  Layoffs are decreasing and, overall, first time unemployment claims are decreasing.  

Here's a chart showing comparisons among this year and two previous years in first-time unemployment claims in March and April:

Notice that there is a bump in the first or second week of April in all three years, and then it subsides.  Also notice how much lower the first time claims are in 2012 (red) vs. 2011 (green) vs. 2010 (blue).

But the naysayers are, as usual, just thrilled to announce something fairly neutral as negative.  Just remember, weekly claims are volatile and need to be taken with a grain of salt.     

Private-Sector Job Growth Higher Under Obama Than Bush?

Share these numbers with your Republican and Romney-supporting friends!

How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (July 2014 update)

The 25 months of private sector job growth under Obama has provided more jobs as a percentage than the equivalent 25 months of private sector job growth under Bush.  The margin is only a few hundredths of a percent (3.77% increase for Bush vs. 3.79% for Obama), but it does favor Obama. 

Both George Bush and Barack Obama experienced economic and employment turmoil in the months after they took office.

Bush's problems

Though jobs numbers were still high when George Bush was inaugurated in January 2001, the dot.com bubble had burst, and jobs numbers were starting to decrease.  This was exacerbated by the 9/11 terrorist attack that took place 8 months after his inauguration.  Jobs numbers started plummeting downward and did not hit bottom until August 2003, two and a half years after Bush's presidency started.  Job growth continued with few monthly declines for four years, until the last year of his presidency.

Obama's problems

Barack Obama assumed office with a MUCH more challenging economic situation.  The housing bubble had burst two and a half years before he took office, and the repercussions were widely felt during the year before his election.  Two months before the election, we faced a total collapse of the banking system and the stock market lost a higher percentage of value than it had since the Great Depression.  4,500,000 jobs had already been lost before he took the oath of office, including an average of 760,000 jobs lost monthly in each of the three months before he took office.  Jobs numbers did not hit bottom for a year after he was inaugurated, not until February 2010.  Private sector job growth has continued every month since that trough in early 2010, with now 25 months of private sector job growth.

How does job growth under these two presidents compare if we look at job growth since the bottom going forward 25 months?

We'll compare with and without government jobs.  Government jobs, particularly at the state and local levels, have been hit hard with budget cutbacks after the recent recession and have not started to recover, and we may lose more as there is tremendous pressure to continue eliminating jobs at all government levels.  However, private sector jobs have started to recover.

Total jobs (including government jobs):

Bush:  

• At "trough" (August 2003):  129,820,000
• 25 months later (September 2005):    134,240,000
• Plus 4,420,000 jobs, for a total percentage increase of  3.4%.
• An average of 176,800 total jobs were added per month in those 25 months.

Obama: 

• At "trough" (February 2010):  129,244,000
• 25 months later (March 2012):  132,821,000
• Plus 3,577,000 jobs, for a percentage increase of 2.8%.
• An average of 143,080 total jobs were added per month in those 25 months.

Bush still leads Obama overall due to an increase in government jobs during those years.  During those first 25 months of recovery in 2003 through 2005, 325,000 jobs were added at all levels of government (federal, state, local). During the first 25 months of this recovery, we've had to cut 474,000 jobs, mostly in education and other services at the local (city, town, county) level.  (And the Republicans say that the Democrats are the big government spenders?)  However, in private sector jobs, Obama's record  has started to eclipse Bush's record and is now ahead of him as a percentage increase:   

Total private jobs:

Bush:  

• At "trough" (July 2003):  108,232,000
• 25 months later (August 2005):  112,311,000
• Plus 4,079,000 jobs, for a percentage increase of  3.77%.
• An average of 163,160 private sector jobs were added each month during those 25 months.

Obama:  

• At "trough" (February 2010):  106,773,000
• 25 months later (March 2012):  110,824,000
• Plus 4,051,000 jobs, for a percentage increase of  3.79%
• An average of 162,040 private sector jobs were added each month during those 25 months.

What might have been....

We can only imagine how many more jobs we'd have and how much farther we'd be on the way to recovery without obstructionist Republicans waging war on public education, particularly at the state and local levels.

Other Comparisons of Jobs Numbers Between Bush and Obama:

I came across the following comment about the labor force and job growth during the Bush years.  My explanation and rebut is below the comment:

The number of Americans 'not in the labor force' had risen steadily under Bush (although Bush did also create millions of net jobs - six million in his second term, which is rather more impressive than Obama's net 129,000 to date) - but the rate of its increase became steeper the day Obama was sworn in and has kept up that accelerated pace since (which is why there are now nearly 90 million Americans 'not in the labor force' but conveniently omitted from headline unemployment stats). 

The "number of people not in the labor force", the inverse of the number of people IN the labor force, did go up throughout Bush's term as it continues to go up now.  


Obama is actually doing better in terms of creating jobs, coming from a much worse jobs situation, than Bush at the same point in his presidency.  You talk about 6 million jobs created under Bush:  From the "trough" of jobs under Bush, in summer 2003, until the "peak" of jobs in January 2008, when everything started to crash, 8.2 million jobs were created.  But most of those were created during Bush's second term.  At the same time from the "trough" of jobs, 26 months after hitting bottom, in September 2005 (in Bush's second term), 4,500,000 jobs had been created.  But private job creation in that same time frame was only 4,163,000 compared to 4,248,000 private sector jobs now, in 26 months, under Obama. 


There is no evidence that the "rate of increase" of people not in the labor force became steeper the day Obama took office.  The number and rate of people "not in the labor force" has continued to grow since the late 90's as the number of people 55+ has increased.  The pace of retirements has been accelerated by the recession, but blaming this on Obama is just plain silly.  For heaven's sake, Republicans, let's let people retire!  47,000,000 out of the 89,000,000 people "not in the labor force" (not employed or actively looking for work) are 55+.      

Is Obama Lying About Unemployment Again?

Unemployment:  Is Obama misleading the American people... or are things really improving?

(Update February 18, 2013:  I wrote this article in April 2012, about a year ago.  The unemployment numbers have improved, but the basic tenets of this article still hold.  I've read the same criticisms that Obama is "cooking the books" or "lying" from someone almost every month.) 

Every time the jobs numbers come out, there's a flurry of articles about how "Obama is cooking the books", the unemployment rate is really not better,  millions of people are so miserable they are dropping out of the labor force, etc.  And now that the unemployment rate is coming down, Republicans and other conservatives begin to urge the use of alternate unemployment numbers. 

I found another article along this line here, posted at the Sevier County News. 

There seems to be one big purpose of the Sevier County article:  The author is trying to make a case for the U-6 underemployment rate to be used and discussed vs. the U-3 official unemployment rate.  Now, the U-6 has been around since the early 90's.  It's always been available, published every month along with the U-3, official unemployment rate.  But the U-3 is the unemployment rate that is always discussed and compared.  It's not perfect, which is why the BLS also includes the U-6 numbers.  But that doesn't mean that the Obama administration is attempting to deceive the American people as the BLS publishes the same U-3 unemployment rate that has been used for decades.  Read on.

Official vs. alternate unemployment rates

Let's look at this, one sentence or paragraph at a time:

President Barack Obama continues to mislead the American public by under reporting the unemployment statistics in the nation. This deliberate attempt to conceal the true unemployment picture is intended to convince the voter that all is well and the economy is recovering. In fact, a closer examination of the true statistics, reveal nothing is further from the truth.  

Through effective data-twisting from the White House and their compliant allies in the news media, the Bureau of Labor Statistics'  reports the unemployment rate at 8.3 percent, when in fact it is closer to 15.1 percent according to leading economists. 

The official unemployment rate has been calculated the same way for decades.  To assert or imply that somehow Obama changed the way the unemployment rate is calculated in an attempt to mislead the American people is appalling and shows incredible ignorance of the whole process of computing unemployment statistics.  The author says that the unemployment rate is closer to "15.1 percent according to leading economists".  No source.  No names.  No statistics.  I take it that he is referring to the official U-6 underemployment rate which is published every month as part of the monthly BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Employment Situation report, but he doesn't make that clear.

And....  the government reports the U-6 rate.  They publish is right along with the U-3 rate.  So.. who is trying to conceal what?  

One inescapable fact continues to hound the president. No president has won re- election since the Great Depression when the unemployment rate was more than 8 percent.  But a 15.1 percent unemployment rate makes the prospect of a second term much more remote.

When people have mentioned that "no president has won reelection" stuff they are talking about the regular, official U-3 unemployment rate, NOT the wider U-6 underemployment rate.  We have never used the U-6 underemployment rate when discussing "official" unemployment.

And no President has had to contend with such an incredible economic crisis since Roosevelt.  So we're still looking at the U-3 number when we talk about whether or not Obama is re-electable. Reagan was re-elected, after a recession of his own making, with an unemployment rate of  7.4%.  He took office with a decreasing unemployment rate of 7.5% .  Obama took office with an unemployment rate of 7.8% that was rising relentlessly.  

Dig deeper into the unemployment stats  and you will find that the real-honest-to-God national jobless rate is much higher than 8.3 percent because the true picture includes numbers BLS leaves out of its employment equation.  

The BLS does not include in its unemployment statistics the number of Americans that has given up looking for a job and dropped out of the workforce and those who are forced to take temp jobs or are working fewer hours. The underemployed seem to be the forgotten Americans in the latest unemployment stats.

"Dig deeper into the unemployment stats":  Where in particular should we dig?  First of all, if the underemployed are "forgotten" now, they HAVE ALWAYS BEEN forgotten in the counting of the unemployed.  

There are alternative numbers that tell us how many people have dropped out of the labor force.  Not only that, but there are also numbers that tell us how many of those people who have dropped out of the labor force still "want a job".  My sense is that the author doesn't even know these numbers are available. 

But these underemployment numbers have NEVER been included in the regular unemployment numbers, not under Bush, not under Clinton, not under Bush I.  Don't blame this on Obama!
    
Those Pesky Seasonal Adjustment Factors

In January the president made the announcement the economy was improving and more than 300,000 jobs had been created in December. What he failed to mention was that these jobs were seasonal jobs and temporary. He also failed to mention that working age adults not participating in the labor force--those neither employed nor looking for work -- increased by 88,000."

First of all, the number of jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) reported as added in December was 200,000, not 300,000.  The author or this piece needs to check his sources.  As to the increase being temporary jobs, the author clearly does not understand employment trends nor does the author understand seasonal adjustment factors.  

• The number of  "raw" not seasonally adjusted jobs has gone DOWN between November and December every year since 2000.  
• In December 2011, there was a real "raw" decrease of 220,000 jobs.  Employers do most of their  seasonal hiring in October and November and many of them start to lay people off by mid-December, when the jobs numbers are actually reported.
• However, the real "raw" decrease of 220,000 in December 2011 is less than it has been in 6 out of the past 11 years.  As a result, the seasonally adjusted number of jobs which is (and always has been) the number reported to the media went up in December 2011. 

Though this author didn't look at January numbers, here's some information about those numbers:  In seasonally adjusted numbers, 243,000 jobs were reported as added in January (later revised to a job gain of 275,000).  But in "raw" numbers of jobs, 2,689,000 jobs were lost between December and January.  This extreme loss of jobs happens every January.  However, the average loss of jobs between December and January over the past 8 years has been 2,912,000 in "real" numbers.  So, based on recent history, this year's loss of 2,689,000 was a great improvement.  That's how a real loss in jobs turns into a seasonally adjusted gain.  Since January, we have added back (in real numbers) about 1,700,000 jobs.     

So we actually, in real numbers, LOST jobs between December and January.  And we lost fewer than we normally do.  

Those Helplessly Hopeless Terribly Discouraged People who are Dropping out of the Labor Force

About the number of people "not in the labor force" increasing by 88,000 between December and January.. I have no idea again where this author got his figures.  (Does free speech really mean that people can say whatever they want to say, publish statistics without any back up or sources?)         

Actually the number of people not in the labor force increased by about 1,200,000 between December and January due to Census adjustments.  I'm not going to get into the whole Census adjustment thing again.  You can read about it HERE. I'm currently working on an article that talks about the increase in the "not in the labor force" people.  We actually know quite a bit about them, and we know that very few actually want a job.  

Will the economy slow down and the unemployment rate head back up?

More ominous for Obama and his bid to be a two-term president is that most economic forecasters do not see the jobless rate falling below 8 percent by November. The economy appears to be slowing down and with it, new job creation, economists say.

We'll just have to wait and see, but 4 million new private sector jobs with so much opposition from conservatives is pretty darned good.  And Obama's opponent will be Rmoney, who was the governor of Massachusetts when it held the 47th place in job creation.  Rmoney know how to layoff people.. he likes firing them; he's already said that, but he really doesn't know how to create jobs.  And I'm not sure why people like this author and others who agree with him think they have anything in common with a guy who banked 21 million bucks while being unemployed..   Money he ultimately made off the backs of workers like themselves and their families while he was employed at Bain Capital.         

"Going forward, unemployment is not likely to fall much further and could rise again," says University of Maryland's Business School economist Peter Morici, who has been severely critical of the president's sorry jobs record.

I'll let this comment go, as I don't know this man's politics, but let's face it:  Republicans and their supporters desperately want the economy to stall and the American people to be miserable, believing that the low information masses will vote the Republicans back into office.

Time will tell what the unemployment rate will do.  But, with the Baby Boomers born in 1946 hitting the age at which they can take full social security, expect the unemployment rate to continue downward this year as those people exit the labor market.     

"Fourth-quarter growth was stronger as the global economy recovered from first-half disruptions such as the earthquake in Japan, but going forward, economists expect growth to slow to about 2 percent," Morici said.

Those Helplessly Hopeless Terribly Discouraged People who are Dropping out of the Labor Force Part 2

This highlights the big under-reported story in Obama's persistently lackluster jobs record: the rapidly declining labor force participation rate.

"In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7 percent, the most rapid decline in U.S. history," writes economist Peter Ferrara.

"That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair," Ferrara adds....

“They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century," says Ferrara. "But they are not counted in that 8.3 percent unemployment rate that  Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week."

Oh, please.  There is NO indication that 5 million people have left the workforce due to "hopeless despair" and any economist worth two cents ought to know that.

There is NO indication that most of the people Not in the Labor Force "desperately need and want jobs".  The BLS publishes numbers of people who are not in the labor force, and it tells us why many of them are not in the labor force.  Not only that, but it tells us how many of these people "want a job" and how many are "discouraged".  If 5 million people have left the labor force out of "hopeless despair", one would expect that the numbers of people who "want a job" and the numbers of people who are "discouraged" would have gone up at least by a couple of million.     

But it just ain't so!  The number of people not in the labor force who "want a job" (which includes people who haven't looked for work for over a year) was at 5,866,000 when Obama took office in January 2009.  It peaked at 7,124,000 in summer 2011.  It is now 6,041,000, barely higher than it was when Obama took office.  

And those "discouraged" workers (who are a subset of those who "want a job")!  (To be "officially" discouraged, you need to have looked for work within the past year, but not within the past month.  You also have to be available for work, meaning no illness, family responsibilities, school responsibilities, or the like that would keep you from a job.)   The number of discouraged workers was at 734,000 when Obama took office in January 2009.  It peaked at 1,207,000 in June 2010, and it is now at 865,000,  just 100,000 more than when Obama took the oath of office.

The Continuing Myth of the Helplessly Hopeless 

The myth that millions of people have left the labor force due to "hopeless despair" is just that:  A Myth.  There is absolutely NO proof of it.  But, just as we still have "birthers", even after Obama has done more to demonstrate his natural-born citizenship than any other President has done or has had to do, we also have "hopeless despair-ers" who insist the unemployment rate is coming down because millions of people have left the labor force in "hopeless despair" despite the fact that there is no evidence of this.

The nightly network news made a big deal of the 243,000 new jobs that were created in January, but what they did not report was that 1.2 million discouraged workers had simply dropped out of the workforce, Ferrara reported.

But they were not counted among the unemployed because they had ceased looking for a job and that sent the unemployment rate down.

No... Is this guy really an economist?   Pretty pathetic excuse for one, I must say.  

The 1,200,000 people who were added to the "not in the labor force" bucket in January were added due to Census adjustments.  I'll repeat the link I mentioned above HERE.

“They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century," says Ferrara. "But they are not counted in that 8.3 percent unemployment rate that  Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week."

Add these discouraged dropouts and Obama's shameful unemployment rate climbs to 11 percent. Still, that is not the true rate of unemployment.

If you have never before counted the discouraged people in the official unemployment number before, why would you count them now?  Why is it more important to count them now, while Obama is President, than it was to count them when Bush I or Bush II or Clinton was President?  Could it be that now, since the official unemployment rate is coming down to something approaching a re-electable number, the President's opponents are trying to think of ways to make it look as if this achievement is simply not that remarkable?

Remember, we have exactly 130,000 more "hopeless and discouraged" workers than we did when Obama was inaugurated.  And the U-6 unemployment rate, the one that includes these discouraged workers, all of the marginally-attached workers, and the people working part-time who want full-time jobs is now 14.8 in seasonally unadjusted numbers and 14.5 in seasonally adjusted numbers.  What was it when Obama took the oath of office?  15.4 in seasonally unadjusted numbers, and 14.2 in seasonally adjusted numbers.  Please remember... those numbers were going up and quickly when Obama took the oath of office and they are going down quickly now.         

There is more fuzzy math  in the BLS's statistics. Another 2.8 million, BLS said, "wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months,"

But they weren't counted as unemployed because they said they had not looked for a job in the previous four weeks.

I'm going to assume that the author is talking about the "marginally attached workers" who have also NEVER been counted in the official unemployment count, but always included in the U-6 count.  (By the way, the "discouraged workers" discussed above are a subset of these marginally-attached workers.)

Now there is a report that the BLS puts out, the "Persons Not in the Labor Force" report, that tells us about these marginally attached workers.  (According to the BLS, "marginally attached workers" are those who "want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.")         

Here are the numbers for these marginally attached people, compared to the numbers when Obama took office where available: 

• Total marginally attached workers (includes discouraged workers)-  Now:  2,352,000.  January 2009:  2,130,000
• Total discouraged workers (a subset of the marginally attached workers)- Now:  865,000.  January 2009:  734,000
• Total who did not search for work for SOME OTHER REASON than discouragement- Now: 1,488,000. January 2009:  1,296,000.  
• The breakdown for some of those "some other reasons" now (This breakdown is not available for January 2009):  Family responsibilities:  252,000.  School or training:  321,000. Ill health or disability:  139,000.  Other reasons that these people haven't looked for work in the past four weeks, including transportation and child care problems:  776,000.  

All of these workers, discouraged drop-outs and the so-called "underemployed" forced to work part-time or temp jobs, pushes the real jobless unemployment rate to 15.1 percent.

First of all, we have to make sure we aren't counting those 865,000 discouraged workers twice.  They are a subset of the 2,352,000 marginally attached workers.  If this is the "real" jobless rate, then it has always been the real jobless rate.  You can't say that we need to count these people because Obama is President, but we didn't need to count these people when anybody else was President.  Tell me, author of this article, why are you counting these people now and you didn't count them when Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, or Clinton were President? 

The Magic of Numbers:  Unemployment in the States? 

How the BLS arrived at an 8.3 percent unemployment rate is difficult to ascertain considering 16 states, including the most populated, had jobless rates that fell between 12.3 percent and 8 percent in February.Among them: Nevada, 12.3 percent; Rhode Island, 11 percent; California, 10.9 percent; North Carolina, 9.9 percent; Florida, 9.4 percent; Georgia and Illinois, 9.1 percent; New Jersey, 9 percent; Michigan, 8.8 percent; Kentucky, 8.7 percent; and New York, 8.5 percent.

It may not look the same, but I just put all of the states' labor force numbers and their unemployed numbers on a spreadsheet and calculated the unemployment rate from the state data.  I came out with (for February 2012) 8.281%.  That's just a hair shy of the 8.3% published as the February unemployment rate.  Try it yourself, author of this article, if you think the state numbers don't "look" like they match the national unemployment rate.  Take out the cities (which are included with the states), and take out Puerto Rico.  


What Does the Word "Improvement" Mean?  Look it up!

Obama insists we're moving in the right direction, even though unemployment rates remain very high by historical standards. Economists say the unemployment figures are still dreadful.

We are moving in the right direction, dunce.  Every number shows that we are ALMOST back to where we were when Obama took the oath of office in the most miserable economy since the Great Depression.  Yes, unemployment rates are still high.  But "dreadful"?  Well, the corporate types who want to manipulate the people into voting the Republicans back into office would have you believe they are "dreadful", but considering the situation that Obama inherited and the constant Republican obstruction, they are really quite remarkable.   


Comparing the Recession that Obama Inherited with 2003 or Reagan's Recession?

"The unemployment rate today, 10 quarters after the end of the recession, is still a full two percentage points higher than it was during the peak of the last recession in 2003," Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster told Human Events.

This recession is nothing like the recession in 2002-2003, not in size, not in scope or length.  Anyone who thinks it is, like this joker from the Heritage Organization, does not deserve the title of "economist".   

In the fourth year of Ronald Reagan's presidency, after a deep recession, unemployment was 7.5 percent. It was a tame 5.8 percent in 2008, the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. Can Obama do any better? So far he hasn't.

The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took the oath of office, not 5.8%.  Anyone who says that we should believe the 5.8% percent rate (which was the unemployment rate overall during 2008) when the economy was tanking at double speed during the year of 2008 is trying to deceive you and me.  


Ask yourself why someone wants you to believe that things are so much worse than they are.  The number of people who were unemployed when Obama took the oath of office was 12,049,000 using the official U-3 number.  The number of people who are unemployed now is 12,763,000 (using the official numbers seasonally adjusted.)  

And Reagan inherited a DECLINING unemployment rate and an INCREASING GDP from Carter.  The economy was NOT in a recession when Reagan took office.  Try this article on the differing situations between Obama and Reagan.  Again, anyone who doesn't know this should not call himself an economist.  He either doesn't know what he is talking about or he is intentionally trying to deceive the easily led.      

Even Obama's supporters in the news media think he has failed miserably on the economic front, especially on jobs.  Liberal New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman says, "things are not O.K. -- not remotely O.K. This is still a terrible economy."

Krugman is a Keynesian who feels that there is not enough stimulation of the economy and he wants more intervention and stimulation.  Is that what the author of this article and the people defaming Obama want?  And here is Krugman's whole article.  The last paragraph from Krugman's article, copied below, paints a much different picture of Krugman's comment than the sliver lifted above out of some right-wing rag.

And every time we get a bit of good news, the purge-and-liquidate types pop up, saying that it’s time to stop focusing on job creation.

Sure enough, no sooner were the new numbers out than James Bullard, the president of the St. Louis Fed, declared that the new numbers make further Fed action to promote growth unnecessary. And the sad truth is that the good jobs numbers have definitely made it less likely that the Fed will take the expansionary action it should.

So here’s what needs to be said about the latest numbers: yes, we’re doing a bit better, but no, things are not O.K. — not remotely O.K. This is still a terrible economy, and policy makers should be doing much more than they are to make it better.

In Summary

The jobs numbers are almost back to where it was when Obama took office, and that's no small feat.  We've added over 4,000,000 private sector jobs since the "trough" of the recession, despite serious government cutbacks and despite constant Republican obstruction and out-and-out lies.

Yes, many people are still struggling.  The poverty rates and the numbers of people on food stamps are unfortunately "lagging indicators".  They simply won't get better until we have more jobs that are better and it's going to be hard for Obama or any President to fix that as long as corporations have so much power in the United States.  The issue isn't laziness or some kind of moral turpitude; the issue is lack of decent-paying jobs.  It's a lack that has been building for the past ten years or more.

But still things are looking up:  In late 2008 and 2009, when I would punch in "Chicago - All jobs" on Careerbuilder's search engine, I would get 7,000 to 8,000 jobs.  A few weeks ago, this same search gave me over 13,000 jobs.  And today... almost 16,000.  Something is happening out there, no matter how much the naysayers try to keep it from happening and want to convince us that it isn't happening.