Whenever i talk with family about Obongo they praise him for having lowered the unemployment rate, yet i hear from people from all over the political spectrum that the unemployment rate has increased under his 8 years of reign.
A argument that i hear alot is that it's actually higher, because people get taken off the list as soon as they give up to look for work.
Is there any proof with source that confirmes it? If not, what are good arguments to counter such pro Obongo claims.
other unknown anti-Obongo administration facts are welcome too
It's called the labor participation rate. As you can see, it's been going down.
And those jobs numbers you hear obongo touting? Well, with all these lay offs, people are taking 2 or 3 crappy paying part time jobs which don't even pay as much combined as the original job they lost. However, on paper, that looks like more jobs - when it's not an improvement.
there are something like 95 million Americans that are now unemployed
all obongo did was change the definition of 'unemployed' to mean that if you stop looking for a job, you're not technically 'unemployed'
Lucas Watson
Thanks, i'll have a read
That's the argument i hear alot, but where's the evidence where he changed the definition?
Nolan Hernandez
He did change the definition. He's conveniently ignoring the better statistics. This is part of the problem the average person has: a complete lack of understanding of statistics.
So I put it to you, user, which statistics have more meaning in the context of our society and economy?
Brayden Lopez
*didn't
Charles Ward
He didn't change it That's how it's always been defined You have to be between 16-60(?) and have been job searching for the last 2 weeks
John Sanchez
Unemployment is something like 30%.
What do you mean? If you’re of working age, not retired, and don’t have a job, you’re unemployed. “looking for work” doesn’t mean unemployed. The nigger wants to pretend that.
Mason Young
No matter what the employment rate is, what really matters is most of the jobs that supposedly "came back" are shit-tier, low pay service industry jobs. Replacing $60K a year jobs with minimum wage ones and bragging about how more people are employed doesn't fucking work.
Jack Johnson
This.
And this.
Nolan Martin
The way the government defines "unemployed" is more like "eligible for unemployment benefits." So if you don't have a job but also don't qualify for unemployment, they will not count you. They just define it in a way that most people would not agree with.
Joshua Flores
Where did you get that 30% figure from?
Michael Ross
Trump. Also here (a little out of date, so it’s higher now).
ZERO engineering jobs have been created this year. The ONLY reason that jobs are being “created” is, literally, bartenders and waiters.
Logan Long
Obama changed the federal definition of "employed" to include part timers and people working like 14 hours a week. It goes beyond politics. This is some commie/1984 write your own history because it's morally required/acceptable.
The Labor Department on Friday announced that only 160,000 jobs were created last month. Put another way, most economists think that is barely enough to absorb even the people looking to enter the job market for the first time, much less give work to the 7.9 million Americans looking for a job.
April’s results were lower than the 208,000 jobs created in March, which was lower than the 233,000 jobs created in February.
You get the trend, here?
But as dispiriting as the 160,000 total is, there’s even, perhaps, a bigger problem — one that led me to believe this week that April jobs growth would exceed Wall Street’s forecast of 200,000.
That bigger problem is this: included in the 160,000 figure are 233,000 phantom jobs that Labor added to the mix. The government each month regularly adds or subtracts phantom jobs, those it believes were created or destroyed — but can’t prove.
The best description I saw was a refutation of Obongo adding 8 million jobs over his 7 years. Sounds like a great improvement huh?
I don't have the actual numbers but the logic goes something like this.
The population of the US grows at about 1% or 3 million per year. So if even half of those people want jobs we need to add 1.5 million per year. Which over 7 years is 10.5 million jobs just to break even.
Suddenly adding 8 million jobs doesnt sound so good does it?
