Interesting chart

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.

This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.

I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.

You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.

Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.

The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.

I wasn't so big on the chart, other than it indicating gains in jobs in the private sector and to point out that employment is getting better, slowly. Some people want to say that the economy is worse, so it's just some evidence against that.

UpSideDown

inlet13 wrote:

I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.

This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.

I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.

You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.

Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.

The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.

/ end thread

Go Beavers

UpSideDown wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.

This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.

I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.

You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.

Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.

The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.

/ end thread

Too condescending to end on. Someone needs to respond to make this spin out on a tangent.

inmytree

inlet13 wrote:

I'll say this: it's "change" not "levels". The US could lose a huge amount of private sector jobs (which we did during the recession), then gain one job and move into positive territory in "change", yet still be down x amount of jobs since the recession started.

This implies Obama's performance is terrific because the "rate of job loss" has decreased under his administration. Which is retarded.

I say lay off Obama for now (I like the fact that he caught OBL), but this is the same guy who said the unemployment rate would not move above 8.5% during his presidency and it's been above 8.5% for his entire presidency.

You are all here to just hear your selves talk. This chart is not really a great chart at all because it's misleading and clearly politically motivated. If you look at the unemployment rate, it increased from 6.8% when Obama was inaugurated to over 10% during his presidency and has slid to 8.8% now. Each is higher then Bush ever had. Meanwhile, the misery index (inflation rate plus unemployment rate) has also been above Bush every month he's been in office.

Depends on the indicator you look at to decide who was better, but I'd bet if you had to look at who had better indicators going into their 2nd election it will be Bush. Why? Cause circumstances are different.

The bottom line is business cycles occur. Presidents can do certain things to combat them, but they don't really do that much. Take econ 101 people. Until then, please understand that one chart can easily be combated with another chart.

"You are all here to just hear your selves talk"...thanks for joining us...

anyway, I'm not sure what the point this ramble...are you saying charts are useless and they shouldn't created...?

yes, business cycles occur, thanks for the reminder...this chart looks to capture a positive trending business cycle...thanks for clearing that up... :thumbup: