Another Coincidence?

[Mike at A+]

Isn't it amazing how the published unemployment rate always seems to drop more than the typical 0.1% right before elections?

[ArlJim78]

what a weird coincidence.

before popping the champagne corks understand that the reduction is due to another big decrease in the number of people in the labor force.
#Winning!

[DJofSD]

Ya, but, the labor participation rate tells a different story.

[Mike at A+]

From BLS website ...

[mostpost]

Isn't it amazing how the published unemployment rate always seems to drop more than the typical 0.1% right before elections?
What is not amazing is that you are wrong again. 0.1% is not a typical drop.
Since the height of the Recession, when we had 10.0% unemployment, there have been 27 months in which the unemployment rate dropped. In nine of those months it dropped 0.1%. In twelve of them it dropped 0.2%. So it can be said that 0.2% is the more typical drop. There were also four months in which the rate dropped 0.3% and two months in which it dropped 0.4%; a total of eighteen months. That means that there were twice as many months where the u3 rate dropped more than 0.1% as there were when it dropped only 0.1%.

If you look at only the last two years beginning with October 2012, the contrast is even more stark. Ten months when the U3 rate dropped. Eight times it dropped 0.2% or more. Twice it dropped 0.1%.

[Tom]

Participation in the labor market is at its lowest point in several decades.
That is the 800 gorrilla in the room.

[Mike at A+]

What is not amazing is that you are wrong again. 0.1% is not a typical drop.
Since the height of the Recession, when we had 10.0% unemployment, there have been 27 months in which the unemployment rate dropped. In nine of those months it dropped 0.1%. In twelve of them it dropped 0.2%. So it can be said that 0.2% is the more typical drop. There were also four months in which the rate dropped 0.3% and two months in which it dropped 0.4%; a total of eighteen months. That means that there were twice as many months where the u3 rate dropped more than 0.1% as there were when it dropped only 0.1%.

If you look at only the last two years beginning with October 2012, the contrast is even more stark. Ten months when the U3 rate dropped. Eight times it dropped 0.2% or more. Twice it dropped 0.1%.
And now for the rest of the story.
NO CHANGE in 38 out of 128
UP 0.1 in 29 out of 128
DOWN 0.1 in 20 out of 128
UP 0.2 in 14 out of 128
DOWN 0.2 in 8 out of 128
UP 0.3 in 5 out of 128
DOWN 0.3 in 5 out of 128
UP 0.4 in 2 out of 128
DOWN 0.4 in 4 out of 128
UP 9.5 in 3 out of 128

Unemployment either stayed the same or changed by 0.1% in 87 of 128 observations.

[mostpost]

Participation in the labor market is at its lowest point in several decades.
That is the 800 gorrilla in the room.
Tom, you should feel slighted. You got the memo about the labor participation rate from the Koch Brothers an hour after DJofSD and two hours after ArlJim78.
Obviously your status in the right wing loony bin is not as high as you thought.
The labor participation rate is not as significant a statistic as you think. The rate right now is about the same as it was in the fifties and sixties. The fifties and sixties were a very prosperous era and unemployment (both U3 And U6) was low.

Most of you do not understand what the Labor Participation Rate is. Or rather, you do not understand what the Labor non Participation Rate is. Yes, it does consist of those persons who are out of work and looking for a job; (The U3 rate) yes it does consist of those persons who have stopped looking for a job but still want to work(the U6 rate). But it also includes everyone of working age who does not want a job-housewives, early retirees, students, lottery winners, people caring for sick and elderly relatives, and a host of others.

The U6 rate is a more accurate gauge of unemployment which is frequently referenced here. Unfortunately you guys on the right always get that wrong too. The U6 is supposed to be higher than the U3 because it includes a whole other category. The U3 tells one story; the U6 tells a more complete story.

But here's the thing. Both the U3 and the U6 reached their high point in October 2009. The U3 was 10.0%; the U6 was 17.1%. Today, the U3 is 5.9% while the U6 is 11.8%. The U3 has fallen 41%. The U6 has fallen even more; 44.9%.

[Mike at A+]

Tom, you should feel slighted. You got the memo about the labor participation rate from the Koch Brothers an hour after DJofSD and two hours after ArlJim78.
Obviously your status in the right wing loony bin is not as high as you thought.

Why must you start off every one of your posts with some sort of personal attack or insult? It detracts from the message.

[Clocker]

Most of you do not understand what the Labor Participation Rate is. Or rather, you do not understand what the Labor non Participation Rate is. Yes, it does consist of those persons who are out of work and looking for a job; (The U3 rate) yes it does consist of those persons who have stopped looking for a job but still want to work(the U6 rate). But it also includes everyone of working age who does not want a job-housewives, early retirees, students, lottery winners, people caring for sick and elderly relatives, and a host of others.

Which means, as the rest of the class has shown they understand, as the participation rate declines, all other things being equal, the unemployment rates decline. So a declining unemployment rate can mean more people are working, but it can also mean that more people have stopped looking for work, for whatever reason.


The labor participation rate is not as significant a statistic as you think. The rate right now is about the same as it was in the fifties and sixties. The fifties and sixties were a very prosperous era and unemployment (both U3 And U6) was low.

The economy, and particularly the labor force, are so different today from then as to make any such comparison totally meaningless. That was an era of single-income families. The low participation rate of women in particular was a matter of choice.

Today we live largely in an era of dual-income families. When both people can find work. Back then, a single-income family reflected cultural values. Today, it often reflects economic desperation. Both result in similar labor force participation rates.

[FantasticDan]

I agree, his comment wasn't necessary; everyone knows Tom's undisputed status in the right wing loony bin.. :ThmbUp:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oVytt0FrS4o/T3nBpFci4TI/AAAAAAAABjQ/4LQf8hNi3J0/s400/fraternal_poohbah.jpg

[Clocker]

Why must you start off every one of your posts with some sort of personal attack or insult? It detracts from the message.

If you are out of steak, you have to try to sell some sizzle.

[mostpost]

And now for the rest of the story.
NO CHANGE in 38 out of 128
UP 0.1 in 29 out of 128
DOWN 0.1 in 20 out of 128
UP 0.2 in 14 out of 128
DOWN 0.2 in 8 out of 128
UP 0.3 in 5 out of 128
DOWN 0.3 in 5 out of 128
UP 0.4 in 2 out of 128
DOWN 0.4 in 4 out of 128
UP 9.5 in 3 out of 128

Unemployment either stayed the same or changed by 0.1% in 87 of 128 observations.
Your contention in your original post was that when there was a drop in the unemployment rate, it was typically 0.1%. I proved that wrong over the relevant period.

What is even stranger is the allegation from you and many others here that the Obama administration is cooking the books on the unemployment numbers. Just how do you propose they are doing that? I believe more than 60,000 households are survey by phone and in person. The survey is conducted by the census bureau. The numbers are crunched by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All the raw data is available somewhere. If there was any hanky panky going on, the Republicans in Congress would be all over it.

These surveys are done by career employees. I'm sure there are penalties and jail time for falsifying official reports. Who is going to risk their jobs and their freedom to make any administration look good?

[FantasticDan]

What is even stranger is the allegation from you and many others here that the Obama administration is cooking the books on the unemployment numbers. Just how do you propose they are doing that? I believe more than 60,000 households are survey by phone and in person. The survey is conducted by the census bureau. The numbers are crunched by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All the raw data is available somewhere. If there was any hanky panky going on, the Republicans in Congress would be all over it.It's been factually established plenty of times here that it's impossible for politicians to manipulate unemployment data. As usual, that's had no impact on some people's opinions.

And anyway, what's the implication? That it might affect elections? Well now, I was all ready to vote for Senator Red in November, but did you see that unemployment downtick? It's Senator Blue for me now! :lol:

[Tom]

Most of you do not understand what the Labor Participation Rate is.

WARNING!
SPIN ZONE!
WARNING!

[Tom]

I agree, his comment wasn't necessary; everyone knows Tom's undisputed status in the right wing loony bin.. :ThmbUp:



Yes, it was necessary - your guys can't seem to comprehend it.
So sayth the Grand Puba!

[mostpost]

Which means, as the rest of the class has shown they understand, as the participation rate declines, all other things being equal, the unemployment rates decline. So a declining unemployment rate can mean more people are working, but it can also mean that more people have stopped looking for work, for whatever reason.
We need to know what the reason is. Have they stopped looking because they need a job but can't find one or have they stopped because they choose to pursue other options and have no need nor desire for a job. The LPR is calculated by adding the total number of non-institutionalized people who are employed or seeking employment and dividing that number by the total number on non-institutionalized persons between the ages of 16 and 64. If even 5% of that total number are people who have no desire to work, that would change the LPR upwards by more than 3%.



The economy, and particularly the labor force, are so different today from then as to make any such comparison totally meaningless. That was an era of single-income families. The low participation rate of women in particular was a matter of choice.

Today we live largely in an era of dual-income families. When both people can find work. Back then, a single-income family reflected cultural values. Today, it often reflects economic desperation. Both result in similar labor force participation rates.
It is a different era and not for the better. We need an economy where a single income would support a family according to Teddy Roosevelt's standard, and where there were jobs available for anyone else who wanted a little more. In other words, we need a Democratic economy.

[Mike at A+]

Your contention in your original post was that when there was a drop in the unemployment rate, it was typically 0.1%. I proved that wrong over the relevant period.

What is even stranger is the allegation from you and many others here that the Obama administration is cooking the books on the unemployment numbers. Just how do you propose they are doing that? I believe more than 60,000 households are survey by phone and in person. The survey is conducted by the census bureau. The numbers are crunched by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All the raw data is available somewhere. If there was any hanky panky going on, the Republicans in Congress would be all over it.

These surveys are done by career employees. I'm sure there are penalties and jail time for falsifying official reports. Who is going to risk their jobs and their freedom to make any administration look good?
I will rephrase. A CHANGE OF MORE THAN 0.1% IN A SINGLE MONTH IS UNLIKELY. That is what I meant and I should have been more clear. I think most people knew what I meant.

[DJofSD]

Yes, it was necessary - your guys can't seem to comprehend it.
So sayth the Grand Puba!

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/praising-the-lord-smiley-emoticon.gif

[Mike at A+]

It is a different era and not for the better. We need an economy where a single income would support a family according to Teddy Roosevelt's standard, and where there were jobs available for anyone else who wanted a little more. In other words, we need a Democratic economy.
But private sector job creators can't print money. So where do all these increases come from?

[mostpost]

It's been factually established plenty of times here that it's impossible for politicians to manipulate unemployment data. As usual, that's had no impact on some people's opinions.

And anyway, what's the implication? That it might affect elections? Well now, I was all ready to vote for Senator Red in November, but did you see that unemployment downtick? It's Senator Blue for me now! :lol:
How shallow of you. You need high standards like I have. I plan to vote for Sen. Durbin, but two gallons a month of ice cream from Mr. Oberwies' dairy could change my mind. :lol:

[Clocker]

In other words, we need a Democratic economy.

We have had a Democratic economy for 5 years. Median income is down during that time, during a "recovery". Income inequality is up. The number of people working is back up to 2008 levels, but the population is now 15 million higher. The labor force participation rate is at a modern low. Major cities are in deep financial trouble, if not actually bankrupt. I think we have had about as much of that kind of recovery as we can stand.

[Clocker]

We need to know what the reason is. Have they stopped looking because they need a job but can't find one or have they stopped because they choose to pursue other options and have no need nor desire for a job.

I'm sure that the reason is that ObamaCare has freed them from job lock, and they have all gone off to pursue their passions, becoming writers and photographers and poets.

Pursue other options? :D :D :D Is that you, Nancy???

[Clocker]

From zerohedge.com (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03/labor-participation-rate-drops-36-year-low-record-926-million-americans-not-labor-fo)

While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

And while the official unemployment rate has dropped, the employment -population ratio is virtually stagnant under this administration. I guess that shows that as the population grows, more and more people can afford to pursue other options in this thriving economy.

From the BLS: (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000)

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2004_2014_all_period_M0 9_data.gif

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

[JustRalph]

Dave Schwartz was right on target..............

this is your example

Bullshit, it's lower than it has been since 78. You remember 78.......when the country was falling apart from Another Dem Wonderboy.......

[BlueShoe]

Isn't it amazing how the published unemployment rate always seems to drop more than the typical 0.1% right before elections?
Easy explanation, many have stopped looking and have dropped out of the labor pool. Under the Obama Administration, they have found out that is easier for them, or someone in their household, to get on welfare, receive food stamps, WIC vouchers, get housing assistence, etc. Why bother to work, or to even look for work, when Big Brother promises to take care of you and yours, in return, of course, you must promise to always vote for his Party. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

Even Andrea Mitchell can't sell this shit anymore

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/05/the-september-jobs-report-numbers-were-so-bad-this-msnbc-journalist-found-herself-echoing-the-rnc-chair/

VtFC7HJmxrE

[davew]

It is great and another 600,000 have given up trying to find work so have dropped out of the reported unemployment rate. I prefer the U6 rate myself but it says a different story.

http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

[classhandicapper]

If the employment picture was actually improving, it would be a testament to the ability of relatively free markets and capitalism to slowly overcome the most incompetent president of my lifetime.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the economy is improving on the back of deficits, negative real interest rates, and money printing. We are in another bubble and this one will end badly for whoever inherits the mess that is Obama.

[RaceBookJoe]

If the employment picture was actually improving, it would be a testament to the ability of relatively free markets and capitalism to slowly overcome the most incompetent president of my lifetime.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the economy is improving on the back of deficits, negative real interest rates, and money printing. We are in another bubble and this one will end badly for whoever inherits the mess that is Obama.

Agreed, and some more food for thought ( not my writing) :

Jobs numbers again viewed as strong by the gross numbers, but the headlines are not that great and the makeup shows the same weakness.

I suppose you can argue that 248K jobs is a strong number, particularly when compared to 210K expected and 180K (revised from 142K) in August. Nonetheless, 248K jobs only looks good when you have a history of 200K average.

After the initial recovery from the lows, going nowhere the past four years.

A LOOK AT THE REAL NUMBERS

1. Wherefore art thou, workers?

The unemployment rate dropped 0.2% to 5.9% from 6.1%. More employed, right?

Employed +232K. Unemployed -329K. Looks promising.

But, factor in the facts of life:

Participation rate: 62.7%, down from 62.8% in August. From 66.0% in 2008.
That ties the low at February 1978. Recall what a banner year that was for the economy, 2 years after Jimmy Carter's election. A stumbling, bumbling economy that had ups and downs but was a best a malaise. The parallels with the current economy are frighteningly similar.

Workforce overall lost 97K workers

Those Not in the Workforce: +315K
Total not in the Workforce to 92.6M, a NEW ALL-TIME HIGH.

Working age population growth, last 6 years: 248.4M from 234.6M (14M) versus labor force growth of 155.9M from 154.9M (1M). In other words, the labor force grew just 7% of the gain in the working age population (1M versus 14M).

Not in workforce + unemployed = 102M or 41% of the US' adult population.

So, a 'whopping' 248K jobs added but those working continued to fall. Finding it easier not to work than work? Why? Take a look at the jobs quality.

2. Wherefore art thou, jobs quality?

248K jobs created. 207K or 84% were in the services sector, the lowest paying scale of jobs.

Services jobs again dominate the recovery over 'breadwinner' construction, manufacturing jobs and thus it is no surprise the hourly earnings are falling. Note how the hourly earnings are well, well off of the pre-crisis levels. Simply no recovery because of low quality jobs.

3. Wherefore art thou, workers in their prime?

55+: Gained 230K of the 248K jobs, or 93% of all jobs. All-time record high at 32.6M workers. From 12/07 this group has gained 5.5M jobs.

25-54: -10K jobs. Since 12/07 this group is -2.04M jobs!!

SUMMARY OF THE JOBS REPORT:

84% of the jobs created were in the service sector. 93% of the new hires were in the 55+ age group. The breadwinner jobs were just 8% of the total for the month and the important 25-54 demographic lost 10K jobs, sliding further into the hole.

So, the economy and jobs market remains in the 'Hello, welcome to Wal-Mart where I work as a greeter so I can try to scratch out a living in my golden years thanks to the financial crisis and the Administration's worst recovery in US history' mode. Been there for 6 years, the entirety of the recovery.

But . . . the unemployment rate is 5.9% because more and more people are realizing they don't need to work or even look for work, particularly when it is for the low wage service jobs that dominate the job creation (4 of 5 jobs). Instead, just go ahead on and take disability, childcare assistance, free phones, food stamps, etc. AND take some cash side jobs (of course not paying taxes on those earnings) and come out in better shape than that poor sap working two or three 29 hour a week (thanks to the ACA's hour limits) part-time jobs wondering what the hell he is working so hard for so little for. But don't feel bad for the worker; with the participation rate hitting a 36 year low (1978, remember those golden years?) and keeps falling, the trend in participation shows that 'sap' is wising up and leaving the workforce, adopting a better or equivalent pay scale for much less work.

[mostpost]

It is great and another 600,000 have given up trying to find work so have dropped out of the reported unemployment rate. I prefer the U6 rate myself but it says a different story.

http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75|bg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1, 6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9. 6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8, 10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2, 10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7, 9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8. 7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1, 7.9,8.4,8.2,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8. 8,9.2,9.0,9.1,9.2,9.7,10.1,10.5,10.8,11.0,11.8,12. 6,13.6,14.2,15.1,15.7,15.9,16.4,16.5,16.5,16.7,16. 7,17.1,17.1,17.1,16.7,17.0,17.0,17.1,16.6,16.5,16. 5,16.5,16.8,16.7,16.9,16.6,16.2,16.0,15.8,16.0,15. 8,16.1,16.0,16.1,16.3,16.0,15.5,15.2,15.1,15.0,14. 5,14.5,14.8,14.8,14.9,14.7,14.7,14.5,14.4,14.4,14. 4,14.3,13.8,13.9,13.8,14.3,14.0,13.6,13.6,13.7,13. 1,13.1,12.7,12.6,12.7,12.3,12.2,12.1,12.2,12.0,11. 8,-1,-1,-1&chds=-0,20&chg=6.666666666666667,10,6.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:|||||||||||2001|||||||||||||||||||||2003||| ||||||||||||||||||2005|||||||||||||||||||||2007||| ||||||||||||||||||2009|||||||||||||||||||||2011||| ||||||||||||||||||2013|||||||||||||||||||||||1:|0| 2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20|2:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16 |18|20

It actually tells the same story, but with different numbers. The U6 rate went up three points early in the Bush administration; then dropped two points prior to 2007. It then soared nine points in the next two and a half years. Since early 2010 under Obama it has been steadily going down. The same holds true for the U3 rate.

[Clocker]

It is great and another 600,000 have given up trying to find work so have dropped out of the reported unemployment rate.

Obama fan boys using the aging baby boomer alibi for the participation rate decline. Here is the participation rate for 25-54 year olds showing the same trend from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=l6Q)

[mostpost]

Obama fan boys using the aging baby boomer alibi for the participation rate decline. Here is the participation rate for 25-54 year olds showing the same trend from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=l6Q)
Thank you for providing a link that proves things are not nearly as bad as you claim. Here is another version of that same chart showing the trend since 1948.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=l6Q

What do we see? We see that the Labor Force Participation rate among this key Demographic is over 80%. We see that the decline over the last two years has been less than 2%. We see that even with recent declines, the rate is far above the rate in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's.

I think you have pretty much proved that the drop in the overall rates is largely due to the baby boomers. Thank you for that.

[Clocker]

What do we see? We see that the Labor Force Participation rate among this key Demographic is over 80%. We see that the decline over the last two years has been less than 2%. We see that even with recent declines, the rate is far above the rate in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's.

I think you have pretty much proved that the drop in the overall rates is largely due to the baby boomers. Thank you for that.

I think that you have pretty much proven that you don't understand statistics or demographics. Your "analysis" above is textbook confusion of apples and oranges. My previous efforts to explain these issues have been futile, so I won't bother.

[Clocker]

I think you have pretty much proved that the drop in the overall rates is largely due to the baby boomers. Thank you for that.

I just noticed I forgot to add this to my previous post. The labor force participation rate for ages 55 and over has gone up 6% (from 34.5% to 40.5%) from 2002 to 2012.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

[davew]

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75|bg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1, 6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9. 6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8, 10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2, 10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7, 9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8. 7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1, 7.9,8.4,8.2,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8. 8,9.2,9.0,9.1,9.2,9.7,10.1,10.5,10.8,11.0,11.8,12. 6,13.6,14.2,15.1,15.7,15.9,16.4,16.5,16.5,16.7,16. 7,17.1,17.1,17.1,16.7,17.0,17.0,17.1,16.6,16.5,16. 5,16.5,16.8,16.7,16.9,16.6,16.2,16.0,15.8,16.0,15. 8,16.1,16.0,16.1,16.3,16.0,15.5,15.2,15.1,15.0,14. 5,14.5,14.8,14.8,14.9,14.7,14.7,14.5,14.4,14.4,14. 4,14.3,13.8,13.9,13.8,14.3,14.0,13.6,13.6,13.7,13. 1,13.1,12.7,12.6,12.7,12.3,12.2,12.1,12.2,12.0,11. 8,-1,-1,-1&chds=-0,20&chg=6.666666666666667,10,6.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:|||||||||||2001|||||||||||||||||||||2003||| ||||||||||||||||||2005|||||||||||||||||||||2007||| ||||||||||||||||||2009|||||||||||||||||||||2011||| ||||||||||||||||||2013|||||||||||||||||||||||1:|0| 2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16|18|20|2:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16 |18|20

It actually tells the same story, but with different numbers. The U6 rate went up three points early in the Bush administration; then dropped two points prior to 2007. It then soared nine points in the next two and a half years. Since early 2010 under Obama it has been steadily going down. The same holds true for the U3 rate.

I see what you mean - Obama blew many measure to unprecedented numbers during his first 2 years of office (like unemployment and budget deficit). Clearly through no fault of his administration but the crap he inherited from Bush and the Repubs. Through hard work 24/7/365 of himself and dedicated staff they are slowly getting them back to where they were when he started (except the federal debt which could be double what it was by the time he is gone).

And for all the great successes with a couple million more people on medicaid and subsidized insurance as well as a few more million people in the country from south of the border. These people will be able to do the menial and manual labor the american born are not capable of because of weight and health issues from not having to work and eating too many potatoes. Also with quick action with the war against ebola, deaths will probably be limited to near 20,000 instead of the multimillion feared. I only see things getting much better in the next couple years.