Unemployment != everyone who can't find a job.

First of all ...

In January 1982, when the data were first collected, the labor force participation rate for this group was 80.7%.

Really? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060

Granted, that chart shows 25-54, but it goes back to January 1948. Not sure what numbers they're looking at that don't go back further and why they'd use that.

Second ...

When the BLS started tracking these data in January 1982, there were 3,851,000 Americans, ages 25 to 29, who were not in the labor force.

By April 2014, another 429,000 were not participating in the labor force, an increase of 11%.

When Barack Obama took office as president in January 2009, the number of Americans 25 to 29 not in the labor force was 3,769,000. Since then, that number has gone up by 511,000, an increase of 13.6%.

And now we've switched from participation rate - which accounts for overall population - to raw numbers. How much did the population increase in that time? How did the participation rate change? Answer: Jan 82 - 79.4% | Jan 09 - 82.9% | April 14 - 80.8%. So participation went up 1.4% from Jan 82 to April 14, which that article reports as 11% decrease.

And if you look at that chart starting around 2008, you see the rate was going down pretty steadily when Obama took office and has been trending up lately. So to the extent you want to hold the president accountable for this figure, the time to make that argument was July 2015.

Now that I've done your homework for you, can you answer a question: Do you really believe this shit, or are you doing an extended Gish Gallop?

Post #416,527 by malraux 1/6/17 3:04:09 PM 1/6/17 3:04:09 PM Reply	Unemployment != everyone who can't find a job. Nowhere in that article does it mention retiree counts. Baby boomers are hitting that age now en masse, which is going to drastically skew naive measurements of participation. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #416,528 by boxley 1/6/17 4:15:27 PM 1/6/17 4:15:27 PM Reply	damn old farts http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-rate-25-29-year-olds-hits-record-low "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #416,529 by drook 1/6/17 5:03:30 PM 1/6/17 5:04:43 PM Reply	Still playing numbers games First of all ... In January 1982, when the data were first collected, the labor force participation rate for this group was 80.7%. Really? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060 Granted, that chart shows 25-54, but it goes back to January 1948. Not sure what numbers they're looking at that don't go back further and why they'd use that. Second ... When the BLS started tracking these data in January 1982, there were 3,851,000 Americans, ages 25 to 29, who were not in the labor force. By April 2014, another 429,000 were not participating in the labor force, an increase of 11%. When Barack Obama took office as president in January 2009, the number of Americans 25 to 29 not in the labor force was 3,769,000. Since then, that number has gone up by 511,000, an increase of 13.6%. And now we've switched from participation rate - which accounts for overall population - to raw numbers. How much did the population increase in that time? How did the participation rate change? Answer: Jan 82 - 79.4% \| Jan 09 - 82.9% \| April 14 - 80.8%. So participation went up 1.4% from Jan 82 to April 14, which that article reports as 11% decrease. And if you look at that chart starting around 2008, you see the rate was going down pretty steadily when Obama took office and has been trending up lately. So to the extent you want to hold the president accountable for this figure, the time to make that argument was July 2015. Now that I've done your homework for you, can you answer a question: Do you really believe this shit, or are you doing an extended Gish Gallop? -- Drew Edited by drook Jan. 6, 2017, 05:04:43 PM EST Expand All History
Post #416,531 by boxley 1/6/17 5:28:17 PM 1/6/17 5:28:17 PM Reply	anecdotal is not data I feed 4 and house 3 in that age group. Is it Obama's fault nope. It is Obama fault that he touts how great the economy is and that unemployment is negligible. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Welcome to IWETHEY!