smittyoneeach's Journal: Woo hoo, unemployment rate! Wait. . .

The most widely cited sign of progress toward a healthy economy has been the declining unemployment rate; however, the fall in the unemployment rate has largely been due to a shrinking labor-force participation rate rather than strong job growth. When you look at a broader range of labor market data, as in this weekâ(TM)s chart, the slow rate of progress toward recovery becomes apparent.

After we've tried every lie, maybe we can get around to some honest analysis: DC is not God, cannot be God, and there will be no improvement until this false God is whisked off to that symbolic Benghazi.

Your guy started this math

[damn_registrars]

I know, you're going to give me the whole "blame everything on Bush" bit, but seriously. The Bush Administration changed the math for calculating the official national unemployment rate. Before GWB we counted people who were "unemployed but not looking (or having given up looking)". The biggest reduction in the unemployment rate from 2001 - 2009 came when we started to exclude that group.

So your argument is. . .

[smittyoneeach]

. . .after the initial assault, further molestation is okey-dokey? I suppose this bolsters your non-argument that all of the no-talent rodeo clowning is conservative since it means (a) clinging to a bad idea, and (b) an end-state with one paycheck per household?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

. . .after the initial assault, further molestation is okey-dokey?

No. However being as the numbers from the previous administration are bogus, adjusting now for the actual unemployment rate would make the current administration look worse than it actually is when compared to the disaster than preceded it. Being as we can't go back and change history to prevent the accounting ninjitsu from occurring, there aren't many choices available.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

So, because "they" lied, it's "OK" to uphold the tradition? Rationalizations: we all do them.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That was actually the Eisenhower Administration.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The counterargument is always that Economics gets less dismal, and algorithms need refining.