http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Employment-Population ratio… not 100% the same as what you’re saying, but good enough for government work.
…
gekkobear on February 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Actually it is 100% the same. This is the perfect graph! I did some checking. According to the BLS:

The employment-population ratio represents the proportion of the working-age population that is employed.

To be precise, the phrase “working-age population” is what we should be saying, as it includes discouraged workers, while “work force” or “labor force” excludes people who are not trying to work.

I want a t-shirt with that graph on it and the words “What recovery?”

To your update above,

You may want to add your analysis of the numbers from December 2006, showing what kind of economy the Democrats “inherited” from the Republicans when the Democrats took majority control (2+ out of 3) of the budget-making entities (House, Senate, and Presidency) in January 2007.

Labor Force Participation Rate in December 2006 was 66.4%

Unemployment rate in December 2006 was 4.4%

That means 66.4% – (4.4% of 66.4%) = 63.48% of the work force was working when the balance of power shifted from Republicans to Democrats.

————————

So let’s recap:

•January 2007: 63.48% of the work force was working when the balance of power shifted from Republicans to Democrats

•January 2009: 60.67% of the work force was working the day Barack Obama was inaugurated.

•October 2010 – 58.5% of the workforce at work on the month the unemployment rate supposedly bottomed.

•January 2012 – Five years after Democrats took majority control, and three years after Obama took office, with the unemployment rate right about the point where Obama said that it’d peak with Porkulus? 8.3% unemployment among a 63.7% share of the workforce still in the workforce yields 58.41% of the labor force actually working.

Are you better off now than you were 5 years ago?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

gekkobear on February 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

That is very useful info.

When Republicans turned over majority control to the Democrats, at the beginning of January 2007, the December 2006 numbers show that 63.4% of the Age 16+ population was employed.

After just three years of majority Democrat control, the December 2009 numbers show that number had dropped to 58.2%, and has not really improved over the last 2+ years. The highest it reached in that time was 58.7%, and it’s currently back down to 58.5%.

You are absolutely correct that we’re down around 5 points (and on a percentage basis, we’re down 8.2% (58.2%/63.4%)) from the recession start, and we’ve stagnated at the bottom for 2+ years without any recovery.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
…
gekkobear on February 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Awesome! That graph needs to be plastered everywhere!
One picture is worth a thousand words.

We actually have a lower percentage of the work force actually working now than at the “low point” of the recession”, and two and a quarter points lower than when Obama took office.

Exactly. Let that be the new meme!
Any increase in employment has been inadequate to offset increases in the working age population.
Any decrease in the unemployment rate is the result of people leaving the workforce.
We are only treading water.

Thanks for the correction, and well put.

Employment-Population ratio… not 100% the same as what you’re saying, but good enough for government work.

25+ year low in % of Americans over 16 employed (That’s what this number is)? 58.2% June/July 2011. You’re going back to 1982-1983 for a lower number.

Current number? 58.5%, we’re rising less than 0.1% per month.

Non-recession numbers, say 2006-2007? 62-64%

So we’re down around 5% from the recession start.

Oh, and that graph… pull it out further if you like… recession, recovery up & down. Except for now… now it drops and bottoms out.. hanging at the bottom for years with no recovery.

This is impressive work by the government? Only if I’m supposed to be impressed that they’ve finally figured out how to avoid ever having a recovery after a recession.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Mitch Berg on February 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

TopDog has committed the PC offense of “spiking the ball”. Correcting an error that paints an even less positive image of Barack the First is a reportable offense under the federal guidelines of “Attack Watch”.

I’ve re-run my numbers. I’ll be posting a correction on my blog, and in the Greenroom. I’ll see if management will add it to this post.

As you note, it is actually worse news for the Administration.

Thanks for pointing it out.

The U6 is the real unemployment rate…

As everyone in this thread pretty much knows, you can’t teach this to idealogs who can’t see past their entitlement check. When you don’t have skin in the game, life is good and that’s the dependent society dear leader wishes to build.

VietVet_Dave on February 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The U6 is manipulated too. The Emperor Zero regime has modified the calculation at least three times since 2009 and they manipulate the values going into the calculation as well.

Remember, people, these are POLITICAL STATISTICS created by a dedicated group of radical socialists.

Check out shadowstats.com

TouchdownBuddha on February 20, 2012 at

Disagree. In January 2009 the economy lost 598K jobs; in January 2012 the economy added 243K jobs. In 4Q08, GDP declined 6.2% and followed that with a 6.1% decline in 1Q09. First estimates for

And the time tween January 2009 thru January 2012?

Clearly the economy has rebounded and is in much better shape than it was 3 years ago.

Then why are half my neighbors still out of work?
Why is the fuel use at its lowest ever? Because so many people are not driving to work

First estimates for 4Q11 GDP show 2.8% growth, with a prediction of 2.5-3.0% growth for 1Q12

Have you noticed all these estimates and prediction from this admin has had to be revised due to the admin being grossly wrong?

ITguy on February 21, 2012 at 1:42 AM

I was surprised to find that average hours worked per employee ahave crept back up to previous levels.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
Click on the sixth check box: Total Private Average Weekly Hours of All Employees – Seasonally Adjusted – CES0500000002

Similarly, average hourly earnings have increased, though slightly less than the CPI.

maddmatt on February 21, 2012 at 1:15 AM

What you have is very interesting.
It is also interesting to look at the same figures comparing the “bottom” of the recession to now. The recession officially ended in June 2009, but unemployment rates peaked in October, and employment numbers bottomed out at 137,968,000 in December of 2009. While employment has increased since then, it has not recovered its January 2009 level (let alone its 146 million peak) nor has it kept up with population growth.

Now, after five years of majority Democrat control, the numbers for January 2012 show that the unemployment rate is 8.3% and the number of “Discouraged Workers” (not counted in the unemployment number) is 1,059,000.

Five years of majority Democrat control has led to reported unemployment that is nearly twice as high, and nearly four times as many “Discouraged Workers” that are not even included in the unemployment numbers.

topdog on February 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM

I think you are right. The unemployment number is a percentage of those “participating” in the labor force.

It would be very interesting if the media consistently reported on the % of those aged 16+ who are actually working. And even that number is “inflated”, if you will, by people who are working, but are working 1 or more part-time jobs when they would rather be working 1 full-time job, if one were available.

If you subtracted the “underemployed” from you numbers, I suspect the percentage of those aged 16+ who are working 1 full-time job at a pay rate equal or greater than what they were making 5 years ago is BELOW 50%.

Thank you president 0bama!

Plus, 0bama said our weekly chocolate ration has been increased!!!!

January 2009: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Workforce Participation rate when Obama took office was 65.7%.

The correct term is Labor Force Participation Rate. This number is the percentage of the population 16 years and older (“the cohort”) who are actually working or looking for work
(E + U)/(population 16years+). 65.7% is correct.

That means 34.3% of the workforce wasn’t even trying to participate, through discouragement, disability or whatever case applied.

Actually, that means that 34.3% of “the cohort” were neither employed nor looking for work. This includes students, retirees and stay-at-home parents, in addition to above.

Add to that the 7.8% unemployed, and you reach a figure of 57.1% of the American workforce actually working.

NO you can’t add percentages when they are percents of different things!
And, shouldn’t you subtract?
I think what you are trying to do is take 7.8% of the 65.7% who are actually working or looking for work, which comes to 5.1% of “the cohort” are unemployed. Subtracting that from the 65.7% and you are left with 60.6% of those aged 16+ are actually working.

January 2009: 65.7% minus 7.8% of 65.7% leaves 60.6% of those aged 16+ are actually working.

October 2009: 65.0% minus 10% of 65.0% leaves 58.5% of those aged 16+ are actually working.

January, 2012: 63.7% minus 8.3% of 63.7% leaves 58.4% of those aged 16+ are actually working.

That’s right: a smaller percentage of the potential labor force is employed now than at the bottom of the recession!

What recovery?

You should see what the Labor Force Participation Rate looks like on a graph! Here’s the link to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Obama Jobs record.

Jan 2009
Civilian noninstitutional population 234,739,000
Civilian labor force …………….……… …153,716,000
Employment …………………….…… … 142,099,000
Unemployment ……………….…… ………11,616,000
Not in labor force ………… ……….………81,023,000
True unemployment 39.4%

Jan 2012
Civilian noninstitutional population. 242,269,000
Civilian labor force. . . . . . . . 154,395,000
Employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,637,000
Unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 12,758,000
Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . 87,874,000
True unemployment 41.5%

Note this unemployment includes all who are not working. For a population increase of 7,530,000, the increase of employed is 679,000.

THOSE WHO HAVE LEFT THE WORKFORCE SINCE OBAMA HAS TAKEN OFFICE IS 6,851,000 workers. Source Bureau of Labor Statistics.

On Inauguration Day in 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent

Stop focusing on January 2009 as a “transition” date.

The real “transition” date, when the balance of power shifted from Republicans to Democrats, was NOT January 2009.

It WAS January 2007, when Democrats took control of the majority of the budget-making entities (House, Senate, and Presidency).

And in December 2006, the last month that Republicans held majority control, unemployment was 4.4% and the total national debt was under $8.7 Trillion.

Recorded unemployment, “discouraged” workers, and deficits/debt have SKYROCKETED under Democratic “leadership”.