Unemployment is worse for Blacks under Obama Administration

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 6:40 PM GMT
    mustangd saidthe real reason(s) un-employment is where its at, for all ethnic groups, is that techology has replaced jobs, and jobs have moved outside the United States as corporations chase profit with little or no loyalty to America. There are simply fewer jobs that pay at a level that support a family, and allow them to have some measure of disposable income that is discretionary, which supports other jobs, through discretionary purchases and services rendered.

    while there are democrats who have voted along with republicans who favor corporate profit over what is best for our nation, it is the republican party that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of corporatee agenda(s) that is responsible for the un-employment rate. they are returning us to a time of the early 1930's, abundant cheap labor, less and less union power, less and less environmental and worker safety protection.

    again, there are democrats who have sold their souls alongside their republican brethren, but make no mistake, the GOP is nothing like the party of Eisenhower, who put nation above profit, or Nixon, who started the EPA. the current republican party is nothing more than a beard, their agenda is profit above all. what is amazing, is how they have become masters of deceit and manipulation, getting people to vote against their best interests.

    look at the influence the new republicans have purchased in all levels of government, legislative and judicial, and now they seek the capstone, the presidency. look at thow they have used parliamentary procedures at unprecidented levels to obstruct the current government during a time of national economic crisis, that they themselves are largely responsible for causing.

    remember how things were in january of 2001? a balanced budget, a deficit of just over $5 trillion, no wars. low un-employment. now, factor in ignoring national threat assesments in august of 2001, which lead to a terrorist attack, which lead to 2 unfunded wars that we are still fighting/spending on. a complete dis-interest in financial reform, which in fact is a desire to completely de-regulate to make for more profit, along with a tax plan that benefits corporations to move ouside the country, while lowering the capital gains tax, and top tax rates, which simply further fuels investment outside the United States.

    the rich aren't the rich anymore, they are the "job creators", they have enjoyed some of the lowest tax rates in our nations history for over 12 years now, and yet look at the un-employment rates, if they are the job creators, where are the jobs being created?



    Amazing! Well said and written!

    +100000000000000
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 10:50 PM GMT
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidumm... what research are you looking at? the biggest jump in unemployment by percentage for african americans happened under the bush administration. it's been pretty much that same rate as when obama took office... which included the height of the recession.


    ummm... a jump that was made even worse under the Obama Administration - and where the margins widened versus other races under the Obama Administration.


    not to belabor the point... but the jump then went down... under the obama administration... which is to say it rose at the peak of the recession, then has continued to fall... the rate for african americans never returned their original levels under bush.

    so, again, please explain this:

    obama takes office with a record-level of african american unemployment (record for the recent time) in which the recession, which originates during the bush presidency, claims many jobs. the rate climbs and peaks under obama, but then drops to the level (roughly) of when he took office. so your point is they're suffering disproportionately because the previous administration made their unemployment skyrocket, then the current administration has been battling it to bring it down, which it has since the recession's peak, and this is obama's fault?


    The alternative view which I have pointed out is that the unemployment rate for blacks is higher than it was when Obama came to office, that the impact of the recession was worse for Blacks and to add to this, Obama has declared the recession officially over.

    What's worse as I point out is that the labor participation rate has been falling which probably means that that blacks are also disproportionately represented in those dropping out. Either way, it means that the unemployment rate would be higher if it weren't for the drop outs because of poor job opportunities. Further, I would suggest Obama's policies have meant that the rate hasn't fallen faster.


    again, the current unemployment rate for african americans is about the same as when he took office. and stop talking about probably because that isn't true. we're not looking to the labor participation rate for information about african american employment because you can't make any positive conclusions from it. zero. zilch. it's not how the methodology of that statistic works.

    further, the recession was declared ended by the economic definition of a recession, not because the president magically decided it was. it peaked under him, which is why unemployment spiked under him... and it has since been dropping. if anything, african americans suffered most in terms of hiked unemployment under bush's second term.

    i have no idea where you base anything off. all the statistics i post seem to counter your assertions and you keep on shifting points or drawing erroneous or spurious claims.

    so for the last time:

    1. in terms of unemployment, up to today, blacks have had a basically unchanged percentage in unemployment since obama took office, and the significant rise and fall of the rate in between is do to the recession peaking and the slow recovery from it.

    2. statistically, the worse setback to african american employment occurred before he took office.

    3. the labor participation rate has no direct correlation to african american unemployment and any assertions drawn from it in regards to that point cannot be proven.

    if you disagree with any of this, please see the charts provide by the bureau of labor and statistics.


    While I can understand how you'd like to be dismissive of labor participation rates, they can't be ignored - given that the drop is significant overall. It's not a leap in either judgement or logic to believe that this has also affected blacks.

    My arguments far from sidestepping the point have been consistent and the same. To repeat since you seem not have gotten the point the first several times from the data I provided:

    1. Black unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama came to office.

    2. The unemployment rate overall is technically lower today than when Obama came to office. The corollary: The recovery has been slower to affect Black unemployment.

    3. Labor participation rates have fallen. In practical terms, this means that the unemployment rate underestimates those actually unemployed/underemployed (given that unemployment does, as you acknowledge only account for those actively seeking work):
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981 - to think of this in absolute terms this is close to half a million people who have decided to drop out of the work force.

    It's true that the rise in the level of unemployment for blacks started under the Bush administration as a result of the financial crisis, but you act as if Obama is completely blameless in either the degree of the ascent or the extent of the recovery - which is what I suggest. I'm not sure what it is here that you aren't understanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 11:47 PM GMT
    riddler78 said


    While I can understand how you'd like to be dismissive of labor participation rates, they can't be ignored - given that the drop is significant overall. It's not a leap in either judgement or logic to believe that this has also affected blacks.

    My arguments far from sidestepping the point have been consistent and the same. To repeat since you seem not have gotten the point the first several times from the data I provided:

    1. Black unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama came to office.

    2. The unemployment rate overall is technically lower today than when Obama came to office. The corollary: The recovery has been slower to affect Black unemployment.

    3. Labor participation rates have fallen. In practical terms, this means that the unemployment rate underestimates those actually unemployed/underemployed (given that unemployment does, as you acknowledge only account for those actively seeking work):
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981 - to think of this in absolute terms this is close to half a million people who have decided to drop out of the work force.

    It's true that the rise in the level of unemployment for blacks started under the Bush administration as a result of the financial crisis, but you act as if Obama is completely blameless in either the degree of the ascent or the extent of the recovery - which is what I suggest. I'm not sure what it is here that you aren't understanding.


    1. If someone owes me ten dollars, but it turns out they really owe me eleven dollars, it's a difference, but the amount isn't much. statistically speaking, the difference in unemployment between when obama started and where it us now for african americans is pretty quibbling over a dollar.

    2. the recovery being slower to help african americans has nothing to do with obama. under any president, african american unemployment has been more volatile than any other group.

    3. again, you can't prove assumptions about the labor participation rate. sure, the unemployment rate is artificially low because it doesn't count certain sectors, but to say we swap to that as an estimate is wrong. and more so than african americans, the drop is more correlated younger people, with african american males being particular vulnerable to unemployment. does that have anything to do with obama? without getting into a long discussion on education disparities and the sorts of jobs young people get, the short answer is no.

    i blame obama for many things, but idon't blame obama for unemployed african americans anymore than i blame bush for unemployed african americans. i blame the economy for that fact, and i blame the financial meltdown, which was exacerbated by the bush administration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    calibro said
    riddler78 said


    While I can understand how you'd like to be dismissive of labor participation rates, they can't be ignored - given that the drop is significant overall. It's not a leap in either judgement or logic to believe that this has also affected blacks.

    My arguments far from sidestepping the point have been consistent and the same. To repeat since you seem not have gotten the point the first several times from the data I provided:

    1. Black unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama came to office.

    2. The unemployment rate overall is technically lower today than when Obama came to office. The corollary: The recovery has been slower to affect Black unemployment.

    3. Labor participation rates have fallen. In practical terms, this means that the unemployment rate underestimates those actually unemployed/underemployed (given that unemployment does, as you acknowledge only account for those actively seeking work):
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981 - to think of this in absolute terms this is close to half a million people who have decided to drop out of the work force.

    It's true that the rise in the level of unemployment for blacks started under the Bush administration as a result of the financial crisis, but you act as if Obama is completely blameless in either the degree of the ascent or the extent of the recovery - which is what I suggest. I'm not sure what it is here that you aren't understanding.


    1. If someone owes me ten dollars, but it turns out they really owe me eleven dollars, it's a difference, but the amount isn't much. statistically speaking, the difference in unemployment between when obama started and where it us now for african americans is pretty quibbling over a dollar.

    2. the recovery being slower to help african americans has nothing to do with obama. under any president, african american unemployment has been more volatile than any other group.

    3. again, you can't prove assumptions about the labor participation rate. sure, the unemployment rate is artificially low because it doesn't count certain sectors, but to say we swap to that as an estimate is wrong. and more so than african americans, the drop is more correlated younger people, with african american males being particular vulnerable to unemployment. does that have anything to do with obama? without getting into a long discussion on education disparities and the sorts of jobs young people get, the short answer is no.

    i blame obama for many things, but idon't blame obama for unemployed african americans anymore than i blame bush for unemployed african americans. i blame the economy for that fact, and i blame the financial meltdown, which was exacerbated by the bush administration.


    1. Statistically insignificant? Before Obama 12.7%, after? 13.6%. Broad unemployment is 8.2% which is lower than when Obama came to office, with the caveat that labor participation has also fallen.

    2. That's your assumption that "the recovery being slower to help african americans has nothing to do with obama". That african american unemployment has been more volatile is mutually exclusive to your statement.

    3. You're right I can't break out which groups dropped out of the labor force - but I think it's a more than fair assumption that the number isn't zero. I'm not saying the estimate is wrong - but I'm saying that it is likely underreporting the unemployment rate precisely for the reasons you describe that this group is more vulnerable to unemployment.

    I think there are many policies that the Obama Administration has had control of that would have helped. Instead of making it easier to hire/fire, reducing regulation and costs he's moved in the opposite direction. As for the financial crisis that happened under the Bush Administration? Yeah - that's partially to blame but for the slow recovery? That can be blamed on Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 5:42 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    socalfitness said
    MikemikeMike saidno worries it is no longer "cool" to vote for obama- younger people know it well now.

    Unless they plan to be union lifers, what's in an Obama vote for young Americans?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2344442/


    Same sex marriage maybe? Gay rights? Equality for all maybe?


    Hahaha you think obama will help you with this?? It was to get votes. He made Joe stick his neck out first if their was backlash he would have said I didn't know he would say that publicly. Also his administration leaked more strategic military information than any other president. He just did it again this week. The man will do ANYTHING to get a vote!! Grow a brain and look deeper.icon_idea.gif Marriage, gay rights, equality all don't matter when you're DEAD!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 6:08 PM GMT
    MikemikeMike saidThe man will do ANYTHING to get a vote!! Grow a brain and look deeper.icon_idea.gif Marriage, gay rights, equality all don't matter when you're DEAD!


    So now the line from the right is that Romney's positions are based on unbending, unyielding principle and Obama is killing people?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 6:12 PM GMT
    MikemikeMike said
    catfish5 said
    socalfitness said
    MikemikeMike saidno worries it is no longer "cool" to vote for obama- younger people know it well now.

    Unless they plan to be union lifers, what's in an Obama vote for young Americans?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2344442/


    Same sex marriage maybe? Gay rights? Equality for all maybe?


    Hahaha you think obama will help you with this?? It was to get votes. He made Joe stick his neck out first if their was backlash he would have said I didn't know he would say that publicly. Also his administration leaked more strategic military information than any other president. He just did it again this week. The man will do ANYTHING to get a vote!! Grow a brain and look deeper.icon_idea.gif Marriage, gay rights, equality all don't matter when you're DEAD!


    actually, i'd say equal rights is one of the few things worth dying for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    calibro saidactually, i'd say equal rights is one of the few things worth dying for.


    OK I'll bite. Since you seem prone to the melodrama here - and while I'd cautiously agree, there are various degrees of rights. Is the differentiation between civil unions and marriage worth dying for? Is gay marriage worth dying for? Or are all rights worth dying for so long as there is "inequality"?

    For instance, do the differential in salaries between men and women count as rights?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 7:02 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidactually, i'd say equal rights is one of the few things worth dying for.


    OK I'll bite. Since you seem prone to the melodrama here - and while I'd cautiously agree, there are various degrees of rights. Is the differentiation between civil unions and marriage worth dying for? Is gay marriage worth dying for? Or are all rights worth dying for so long as there is "inequality"?

    For instance, do the differential in salaries between men and women count as rights?


    prone to melodrama? you're the one starting this thread based on a myopic month's downturn of jobs under the president for a particular sector of employment that's always been incredibly volatile and not in direct correspondence with other hiring trends-- common to all presidencies.

    and let's not get into the game of false analogies. mike is clearly off his rocker and just likes to stir the pot with his right hand, i.e., i don't believe we're going to die at the hands of obama if we choose him to be president again. i think we can both agree to the idea that whether one would die for an individual right does not discount the right, and that a right is specific to a context.

    presenting a false analogy of whether a female in contemporary america earns the same as her male counterpart is spurious for the reasons that, one, if you shift the context to some place like afghanistan, suddenly the issue does become part of a larger issue of women's rights in which many would argue for the value of dying for the right of equality, so the point is time and location based to a degree-- not it's absolute right, which is equality between the sexes, which taken in that light i would argue is worth in dying for-- and, two, cherry picking a context in which you feel a right isn't important enough to die for doesn't actually discount the inherent value of the right to be established at an all important cost that's less than death because rights are not in that diametric existence.

    and lastly, do you have a point? i made that statement in regards to another member's outlandish statement. do you feel the need to prove absolutism in everything i say until you find an exception? i mean, it would be one thing if you and i were chummy and this were some sort of a scholarly debate, but, correct me if i'm wrong, it feels as if you're doing this for the sheer sake of trying to find the pitfall in my statement-- a statement that isn't directly related to this thread. so unless you have a connection to this thread point and the thread at large, if you're just going to play devil's advocate for the sake of it, i'm probably going to stop responding out of boredom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 10:27 PM GMT
    calibro said
    presenting a false analogy of whether a female in contemporary america earns the same as her male counterpart is spurious for the reasons that, one, if you shift the context to some place like afghanistan, suddenly the issue does become part of a larger issue of women's rights in which many would argue for the value of dying for the right of equality, so the point is time and location based to a degree-- not it's absolute right, which is equality between the sexes, which taken in that light i would argue is worth in dying for-- and, two, cherry picking a context in which you feel a right isn't important enough to die for doesn't actually discount the inherent value of the right to be established at an all important cost that's less than death because rights are not in that diametric existence.

    and lastly, do you have a point?


    A: No.

    There's a reason the Republican platform has been on the wrong end of every major civil rights debate of the past hundred years: right-wing conservatives do not give a damn about freedom and equality for anyone but rich old men. Who among them cares about basic civil rights for gays? The only thing right-wing Republicans think is worth dying for is low taxes for the super rich, and even then they'd send some poor kid off to do the dying for them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2012 10:49 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    Here's the biggest issue when it comes to the unemployment - which actually minimizes the problem:

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg


    Here's an interesting chart on global oil prices... the trendline seems to match the job participation rate fairly closely...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:13 AM GMT
    msuNtx said: the real reason(s) un-empoyment is where its at, for all ethnic groups, is that techology has replaced jobs, and jobs have moved outside the United States as corporations chase profit with little or no loyalty to America. There are simply fewer jobs that pay at a level that support a family, and allow them to have some measure of disposable income that is discretionary, which supports other jobs, through discretionary purchases and services rendered.

    while there are democrats who have voted along with republicans who favor corporate profit over what is best for our nation, it is the republican party that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of corproate agenda(s) that is responsible for the un-employment rate. they are returning us to a time of the early 1930's, abundant cheap labor, less and less union power, less and less environmental and worker safety protection.

    again, there are democrats who have sold their souls alongside their republican brethren, but make no mistake, the GOP is nothing like the party of Eisenhower, who put nation above profit, or Nixon, who started the EPA. the current republican party is nothing more than a beard, their agenda is profit above all. what is amazing, is how they have become masters of deceit and manipulation, getting people to vote against their best interests.

    look at the influence the new republicans have purchased in all levels of government, legislative and judicial, and now they seek the capstone, the presidency. look at thow they have used parlimentary procedures at unprecidented levels to obstruct the current government during a time of national economic crisis, that they themselves are largely responsible for causing.

    remember how things were in january of 2001? a balanced budget, a deficit of just over $5 trillion, no wars. low un-employment. now, factor in ignoring national threat assesments in august of 2001, which lead to a terrorist attack, which lead to 2 unfunded wars that we are still fighting/spending on. a complete dis-interst in financial reform, which in fact is a desire to completely de-regulate to make for more profit, along with a tax plan that benefits corporations to move ouside the country, while lowering the capital gains tax, and top tax rates, which simply further fuels investment outside the United States.

    the rich aren't the rich anymore, they are the "job creators", they have enjoyed some of the lowest tax rates in our nations history for over 12 years now, and yet look at the un-employment rates, if they are the job creators, where are the jobs being created?


    mustangd said: ++++++1,000,000. Technology and shipping jobs overseas are the biggest issues. A computer can do what a normal 5 people do.


    riddler78 said: "Computers didn't get invented under the Obama Administration - and unemployment under Bush and Clinton were at historical lows. This logic doesn't fit. Think of all the new industries that have been created that didn't exist before - say 40 years ago.

    Further shipping jobs overseas? Same issues in logic given that trade has been increasing. No, these are both shifts that allow economies to further specialize and do what they do best/better. If you want to keep lower paying jobs and make an economy less efficient, fine, ban technology and trade. But if you want to create a sustainable economy, you should be encouraging both."

    These latter assertions are simply ridiculous. Particularly bad policies have been in place in this country since roughly 1965. Those were identified as bad policies then, too, but BOTH the Democrats and what then were Republicans jumped on the bandwagon as all this being "progress" with all this cant typified by sayings such as "allowing economies to do what they do best". It was nonsense then; it is nonsense now. It was entirely predictable THEN that the horrible economic situation which exists today would be the result of the plethora of bad policies over the years in government, industry, and education. These political and business idiots over the years seem never to have heard of unintended consequences.

    For those of you much younger, it might interest you to know that America used to function and function better than any place else in the world. Alas, those days are long gone. The overall quality of lives for a decided plurality if not majority of the people in this country has declined today over what it was a half century ago for similarly situated people.

    And if one wants to place blame on the political parties, there is certainly enough to go around. Any number of Democratic supported policies have gone awry, and as for the Republicans, there simply ARE very few Republicans any more--they have morphed into Religicans who are mainly interested in others' bedroom practices and various other misguided ideas. I'm sure there are a few closet Republicans out there, but they are certainly not evident in the current political climate.

    The single biggest disaster to the United States has probably been the systematic dismantling of the American industrial base. Congress and the various administrations have been complicit by providing advantageous tax policies encouraging the loss of American jobs. And guess who was one of the major business players in all this -- Walmart and the Walton family and their financing of the industrialization overseas at the expense of America's economy.

    These problems have developed over decades and their amelioration will likewise take decades. The current partisan political bickering between the two major political parties is doing nothing to improve the situation either, even if one could decide on a course of action which would bring improvement long term.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:23 AM GMT
    metatextual said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    Here's the biggest issue when it comes to the unemployment - which actually minimizes the problem:

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg


    Here's an interesting chart on global oil prices... the trendline seems to match the job participation rate fairly closely...


    It doesn't even remotely come close to following the trend line?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:26 AM GMT
    Obama is the worst President in modern American history
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:28 AM GMT
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidactually, i'd say equal rights is one of the few things worth dying for.


    OK I'll bite. Since you seem prone to the melodrama here - and while I'd cautiously agree, there are various degrees of rights. Is the differentiation between civil unions and marriage worth dying for? Is gay marriage worth dying for? Or are all rights worth dying for so long as there is "inequality"?

    For instance, do the differential in salaries between men and women count as rights?


    prone to melodrama? you're the one starting this thread based on a myopic month's downturn of jobs under the president for a particular sector of employment that's always been incredibly volatile and not in direct correspondence with other hiring trends-- common to all presidencies.

    and let's not get into the game of false analogies. mike is clearly off his rocker and just likes to stir the pot with his right hand, i.e., i don't believe we're going to die at the hands of obama if we choose him to be president again. i think we can both agree to the idea that whether one would die for an individual right does not discount the right, and that a right is specific to a context.

    presenting a false analogy of whether a female in contemporary america earns the same as her male counterpart is spurious for the reasons that, one, if you shift the context to some place like afghanistan, suddenly the issue does become part of a larger issue of women's rights in which many would argue for the value of dying for the right of equality, so the point is time and location based to a degree-- not it's absolute right, which is equality between the sexes, which taken in that light i would argue is worth in dying for-- and, two, cherry picking a context in which you feel a right isn't important enough to die for doesn't actually discount the inherent value of the right to be established at an all important cost that's less than death because rights are not in that diametric existence.

    and lastly, do you have a point? i made that statement in regards to another member's outlandish statement. do you feel the need to prove absolutism in everything i say until you find an exception? i mean, it would be one thing if you and i were chummy and this were some sort of a scholarly debate, but, correct me if i'm wrong, it feels as if you're doing this for the sheer sake of trying to find the pitfall in my statement-- a statement that isn't directly related to this thread. so unless you have a connection to this thread point and the thread at large, if you're just going to play devil's advocate for the sake of it, i'm probably going to stop responding out of boredom.


    I have pointed out that the Obama Administration's policies have hurt blacks disporportionately more than others. That's not melodrama, that's fact. As for cherry picking? Again, hardly.

    To make a blanket claim that equal rights are worth dying for - in response to a comment that pointed out how reckless the Obama Administration has been to intelligence data is absurd. What you choose to respond to is not my concern - it's yours. My point was made.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    The silver lining is that 16.7 percent is much better than the 23 percent levels of the Reagan recession.

    Spin that riddictor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:34 AM GMT
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:36 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metatextual said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    Here's the biggest issue when it comes to the unemployment - which actually minimizes the problem:

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg


    Here's an interesting chart on global oil prices... the trendline seems to match the job participation rate fairly closely...


    It doesn't even remotely come close to following the trend line?


    It trails a bit, but it generally follows that decreasing oil prices lead to higher participation in the job market, due to increased economic output. Increasing oil prices in the late 70s led to recession by the early 80s, while generally falling oil prices throughout the mid and late 80s followed the opposite.

    Of course, the labour participation rates only very by small percentages while the inflationary prices of crude oil vary widely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:45 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    Here's the biggest issue when it comes to the unemployment - which actually minimizes the problem:

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg


    Use the same time frame, please.

    Use the same demographic, please.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:52 AM GMT
    metatextual said
    riddler78 said
    metatextual said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    Here's the biggest issue when it comes to the unemployment - which actually minimizes the problem:

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg


    Here's an interesting chart on global oil prices... the trendline seems to match the job participation rate fairly closely...


    It doesn't even remotely come close to following the trend line?


    It trails a bit, but it generally follows that decreasing oil prices lead to higher participation in the job market, due to increased economic output. Increasing oil prices in the late 70s led to recession by the early 80s, while generally falling oil prices throughout the mid and late 80s followed the opposite.

    Of course, the labour participation rates only very by small percentages while the inflationary prices of crude oil vary widely.


    Again - while it makes sense, I think that's far too course a measure - and the data doesn't fit:

    financialchartimage?show_header=1&tiny_c
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 1:53 AM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    Here's the biggest issue when it comes to the unemployment - which actually minimizes the problem:

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg


    Use the same time frame, please.

    Use the same demographic, please.


    See discussion above. Further, the labor participation rate in the same time frame you can see if you just look at the cliff of the period of the Obama Administration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 2:17 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    metatextual said
    riddler78 said
    metatextual said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidperhaps, if you weren't so quick to jump on the president, you'd stop to ask the question of if one month's worth of unemployment change is indicative of overall increase of unemployment. yes, the figure rose, and is still higher than when he took office, but it has been dropping since the peak of the recession.

    chart-black-jobless-rate.top.gif


    Here's the biggest issue when it comes to the unemployment - which actually minimizes the problem:

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg


    Here's an interesting chart on global oil prices... the trendline seems to match the job participation rate fairly closely...


    It doesn't even remotely come close to following the trend line?


    It trails a bit, but it generally follows that decreasing oil prices lead to higher participation in the job market, due to increased economic output. Increasing oil prices in the late 70s led to recession by the early 80s, while generally falling oil prices throughout the mid and late 80s followed the opposite.

    Of course, the labour participation rates only very by small percentages while the inflationary prices of crude oil vary widely.


    Again - while it makes sense, I think that's far too course a measure - and the data doesn't fit:

    financialchartimage?show_header=1&tiny_c


    It might not fit exactly [i used the 1980-2010 stats, same as labour participation], but i'm only speaking in generalities and trends...

    Calibro brought up some more salient demographic points with the black american population. Because of the comparatively higher percentage of younger men in their population and higher incarceration rates to the general population, blacks seem to have greater difficulty either re-entering the workforce [after being laid off, or after a sentence] or starting work for the first time.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9225

    Jun 13, 2012 5:07 AM GMT
    Republican or Democratic administration, unemployment tends to be worse for blacks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 8:59 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidactually, i'd say equal rights is one of the few things worth dying for.


    OK I'll bite. Since you seem prone to the melodrama here - and while I'd cautiously agree, there are various degrees of rights. Is the differentiation between civil unions and marriage worth dying for? Is gay marriage worth dying for? Or are all rights worth dying for so long as there is "inequality"?

    For instance, do the differential in salaries between men and women count as rights?


    prone to melodrama? you're the one starting this thread based on a myopic month's downturn of jobs under the president for a particular sector of employment that's always been incredibly volatile and not in direct correspondence with other hiring trends-- common to all presidencies.

    and let's not get into the game of false analogies. mike is clearly off his rocker and just likes to stir the pot with his right hand, i.e., i don't believe we're going to die at the hands of obama if we choose him to be president again. i think we can both agree to the idea that whether one would die for an individual right does not discount the right, and that a right is specific to a context.

    presenting a false analogy of whether a female in contemporary america earns the same as her male counterpart is spurious for the reasons that, one, if you shift the context to some place like afghanistan, suddenly the issue does become part of a larger issue of women's rights in which many would argue for the value of dying for the right of equality, so the point is time and location based to a degree-- not it's absolute right, which is equality between the sexes, which taken in that light i would argue is worth in dying for-- and, two, cherry picking a context in which you feel a right isn't important enough to die for doesn't actually discount the inherent value of the right to be established at an all important cost that's less than death because rights are not in that diametric existence.

    and lastly, do you have a point? i made that statement in regards to another member's outlandish statement. do you feel the need to prove absolutism in everything i say until you find an exception? i mean, it would be one thing if you and i were chummy and this were some sort of a scholarly debate, but, correct me if i'm wrong, it feels as if you're doing this for the sheer sake of trying to find the pitfall in my statement-- a statement that isn't directly related to this thread. so unless you have a connection to this thread point and the thread at large, if you're just going to play devil's advocate for the sake of it, i'm probably going to stop responding out of boredom.


    I have pointed out that the Obama Administration's policies have hurt blacks disporportionately more than others. That's not melodrama, that's fact. As for cherry picking? Again, hardly.

    To make a blanket claim that equal rights are worth dying for - in response to a comment that pointed out how reckless the Obama Administration has been to intelligence data is absurd. What you choose to respond to is not my concern - it's yours. My point was made.


    Actually, you didn't prove that because you didn't prove that African Americans have suffered under Obama anymore than they have suffered under other presidencies in a relative comparison to circumstances and other factors that offset controls, i.e., historical trends of African American unemployment, unemployment trends amongst African Americans during recession periods, accounting of demographics for the jobs African Americans mainly comprise in specific industries in this time and their position during a recession, etc.... To prove that Obama is responsible for such a thing, you can't use a labor force participate rate graph, nor could you use the employment rate for African Americans. What you need to do is show that there has been a specific trend in African American unemployment that not only is inconsistent with the unemployment trends against other races in the same time period, but also, as a control, match both factors against other US presidencies to explicitly show that this pattern of disproportionate unemployment of African American only exists under Obama, and therefore it's his policies that are causing it (which it wouldn't definitively do either because that doesn't explore the specific job conditions in relation to current conditions of that work, but it would be a start). Otherwise, all you're saying is a half-truth of: BLACKS HAVE IT WORSE UNDER OBAMA without taking into consideration that African Americans have always had it worse, and the reason for that doesn't necessarily lie in executive powers as much as it does in a complex series of truths that deal with what it means to be African American in the United States. So yeah, you basically are drawing conclusions about a complex issue with zero methodology, drawing assumptions from places like the labor force participation rate, and have reduced a complex (and completely valid) question of whether African Americans are indeed suffering disproportionately into a ridiculous analysis. This is a question that becomes the focus of research projects, years if not decades of work, that are explored through volumes of pages of research... you honestly think you proved something without factoring in conditions, controls, externalities, etc.... because of a trend on one graph? I have no idea what you do for a living or what your educational pedigree is, but if you tried to pass this off in an academic community, you would be ridiculed with laughter. Notice how your original articles are blogs or commentaries or summaries of a cherry picked fact about the unemployment rate-- not a scholarly article or a study that asserts any correlations. You seem to think you're capable to mining a great deal from this one point. The lack of scholarly commentary on it is because you can't scientifically prove what you're claiming with what you're using. It's pure speculation, shoddy thinking, and poor research. You don't even come close to shaking off the burden of proof that even if there's a disproportionate level of unemployment of African Americans based on historical and expected trends, that it is directly the result of the president as opposed to being a mutually exclusive occurrence resulting from socioeconomic conditions that exist under Obama's tenure. If there's one problem in this world, it's people who think they're qualified to hold valid opinions without understanding what a valid formulation entails. I don't profess to be a scholar of social-economics or statistical analyses, but I do know a thing or two about scholarly rigor, and this point you're claiming to have proven is devoid of it. Without it, no matter how much you claim otherwise, you've proved nothing.

    And yes it's cherry picking because the original comment of Mike was a complete hot mess of logic. To bring into consideration gay marriage if you're talking about leaked intelligence reports as vehicle to offer a line about rights is to my brain painful on so many levels. And further, I said by my point. Cherry picking a context of a right, as you did with women's salaries, isn't the right itself. The right itself is women have the right to be treated equally as men in this world. Finding a specific #firstworldproblems of that right is cherry picking. I would strongly say that the right in itself, the right for women to be equal, is a right worth dying for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 9:35 AM GMT
    I love the Republican cherry picking going on in this thread. OP, I'm sorry; I know it's a hard pill to swallow but you'll have to accept the fact that the American people voted for a black president.

    At the end of the day, the only thing the GOP has accomplished since President Obama took office is a good fucking of the American people, particularly the working poor and middle class.

    I sleep well knowing Romney won't be winning in November, regardless of the state of the economy.