Yep, you are right. I misremembered my data, but oh dear.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

Unemployment, even according to your metric, is going down.

Santorum's out.

awesome. it's still awful.

Employment-population ratio is probably my favorite metric for measuring the labor force:
BLS website link

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1334081222

No arguments about it being awful, but unemployment stabilized shortly after Bush left office, and now it's provably going down.

You can say "But..but...bad unemployment!", but look at Reagan's unemployment numbers using similar time scales. While Reagan's numbers didn't reach Obama's, he also started at much lower numbers than Obama and the recession then wasn't nearly as bad - and if put in the same time scale, you see the same net effects on unemployment.

Or, to put it in TLDR form: The financial industry has too much political power/money.

but we added 200,000 jobs after we lost 18,000,000

And? If Obama gets Reagan's full 8 years, I will bet you $50 that we see Obama having better unemployment then what he came into office with Brainy.

You care to take that bet?

(Disclaimer: I'm basing this on the economic theory of...our gov't can't do a damn thing for recessions. R or D, the best thing they can do is get outtatheway to let us recover from a recession.)

Using what metric? I'm interested in that bet. Assuming no action if Obama's defeated?

Propose a few metrics, Mg. I think Feb of 2009 would be our baseline (Obama took office ~20th of January, so that's the closest month), and I would think U6 would be the metric since it's what this thread is about.

Yes.

Hmm, U6 huh? When's the next census?


EDIT: Not till 2020. Tempting.

Also, I propose Scrappy Jack judge the bet, if Scrappy's cool with that?

What's to judge?

If there's a dispute on numbers used, primarily. But as I think about it, I'm not certain how a dispute could come up.

I mean, we're using official numbers, right, and not Brainy's 19.1% U6?

And you know what?

Anyone would be retarded to take this bet. I bothered to look up the numbers.

Obama's U6 is already lower than when he came into office.

You're right, let's use Scrappy's metric instead.

lol

Hey, Scrappy, you have a lot more detail/articles available on your metric?

I don't want to place a bet on something I have no focking clue about.

The link I posted above takes you to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and includes data downloadable in Excel format (but is down at the moment, likely due to updating). The definition of the Employment-Population Ratio is:

I prefer this metric because you don't have to disect whether the unemployment rate percentage dropped because a lot more people found jobs or a lot more people "fell out of the workforce" or "gave up trying to find a job." It incorporates public and private sector employment (except for active duty Armed Forces).

Okay. You've explained the good, now how about the bad parts of it? Alternatively, are you trying to say this covers it accurately, with no weird omissions or other problems?

Santorum dropped out. Not posting a source because...well, you know