Only thing to discuss is how big of a dumbass you are.
The unemployment calculation has changed several times between Reagan and now, so comparing the rates if FS unless you are a moron with an IQ less than 55. Its why one is labeled U-3 and the other isn't.
And the fact this was painfully beat into your skull a couple months back and yet you are still to stupid to either remember or match that information to whatever Liberal hack site you pulled that graph off (Maddow blog???) is further proof of the failed state of your genetics and abilities.
Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
Here is the entire discussion HondoFS that points out how big of a moron you are. Not sure why you want to rehash it...but then again, I never did understand stupid.
Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
this is a flat out blatant lie that was proved to you previously
Here is the entire discussion HondoFS that points out how big of a moron you are. Not sure why you want to rehash it...but then again, I never did understand stupid.
All the typing you did in that thread and you still never substantiated that the unemployment calculation changed enough to justify saying the numbers aren't comparable.
Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.
Here is the entire discussion HondoFS that points out how big of a moron you are. Not sure why you want to rehash it...but then again, I never did understand stupid.
Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.
Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.
2001400ex
Member Posts: 29,457
Comments
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
The unemployment calculation has changed several times between Reagan and now, so comparing the rates if FS unless you are a moron with an IQ less than 55. Its why one is labeled U-3 and the other isn't.
And the fact this was painfully beat into your skull a couple months back and yet you are still to stupid to either remember or match that information to whatever Liberal hack site you pulled that graph off (Maddow blog???) is further proof of the failed state of your genetics and abilities.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/18299/hellava-oconomy-we-got-going-on-here/p3
Just shake my head.
Not your best effort on that one.
No. It. Doesn't.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21