Unemployment-discuss
Comments
-
Both made it to 77.
-
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.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line. -
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line. -
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. -
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
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.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/18299/hellava-oconomy-we-got-going-on-here/p3
-
this is a flat out blatant lie that was proved to you previously2001400ex said:
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number. -
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.HoustonHusky said: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.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/18299/hellava-oconomy-we-got-going-on-here/p3
Just shake my head. -
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.2001400ex said:
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
