Democrats bleat about how they care about PEOPLE and blah blah blah, not like those EEEVIL, hard-hearted, GREEDY Republicans. Let’s just do a REALITY CHECK on that particular claim, shall we?
Republican Majority Control* (Jan 1995 through Dec 2006)
Average percent of population** EMPLOYED = 63.3%
Democrat Majority Control* (Jan 2009 through Present)
Average percent of population EMPLOYED*** = 58.7%
Employment gap between Republican and Democrat economies: 63.3 – 58.7 = 4.6%
November 2013: Civilian noninstitutional population age 16+ years = 246,567,000
4.6% x 246,567,000 = 11.3 million MORE people are jobless because of Obama Democrats
*Majority political control = The political party that has majority control of two or three of the three legislative arms of the federal government (House, Senate, President).
**The population used for this statistic is noninstitutionalized civilians 16 and older.
***It is important to understand that, in the last 4 years, as unemployment dropped from 10% to 7%, people haven’t gone from unemployed to employed, they have left the work force. The “Unemployment Rate” excludes DISCOURAGED WORKERS (those who have stopped looking, because they have lost hope of finding a job). This is a faked up statistic the Clintons engineered to make their labor numbers look better in headlines. It leads to the cocked up fact that a failing economy, like ours, can see the “Unemployment Rate” go down because unemployed workers become too discouraged to keep looking for jobs that don’t exist, while a recovering economy can see this rate go UP, as discouraged workers begin to feel hopeful and get back to looking for work again.
Sources:
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Civilian noninstitutional population 16+ yo
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU00000000
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment/Population ratio
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
Average employment rates by majority political control
Employment-Population Ratio, Correlated with Majority Party, Jan 1995 – Nov 2013
MEGA hat tip with a shuffle-ball-change to itookotheredpill for teaching me this stuff and correcting my goof ups!
polination.blog 
Thank you for the hat tip.
LikeLike
If you don’t mind the constructive feedback, I’d recommend that instead of using the total U.S. population from the census population clock, use the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+, shown in BLS table A-1.
For November 2013, that number was reported as 246,567,000.
If we had the same 63.4% level of employment now that we had during December 2006 (the last month of a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush), then well over 11.8 Million more Americans would be employed right now!
LikeLike
Is that civilian noninst pop the basis for the percent of population employed calculation?
LikeLike
Yes.
According to BLS table A-1, the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in November 2013 was 246,567,000.
The number considered to be in the civilian labor force was 155,294,000 representing 63.0% of the population (155,294,000/246,567,000 = 0.62982, which rounds to 63.0% and is reported as the Labor Force Participation Rate).
The other 37% of our civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+(91,273,000) was considered “Not in labor force”.
The number employed was 144,386,000.
The number considered unemployed is calculated as the workforce minus the number employed.
number Unemployed = workforce – employed =
155,294,000 – 144,386,000 = 10,908,000 (shown as 10,907,000 in Table A-1, likely due to rounding)
The percentage considered unemployed is calculated as the number considered unemployed divided by the size of the workforce:
Unemployment % = Unemployed Percent of labor force =
number Unemployed / workforce =
10,907,000 / 155,294,000 = 0.0702, which rounds to 7.0%.
LikeLike
Now consider what the unemployment rate would be if the labor participation rate (the % of the Civilian noninstitutional population considered to be in the Civilian labor force) were the same now as it was when Republicans last held majority control in December 2006 (66.4%).
The civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in November 2013 would still be 246,567,000.
The number employed would still be 144,386,000.
However, the number considered to be in the civilian labor force would be 246,567,000 * 66.4% = 246,567,000 * 0.664 = 163,720,488
Round that down to 163,720,000
The number considered unemployed is calculated as the workforce minus the number employed.
number Unemployed = workforce – employed =
163,720,000 – 144,386,000 = 19,334,000
The percentage considered unemployed is calculated as the number considered unemployed divided by the size of the workforce:
Unemployment % = Unemployed Percent of labor force =
number Unemployed / workforce =
19,334,000 / 163,720,000 = 0.11809, which rounds to 11.8%.
If the participation rate now, after almost 7 straight years of Democrat majority control, were the same as it was in December 2006 (after 12 straight years of Republican majority control), then the unemployment rate would not be 7.0%, it would be 11.8%!
LikeLike
Thanks! Fixed it up, resent the email version and reposted to Facebook. I really strive to be accurate. Goofs like this are such time suckers … it’s a huge incentive to be careful and get it right the first time! LOL
LikeLike
That’s RE-SENT … not resent. I totally APPRECIATE your corrections, redpill!!
LikeLike
Obama’s claim:
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/409106469267574784
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/409105055975890944
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/409165421250486272
LikeLike
Oct 2009: 10% unemployment, 58.5% employment
Nov 2013: 7% unemployment, 58.6% employment
There has been no real improvement in employment in the last 4 years.
The ONLY reason that the reported unemployment number dropped from 10% to 7% is because the Labor Force Participation Rate dropped from 65% to 63% during that time period.
The unemployment rate did NOT drop because of people moving from unemployed to employed.
The unemployment rate dropped because people moved from unemployed to “not in labor force”.
If the participation rate now, after almost 7 straight years of Democrat majority control, was the same as it was in December 2006 (after 12 straight years of Republican majority control), then the unemployment rate would not be 7.0%, it would be 11.8%!
December 2006:
Unemployment: 4.4%
Employment: 63.4%
Participation Rate: 66.4%
November 2013:
Unemployment: 7.0%
Employment: 58.6%
Participation Rate: 63.0%
Unemployment rate if Participation Rate had matched Dec 2006 (66.4%): 11.8%
Using that to compare apples to apples (participation rate 66.4% in both cases)…
Unemployment at the end of 12 straight years of Republican majority control: 4.4%
Unemployment now, after nearly 7 straight years of Democrat majority control: 11.8%
LikeLike
In the last 4 years, as unemployment dropped from 10% to 7%, people haven’t gone from unemployed to employed, they have left the work force.
LikeLike
======================
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, 1978 to date
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
======================
Links for data that goes into the columns in Table A-1:
1) Civilian noninstitutional population – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU00000000
2) Number Civilian Labor Force – Civilian Labor Force Level – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
3) Percent of population Civilian Labor Force – Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
4) Number Employed in Civilian Labor Force – Number Employed – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
5) Percent of population Employed in Civilian Labor Force – Employment-Population Ratio – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
6) Number Unemployed in Civilian Labor Force – Unemployment Level – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
7) Percent of population Unemployed in Civilian Labor Force – Unemployment Rate – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
8) Number Not in Labor Force – http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/410795580936712193
LikeLike
Full post here: http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/unemployment-graph-when-participation-rate-held-constant/
Here’s an excerpt:
I ran all the numbers from January 1995 to present and computed the effect on the other reported unemployment number if the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate had been a constant 67.3%. The results are eye-opening:
By removing Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate as a variable, the graph of Unemployment for January 1995 to present now looks like the inverse of Employment for that time period:
LikeLike
I’m confused about what you did here. Can you explain “if the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate had been a constant 67.3%” in another way that might sink in to my math-deficient brain?
LikeLike
It is a bit confusing, becuase the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports Employed as “Percent of [Civilian noninstitutional] population”, but reports Unemployed as “Percent of labor force”. (See: A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, 1978 to date) The reported Employment and Unemployment rates are not apples-to-apples, and I was trying to get an apples-to-apples comparison of unemployment & employment.
I was able to get there, but it wasn’t easy. In my post I try to explain the mathematical steps I went through, but the general concept is this:
In Jan-Apr 2000, the percentage of our [civilian noninstitutional age 16+] population that was interested in working [considered as participating in the workforce] was a record high 67.3%, and only 4% of those were unemployed.
Since then, a smaller percentage of our population has been considered as participating in the workforce, but that is not a benefit to our economy nor our nation.
If one looks at the BLS reported unemployment rate, it looks like unemployment has dropped from 10% in October 2009 to 7% in November 2013. That sounds good, and the media treats it as good news.
But when one looks at the BLS reported employment rate (employment-population ratio) during the same time period, employment only increased from 58.5% to 58.6%.
So, in the same time period that unemployment reportedly decreased by 3 points, (from 10%to 7%), employment only increased by one-tenth of a point (0.1%).
How did unemployment drop 3 full points while employment was essentially unchanged?
If those three percentage points of unemployed did not become employed, what did they become?
The answer is that they became “not in labor force”. The Labor Force Participation Rate dropped two points (from 65% to 63%) during that time period.
Again, as reported unemployment dropped from 10% in October 2009 to 7% in November 2013, the unemployed did not become employed… instead MILLIONS of them lost hope of finding a job and left the workforce.
My goal above was to see what the reported unemployment rate would have been if those people had been considered “in labor force, unemployed” instead of “not in labor force”.
Again, the reported unemployment rate is highly influenced by the labor force participation rate, while the reported employment rate is not.
The Employment rate (employment-population ratio) that we have long looked at has been essentially flatline for over 4 years.
By doing what I did above, to see what the unemployment rate would look like if the labor force participation rate were kept constant at the Jan-Apr 2000 level of 67.3% (to remove Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate as a variable), shows that Unemployment has been essentially flatline for over 4 years… at a level of OVER 13% unemployment!
By doing that, the graph of Unemployment for January 1995 to present now looks like the inverse of the graph of Employment for that time period:
LikeLike
Chrissy, I did the same thing to my modified unemployment graph that I had previously done to the employment graph. This should look familiar… (a mirror image…)
If one looks at unemployment this way, keeping the Labor Force Participation Rate constant at the 67.3% level enjoyed during Jan-Apr 2000, then the average unemployment during 12 continuous years of Repulbican Majority Control, from Jan 1995 to Dec 2006, was 6.0%. And the average unemployment during the Obama administration has been 12.8%, and is currently 13%.
===
Now, producing this graph was something I wanted to see for myself, but it may be difficult to communicate with others.
Because the calculations that I had to do to compute values for size of workforce, number unemployed (workforce – employed), and unemployment rate (number unemployed / workforce) may not be understood by a lot of people, it’s probably best to stick with the graphs straight from BLS, but make a huge point of the fact that BLS reports employment and unemployment differently.
Employment is reported as percent of population, while unemployment is reported as percent of workforce, and by shrinking the size of the workforce, they can artificially shrink both the number of people considered unemployed and the unemployment rate.
Emphasize that from October 2009 to November 2013, the reported Unemployment Rate dropped 3 full percentage points (from 10% to 7%) while the Employment Rate (Employment-Population Ratio) was essentially unchanged.
Empahsize that the unemployed did not become employed, they became “not in workforce”, i.e., no longer counted in the unemployment rate.
There has been no improvement in employment since the Democrats took majority control on January 3, 2007.
And there has been no REAL improvement in unemployment in the last 4 years… the only reason “unemployment” appeared to improve is because the Obama administration stopped counting Millions of unemployed people.
LikeLike
Do I understand correctly that your graph (which is so cool, how it mirrors the other!) puts the Discouraged Workers back in with Unemployed to show actual jobless?
LikeLike
Essentially, yes.
I didn’t use any numbers from the BLS Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking, but I adjusted the data found in Table A-1 to show a “what if” for the scenario that the percentage of the population looking/participating in the workforce was the same now as it had been January-April 2000 (67.3%).
LikeLike
Excellent. THAT I can explain! 🙂 Thank you for all your hard work number crunching. 🙂
LikeLike
You’re very welcome. I’m a nerd. 🙂
Please note the modification/clarification I made to the comment above in response to your question about discouraged workers.
LikeLike
In summary, if one keeps the Labor Force Participation Rate constant (rather than moving millions into “Not in Labor Force” where they don’t get counted in the Unemployment Rate), then the Unemployment Rate…
…ends up mirroring (being the inverse of) the Employment Rate…
LikeLike