Header Image (book)


Monday, June 6, 2016

Obamanomics (With Addendum)

Accurate or not?  If accurate, what do these numbers portend? Click directly on the image to enlarge it.


FreeThinke's comment to this thread — after the release of the horrible job numbers for May 2016:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Democrat.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Hillary!
As of Friday, June 3, 2016, 94,044,000 Americans are neither employed nor seeking employment — according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. What are all of these individuals doing with their "free time"?


As Silverfiddle commented below:
For those who mistakenly try to pin the labor participation rate on baby boomers retiring, see the chart about half way down "Labor Force Participation Rate: 25-54 Years."

Hillary will give us more of the same.
HERE is the link referenced in Silverfiddle's comment.  The graphic therefrom (click to enlarge:


  1. Replies


It doesn't matter WHO or When this deceptive practice (of not counting all who’ve given up on trying to fund employment) was introduced. It still falls under the heading of Blue Smoke and Mirrors –– i.e. Self-serving Government Chicanery.

Very close to NINETY-FIVE MILLION persons over the age of sixteen are NOT participating in the work force. 

That must be close to HALF the population eligible to look for work. How could that possibly be considered "good" by even the wildest stretchy of the imagination.

Face it, Ducky, –– and all you other advocates of Statist-Collectivist-Interventionism out there: 


"Figures may not lie, but liars always figure."
      No matter how you slice it, an a nation of THREE-HUNDRED-MILLION - plus or minus - 95-MILLION is fully ONE THIRD of the entire nation.

Of course, minor children, insane, maimed, crippled, hopelessly retarded, incarcerated criminals, and the aged could not reasonably be expected to serve in the work force. Any fool should be able to see that. However, taking all that into consideration only makes the reported figure all the more alarming.


T he tragedy for our nation lies in the rank and file members of the Democratic Party's seemingly unlimited capacity to deceive THEMSELVES into BELIEVING the outrageous sophistry their leaders ceaselessly generate.

  2. They are accurate, and the seeds of this rotten fruit were sown way before Obama. His greatest downfall is being an economic dunce and surrounding himself with people who have no clue about how to address any of this.

    Here is a very good article, with government data and charts, that addresses this topic.


    For those who mistakenly try to pin the labor participation rate on baby boomers retiring, see the chart about half way down "Labor Force Participation Rate: 25-54 Years."

    Hillary will give us more of the same.

    1. In other words, "More supply side, please."?

      I can't understand this fascination in doubling down on what got us here.

    2. Until we get past Buzzword Bingo, rational discussion is impossible.

    3. SF,
      As you know, the Left loves Buzzword Bingo.

    4. ducky,

      How's Obama's "Demand Side" economics working out? Bigger welfare checks and higher minimum wages fix the economy yet? What, no? You've had seven years of it...

    5. ps - It's sooo easy to play Buzz-word Bingo. The resulting strawmen are just so easy to set up.

    6. AOW,

      Ducky is just upset that my "25-54 labor participation rate chart" preemptively defused his "baby boomers retiring" diversionary stink bomb.

      The left is so predictable thanks to their groupthink mentality and wholesale reliance upon the same stagnant, foul-smelling pool of propaganda and rhetoric.

      It's a shame to see a man as obviously smart as Ducky herd up with the feral progressive pigs...

    7. SF,
      I have just added that link and the graphic therefrom to the body of the blog post.

    8. How do these charts look when you factor in the expansion of disability claims and number of jobs taken by illegal immigrants?

    9. Beamish,
      Good question. Perhaps Silverfiddle knows those stats.

    10. Beamish, AOW,

      These charts reflect the results of permanent disability and people permanently displaced by illegal immigrants hired by dirty business.

      The question would be, how much did those phenomena affect the statistics?

      If we didn't have goldbricks filing fraudulent disability claims, and illegal immigration work was at a minimum, what would the numbers look like?

      Another common thing is people being officially unemployed but working off the books (which, given the rapacious nature of government, and special status granted to the well-connected, who can blame someone for trying to get over on the man?)

  3. "No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed."

    In fact, Obama said nothing of the kind.
    This method of measuring unemployment has been in use for decades and the fact that it is presented as an Obama administration decision indicates that the rest of the post needs some analysis.

    Trump is surely as accurate a source as FT.

    Of course, there's no questioning the economic system. Not in right wing world.

    1. Fareeq RamalamadingdongJune 6, 2016 at 9:32:00 AM EDT

      You mean to say, sir, that the made-up joke posted by Sahib FreeThinke is not factually-accurate?

      What an earth-shattering revelation! You, sir, are the supreme butt of rebuttals to joke posts. Where would the world be without humorless prigs flitting around with needles to prick every humor-filled balloon and drain all the fun and laughter out of everything? Allah bless you,sir!

    2. Today is first day of Ramadan 2016.

    3. Gofaq Youseff said

      Oh GOODIE! Let's have a nice old-fashioned PIG ROAST.

      The dogs always love to eat the scraps.

    4. Some months ago I won the unemployment/employment questionaire upon which all of these faux numbers are based. Absurd intrusive questions were included. Considering the honesty of our government, I can only imagine how these numbers are tabulated by our hard working civil servants.

  4. NOTICE:

    LEFTISTS will NEVER admit their emperor is naked. Instead, they will continue to shout themselves hoarse extolling the great beauty and fine quality of his brand new Royal Raiments.

    The LEFTISTS, you see, are in league with the SWINDLERS who hoodwinked the emperor in the first place.

    What good is knowing the truth, if a majority of those you attempt to engage in fruitful discussion are determined NOT to acknowledge it –– no matter how dearly it may cost them?

    The Left got its claws on the lever of power by loudly proclaiming that Truth is a Lie, and Lies are the Truth.

    They have used that reversion of fact like a mantra, and have thus virtually hypnotized themselves –– and the great mass of gullible ignoramuses who function so superbly as "Useful Idiots" –– into believing their own demonically disingenuous fanfarinade.

    So, please STOP talking to LEFTISTS. It's a COMPLETE WASTE of TIME and ENERGY.

    1. FT,
      So, please STOP talking to LEFTISTS. It's a COMPLETE WASTE of TIME and ENERGY.

      Agreed. But engaging does stimulate the circulatory system.

    2. All this UNEXPLAINED violence in America's cities. No one has ANY IDEA as to what may be going on....

    3. FJ,
      Yes, I keep hearing about "unexplained violence."

      There are none so blind as those who will not see!

    4. AOW, the tragedy is that neither side realizes that trying for rational discussion is like trying to convince H.A.L. to open the pod bay doors.

      In this case there is a post sourced to Freethinke that essentially claims the dichotomy between labor participation rate and unemployment rate is a creation of Obama.
      Now never mind that any news or economics broadcast consistently discusses both when the jobs figure is released (in this case they even reminded us of the impact of the Verizon strike on the number) to suggest it is not an invention of the administration is an example of the left denying facts.

      I have yet to hear anything from the right which is anything more than doubling down on the failed (though not for the top) supply side nonsense.
      This is the time on the blog thread where kid comes in and yaps that "libtards" don't understand the Laffer curve and it degenerates.

      But just as Laffer suggested, we cut marginal rates, the uber wealthy became uber wealthier and they created jobs. Ooops, the last piece of the formula didn't work out.
      Maybe if we cut the marginal rate further they'll create jobs?
      Do you understand why the right wing has lost credibility with people of good will?

    5. Let's get past the shibboleth pile where useless terms like Laffer Curve, rightwing, supply-side and tinkle-down lay rusted and broken...

      Government incentives and favors lie at the crux of economic activity.

      Government goodies go to the well-connected crony crapitalists, global corporatists and power elite. They live in the lap of US luxury while growing fat off of foreign labor and screwing American workers.

      Government could restructure tax codes and incentives to square things up a little better, but they won't.

      What good does having a corporate headquarters here do for our economy when its money-making operations are all overseas?

    6. Gotta keep the ExIm Bank funded, SF... corporate welfare is our priority.

    7. I still see the matter as government's abrogation of it's regulatory function. Start talking about restructuring tax codes and you better be talking cuts or The Bloviating Gasbag is going to be on the air talking about the Laffer Curve.

      Government incentives and favors have hardly been at the crux of the likes of Facebook and so many other job creators .

    8. Government incentives and favors have hardly been at the crux of the likes of Facebook

      Please. How much "free WiFi" and computers to educational institutions has the government subsidized in the name of Internet equal access and net neutrality?

      Get real duckman.

    9. A few years ago the RENT Wal-Mart pays on warehouses in China was 3% of China's GDP. Add in the rents paid by Costco and other bulk chain store distributors. China really doesn't scare me.

      If the US and China mutually banned trade with each other, the US would take around a 20% hit on GDP mostly on money Americans make selling Chinese crap. China's GDP would take a 75% hit. We can find new manufacturers and suppliers foreign or domestic. China can't find customers / consumers that can make up for that. We simply need to break China's near monoploy on our impoted manufactured goods and deal with more amenable trading partners.

      Nothing wrong with wedding morality to our international trade policies to get shit done our way. Call it neoconservatism or whatever but world leaders lead and world feeders feed. Subsidize bad behavior and bad behavior will flourish.

    10. Upvotes for Beamish

    11. Sorry beamish, the Neo-Conservatives (Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard et al) already LOVE international trade MUCH more than they'll ever love punishing trading partners.

    12. What about creating new "Chinas" - trading partners - that can edge out China competitively. All I want is a box fan I can remote control via Bluetooth. Don't care which dink builds it ;)

  5. No look more for 2nd opinion. 2 out of 2 doctors agree: this is correct diagnosis.

  6. That's a good one. Never will forget their "who's on first routine"! Thanks for the link over at by TOTUS site.

  7. o/t - If Judge Curiel is a member of the HBNA, how can he sit on the bench judging the trial of Donald Trump and having NOT recused himself, NOT get IMPEACHED?


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective