Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!CitadelGrad wrote: .... Baldy is right about one thing though, the drop in unemployment is misleading in a lot of ways and the comparison to unemployment figures during Reagan's first term is pretty useless.
Obama Must Create 230,000 Jobs A Month Until The End Of His Second Term For Return To Breakeven
From: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama- ... rting-new-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Recently there has been a surge in cherry picked employment charts highlighting that the Obama administration has done a great job in rescuing the economy. The premise goes: after dropping to as much as 700K+ jobs lost per month, the administration has managed to pull off a miraculous recovery and now we are riding on a wave of 8 consecutive "private jobs" beats in a row. ...
This argument is so shallow we won't even bother with it. ... So in the vein of sharing pretty charts, here is one: we show job losses since the beginning of the Recession (excluding for the impact of census hiring), juxtaposed to the natural growth rate of the Labor Pool (and not the artificial one, which according to the BLS is the same now as it was a year ago). We discover that
i) 7.6 Million absolute jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Recession;
ii) a record 10.5 Million jobs have been lost when factoring in for the natural growth of the Labor Pool of 90-100K a month (we use the lower estimate, which also happens to be the CBO's estimate), and that
iii) assuming we expect to return to the jobs baseline level as of December 2007 (or an unemployment rate of 5%) by the end of Obama's second term (and we make the big assumption there will be a second term), Obama needs to create 230,000 jobs each and every month consecutively from September through November 2016 in order for the total jobs lost to be put back into the labor force ... "
