...If you look at the average labor force growth from 1948 to 2007 of 1,579,000 the labor force should have expanded by 6,316,000 2008-2011. Instead the labor force expanded by a mere 38,000!
Thus, 6,278,000 people are unaccounted for in the unemployment numbers based on historical averages... The unemployment numbers using this historical trend method show the following numbers for November in these years:Unemployment Rate Adjusted for Population Growth
2007 4.7%
2008 7.3%
2009 11.7%
2010 12.4%
2011 12.2%
I am sure it is just coincidence, but it is interesting to note that the flat lining of the labor force began in earnest with the Obama administration.
Six million people missing. Six million gone from the labor force.
Hopefully you won't hate me and -- not to trivialize the real thing in the least -- but I can't keep myself from thinking that President Obama is the architect of an economic holocaust.
3 comments:
The best read all weekend. Thank you. I posted this at Frankenstein Government.
Yeah, there is no way that the UE rate is actually under the magic , single term creating 2 digit rate of 10.0, without some creative number manipulation of some sort. This is probably the key right here. Spread the word.
One thing your analysis doesn't include is the percentage of 2 wage earner families vs. 1 wage earner families - by choice as opposed to where one can't find work. At the beginning of those statistics, the percentage of 2 wage-earner families (vs. Mom stays at home) was probably very small. That percentage grew dramatically over the years, but probably hit a top somewhere along the line. Again, by choice. Unemployment as a percentage then would be based on a larger and larger base until that trend peaked. I think it would change your conclusions dramatically if this factor was considered.
Post a Comment