So, is POTUS absolutely sure he heard that the unemployment rate is 42%...

So, is POTUS absolutely sure he heard that the unemployment rate is 42%? That's essentially twice the unemployment of the Weimar Republic's crisis. (citation: Unemployment and Real Wages in Weimar Germany, University of Oxford 2004)

4 in 10 people without a job would be "we've just been crushed in a war" levels of civilian displacement.

That many people without an income would cause total mayhem, a recession the likes of which is literally not seen on this world. The highest unemployment rate is South Africa with 25% of workers unemployed.

The only person who could believe that figure from the president is someone who either a.) Does not know how percentages work, b.) would wish to believe we're in the middle of an apocalypse even if we're not, or c.) would believe it was sunny on a rainy day if an authority figure told them.

Other urls found in this thread:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm
businessinsider.com/real-employment-rate-47-percent-2011-1
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

'heard' is Trump for 'pulled out of my ass'

it's an alternative fact, libtard.

labor participation rate

This is an alternative comeback.

42% of what the entire population of America? Because that would be believable. Kids and the old all factor in to that. Also illegals that do have under the table work would count for unemployed as well.

You don't understand what "unemployment rate" means. Go get your highschool diploma, unemployment refers to members of the workforce that have lost their job and do not have a new one.

nice one fellow trumptard

this is the correct answer, kikey sanders also addressed this in his campaigning, labor force participation has declined under Obama

Under obama all libs crowed about was the unemployment rate

We need to look at the Workforce Participation rate (# of all adults in workforce) which is absolutely fucking astronomical and sickening

its accounting for people not receiving benefits anymore and people with degrees who work minimum wage jobs

if unemployment is so low how come i cant find a fucking job
checkmate

youre the reason i dont come here anymore, get out shlomo

typical tricks

>If unemployment is so low how come i cant find a fucking job
Because you're obviously not stable enough nor capable for the job.

Because you have no education and you're unlikeable, check

K, I have an even easier example to give of this bullshit, then.

POTUS is on the record as saying we have the highest rate of murder in 45 years.

See image.

That's a red herring, as the president didn't say Workforce Participation Rate, he said Unemployment Rate.

Stay on topic.

that's true, nobody likes me
why can't i just get a job picking berries or some shit. ill work for 4 dollars an hour in 90 degree weather i dont care

Labor force participation is currently 62.9% out of a civilian labor force size of 159.7 million for a total of 100.4 million people working. Obama started his term with 66.2% participation out of 154.1 million for a total of 102 million people working. In total, that's a loss of 7.7 million jobs during the Obama years.

Now, calculating real unemployment is difficult. If we're counting unemployment as per who's not working, the rate is the inverse of the current participation rate, which is 37.1%. If you count people who are underemployed, ie people working in part time jobs, the number rises drastically. If you're counting people who are getting paid benefits from the government for being recently unemployed, you're looking at less than 5%.

The interesting statistic to me is that only 29% of the population in the country actually works.

i have a career that i will not give details on

under obama rule, i was only able to generate 2 years of work in 8 years of time

just because starbucks still has employees doesnt mean that entire industries havent disentigrated. i used to make 130k annually under bush and clinton and ive made less than 100k in the past 8 years

just because your starbucks was unaffected doesnt mean the people who create teh world you live in and its advancements have enjoyed such prosperity

the real genocide is against the genius- who just happens to also be white.

what about it

You could do this if you were Mexican.

for the recond, me and people like me are not considered in the math that determines the unemployment rate that CNN will tell you is accurate

Don't be dense.

He did say Unemployment Rate, the *REAL* unemployment rate, not the bullshit where you factor 40% of the population out of the statistic.

Roughly half of Americans got paid last week, and that's being generous with counting people with high level degrees working McJobs.

The actual unemployed/underemployed rate is damn near 70%.

Wait a second. Mexicans can get jobs that easy?
Call me Pablo now guys.

Trump, like all conservaniggers, is retarded.

what in god's name do you want

Citation needed that CNN would somehow specifically omit "people like you" in its math.

BTW, I don't get my statistics from CNN. I don't even get my journalism from CNN.

Yea, see you never denied my point. I know that "unemployment rate" factors out those of unworkable age. But now we are just debating semantics and there is truth in saying that 42% of people are not employed. Also you have no source backing up what was supposedly said in the first place to be fact.

What do you mean what was said in the first place? Trump said the 42% figure on camera, I cited the University of Oxford for the Weimar comparison... what are we pulling hairs on exactly?

It was absolutely a mistake to call it the UNEMPLOYMENT rate.

He should have instead have called it the NOT-EMPLOYED rate.

Leftist faggots screech with laughter globally - how could he believe that the UNEMPLOYMENT rate is 42%?

If he had instead said the NOT-EMPLOYED RATE is 42%, they would have to admit that he's right.

>Citation needed that CNN would somehow specifically omit "people like you" in its math

You can only be jobless for so long before they reclassify you as non-participating vs unemployed in the statistics. You're free to look it up on the BLS site. To be fair they do clearly note that unemployed means recently unemployed and actively seeking work, but no one seems to really mention it when reporting on the number.

That's why the labor force participation number is better. It factors out the youth, and disabled, and decrepitly old, giving a much cleaner number on the number of people who could be working but aren't.

It's still a red herring. The words he said have definitions. This makes him a serial liar. You can't just say "this is what he meant" without any proof you are inside his head.

That's a good argument for labor force participation as a better standard.

But my discussion here isn't about labor participation, it's about how easily the president can pull a number out of his ass.

Yea there we go. An error in semantics. Where if the proper words are used there is truth. Now then could we stop bickering about the meanings of words and concentrate on making America great again? You people are serious fags.

>accusing people of assuming others intentions
>doing the same

kek

No, it makes the government a serial liar by misrepresenting a segment of people who are getting paid benefits as the entire segment of unemployed peoples in America, where it clearly isn't.

No it simply makes you a delusional reactionary blowing shit out of proportion. I think you should relax and smoke a weed there pal. Don't worry USA only cares about having more excuses to interrogate potential illegals. They don't care about you smoking a weed as long as you're not Mexican.

Because you can't just say "Make X Amazing" without going into specifics, seeing what needs to be fixed, and even if it needs fixing.

This is supposed to be politics, not a highschool social studies brainstorm circle.

>Because you can't just say "Make X Amazing" without going into specifics
Exactly kid. It's for your own good. Now sit down and shut up.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm

I'm assuming he got the numbers from government statistics, like USA Today did. Or was that fake news?

huh 42 %, wellwhadayaknow

I don't simply accept shit like that.
I protested Obama's drone usage, and after the NSA leak, his mass surveillance. I don't sit down and shut up, because in a republic, that's not how its supposed to work.

Don't you have a shitty prime minister to not sit down and shut up about? Seriously. Don't take your own advice.

Lots of welfare exists now that didn't exist then
Thats why people arent going crazy

>scrutinizing political rhetoric this hard

ISHGIGHAYDIGHA

The keyphrase here is "It's for your own good"
And it is, when it involves Trump.
But if you bring Trudeau into this, it's obviously not for my own good. So you don't really have a point there at all. Nice try though. Apples and Oranges.

7D chess, now they're going to "clarify" that' that number is the labor participation rate and people will realize that unemployment figures are essentially meaningless (even more when Obongo changed the rules on how they're calculated)

A statistic is not rhetoric. The rhetorical option would actually be a lot easier to gain liberals with. If the POTUS simply said "Unemployment is really bad.", it wouldn't be so easy to disprove him on the spot and would probably ring louder to his emotional-based audience anyhow.

To rile people up. Only problem is Trump supporters are on cloud 9 right now and won't be down for 8 years.

businessinsider.com/real-employment-rate-47-percent-2011-1

And to continue, sorry, you can't use a slogan as a talking point either. It's like saying Burger King is better than McDonald's because you have "Have it Your Way" there.

>pull a number out of his ass

if u havent collected unemployment or contributed to unemployment within the last 6 months- you are NOT UNEMPLOYED

there are millions of people who simply arent a member of the workforce because of the wording of its requisites.

It's completely irrelevant dude. Go back to sleep, it's officially not happening.

but he's a liar right?

I'm saying he's a shitty liar. He could be way better at lying (approaching Clinton level) if he just refused to say numbers.

that's a real neat chart but not as nice as mine

>ITT we compare economies that are 100 years apart.

FPBP

All of the rate stats are flawed because they misreport population (Census bureau) in order to keep the literal value of human life lower

Fucking leftist cocksuckers and your weasel words, doublespeak. You should be chained to a rack and flayed.

This isn't "politics" anymore, this isn't a game.

ah, the brainless paramecium reveals itself.