Is Obama the worst US president of the last 50 years?
The labor force participation rate - the most important employment metric showing the percentage of adults actually employed, is at near record lows
It's also nowhere near the record-highs achieved by Reagan, which is why he is remembered so fondly as one of the best Presidents.
Why haven't you kicked out the leftist idiot yet, Americans? Don't you want employed, independent people putting food on their own table, starting their own households and families?
Do you really want a nation of unemployed welfare-recipients and criminals?
>>73209214
i suggest you look up the panama canal expansion and how the keystone xl pipeline plays a role with it
>>73209330
I'm Greek, I know about shipping if nothing else.
Tanker charter rates are currently near record highs, VLCCs can take in over $100,000 a day in spot rates
Shipping is generally very cheap and efficient as a form of transport, but it cannot compete with a direct pipeline
>>73209214
Because the """""conservatives""""" are even worse neoliberal globalist corporate dick sucking shills than the democrats.
This country doesn't allow actual people to be represented and this is by design. Education and propaganda directs people into being either ignorant of what's going on or so disillusioned that you do nothing about it, the result is a nation of apathy controlled by an elite cadre who lead around the ignorant by the nose while those elites rob the world blind.
The only hope is some widespread political movement strong enough to empower third parties so that parties that actually represent people can get some power to reign in the cleptocracies. In other words: we are fucked.
>>73209214
Who needs a job when you can just complain to the administration about infair treatment and you'll get free moniez.
>>73209214
>What is changing demographics?
>What is baby boomers?
>What is college degree participation rate?
>>73209972
Changing demographics have been calculated to only account for a 0.5% drop
>>73209214
>NAFTA passed in '92
>Goes into effect in '94
>LFPRT starts to plateau in '95
>Starts to decrease significantly as more NAFT provisions come into effect
Sure, let's blame this on Obama instead of the bi-partisan clusterfuck that was NAFTA.
>>73209657
>compete
>not compliment
>>73210100
Read up on this shit before you talk.
----
The labor force participation rate for men has been on a downward trajectory for nearly 60 years, almost from the moment the agency started keeping track of the statistic. In January 1948, male labor force participation was 86.7 percent. By April 2000, when overall labor force participation peaked, male labor force participation had fallen to 74.9 percent. For women, the trend has operated in precisely the opposite direction. In April 1948, the participation rate for women was 32 percent. Female labor force participation steadily increased for the next half century, peaking at 60.3 percent in April 2000. Over the second half of the 20th century, women moved into the labor force—and were increasingly likely to stay there, even after becoming mothers. This sea change in women’s labor force participation is what helped buoy the overall labor force participation rate, even as men were increasingly less likely to be in the labor force.
Since 2000, however, the growth in women’s labor force participation has stalled out. Men’s labor force participation has continued to decline. So the question remains: what is responsible for the decline beginning in 2000?
The clearest cause of the decline in the overall labor force participation rate is the aging of the population. The Baby Boom generation, born between 1946 and 1964, is a large cohort of workers whose retirement age coincides with decline in labor force participation that began in 2000. As these workers retired, they left the labor force and in turn pushed down the total labor force participation rate.
Second part to come
>>73211136
At the same time, the participation rate for younger workers (age 16 to 24 years) has been on the decline for decades as well. The downward trend in labor force participation for younger Americans is explained by increased schooling: younger workers are more likely to stay in school longer, as college attendance has become substantially more common. So, a positive development—increased educational attainment—pushed down the labor force participation rate.
Yet the demographic shifts described above cannot explain the entire decline in the labor force participation rate. Prime-age workers’ labor force participation has also been on the decline. The rate of participation for workers ages 25 to 54 declined from 84.4 percent in April 2000 to 83.1 percent in December 2007, on the eve of the Great Recession.
Women’s labor force participation was driving the overall upward trend in labor force participation through 2000, so the plateau and then decline in women’s participation in the ensuring years is an important factor for explaining the national trend. Understanding why women’s labor force participation has stalled is key to reversing the downward trends in the national rate. In 1990, the United States had the sixth-highest female labor force participation rate amongst 22 high-income OECD countries. By 2010, its rank had fallen to 17th. Why have other high-income countries continued their climb while the United States has stalled? Research by economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn suggests that the absence of family-friendly policies such as paid parental leave in the United States is responsible for nearly a third of the U.S. decline relative to other OECD economies. As other developed countries have enacted and expanded family-friendly policies, the United States remains the lone developed nation with no paid parental leave.
Going with the opposite platform to judge a reaction?
You, sir, are and idiot :)
>>73211177
While labor force participation was declining before the Great Recession, the downward trend accelerated during the economic crisis. The raw data cannot tell us how much of the decline since the end of 2007 is a continuation of the longer-term trends discussed above, and how much of the decline is due to the lingering effects of the Great Recession. Untangling these two trends—the structural and the cyclical—has become an important and highly contested debate amongst economists and other labor market analysts.
Some research on the recent decline argues that a large portion was due to the structural forces in place before the recession, and concludes that not much of the current lower rate is due to weakness in the labor market due to the Great Recession. A 2014 study by economist Stephanie Aaronson and her colleagues finds that the majority of the decline is due to structural forces. According to their calculations, cyclical weakness is responsible for pushing down the labor force participation rate between 0.24 and 1 percentage point in the second quarter of 2014. In June 2014, the participation rate was about 3 percentage points below its pre-recession level, meaning the recession was only responsible for, at most, one-third of the lower rate.
Other research finds a much larger role for the recession, albeit over a different time frame. A 2012 study by economist Heidi Shierholz finds that only one-third of the decline between 2007 and 2011 was due to structural factors and the other two-thirds of the decline was due to the cyclical impact of the Great Recession.
>>73209214
No because all the threads in here tell me that he is the best ever. And that one Canadian poster. Thanks man. You truly have shown me the light.
>>73211515
An analysis from White House Council of Economic Advisers finds a result somewhere in the middle of these two estimates. The CEA, using conservative estimation techniques, concludes that about half of the decline from 2007 to the middle of 2014 is due to the aging of the population, one-sixth is part of a cyclical decline consistent with what we would expect given previous recessions, and the final third is a combination of other structural trends from before the recession and “consequences of the unique severity of the Great Recession.”
So, while there is room for the rate to move upward as the economy strengthens, long-term forces will continue to exert downward pressure on labor force participation. So far in 2015, the labor force participation rate has been holding fairly steady, moving sideways instead of downward. While the June report saw a 0.3 percentage point decline in the participation rate, we should be cautious about drawing conclusions from this dip. The monthly CPS data are noisy, meaning that several months’ of consistent movement are necessary before concluding that a trend is in place. Drawing conclusions from last month’s numbers is particularly risky, due to an anomaly in the timing of survey data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the June report.
Conclusion
Untangling the causes of causes of labor market trends is a tricky endeavor, particularly given the intersection of a long-run trend with the cataclysmic recession of 2007-2009. The drop in the labor market participation rate means that the unemployment rate overstates the extent of the labor market recovery. While the decline in labor force participation was underway decades before the Great Recession began, the downturn played a significant role in the accelerating the recent decline.
>>73209214
I thought for sure your thread would drag out that annoying leaf.
He must be filling his prescriptions.
>>73209762
Thats not the only option. There is also a final solution we can make.
it's at 63%, not 20%. if you believed what you read on /pol/ you'd think it'd be at 1%.
yeah obama is not doing great in that regard but 63% is not the end of the world.
>>73211869
Start the rebellion and you will come out the other end with a cleptocracy in power, these people are pros, you can see how they work across the globe, they thrive on chaos and the opportunities for asset aquisition it brings. The wealthy win in any barbaric situation because they have the resources to monopolize force.
>>73212025
>1 in 3 people under retirement age not working is okay because it could be 4/5 people not working
You can't be serious
>>73211136
>>73211177
>>73211515
>>73211642
Thanks for providing some real discussion germanguy
Pretty good read
>>73209972
65 is retirement age and participation rate is measured from age 16 up
>>73211136
>>73211177
>>73211515
>>73211642
You literally posted all of that shit in 5 minutes. Do you really expect anyone to read all that shit you shill.
>>73212202
well looking at the history of the graph, I'm dead serious. it's only dropped 4% and it was even lower in the 70s.
this is hardly catastrophic unemployment.
>>73212456
>it's fine that the rate is the same as the stagflation decade
>>73212202
Why do you think labor participation is by default good, and why do you think (if you agree with op) Obama has any bearing on or ability to affect this rate, particularly considering the incredibly hostile congress he is dealing with?
The reality is more and more people don't feel like working is worth it, so they retreat from the labor market. If companies need more people working they can raise wages to lure more people into the labor market.
>>73212614
are we currently experiencing inflation? no, the fed has been printing money to prevent deflation. we're facing different problems now.
>>73212619
>muh hostile congress
if all of his solutions didn't involve
>give welfare monkeys more money
>fuck the middle class whites
maybe he'd be more popular in congress
>>73212334
63 is retirement age. Average retirement age is 62.
>>73212456
>it was even lower in the 70's
Women also weren't significantly in the labor pool and wages were higher. The women's labor movement completely altered the status of LFPRT. The Great Society programs that took greater effect in the 70's, and the ACA which expanded social programs under the Obama admin, also created significant ramifications for LFPRT. Fact of the matter is, 1 in 3 people aged 16 to 63 are not working. 1 in 5 people ages 25-54 are not working. Even if you take into account the disabled and rich kids, it is not enough of a difference to not make the ever decreasing LFPRT extremely dire for the future of both the economy and society.
>>73212619
>default good
See above. There's too much at stake to have this many people unemployed, "willfully" or otherwise.
>and why do you think (if you agree with op) Obama has any bearing on or ability to affect this rate
Strawman as fuck. I don't blame Obama at all for the decrease in LFPRT. In fact, if you click my ID you'll find a post halfway up the page where I lay primary blame on NAFTA.
>The reality is more and more people don't feel like working is worth it
Bullshit. There are tens of thousands of people graduating from colleges and trade schools every year wondering how they're going to find a fucking job in an economic climate where you're outsourced to Pajeet, Paco and Zhou.
>If companies need more people working they can raise wages to lure more people into the labor market
Not after the free market craze. They just take their ball and go home.
>>73212405
pleb
>>73212327
thanks
How things are different between the interested and the ones who are just well ... Trump supporters. Trump supporters typically cannot read more than 3 words at a time, which is why MAGA was created, because it is 4 words and Trump supporters wanted something, you know, shorter.
>>73209214
BTFO IN 1 CHART.
>>73213596
>over 10% "disabled"
>>73212456
Most women weren't even working back then you dolt
>>73209657
this website says you don't know shit
http://www.koenig-cie.de/en/content/tanker-charter-rates
>>73209214
>The US is a free market economy.
> The president is responsible for the entire job force.
Fucking pick one, you dolt.
>>73211136
>>73211177
>>73211515
>>73211642
This is taken from the Equitable Growth "think tank", founded by one of Obama and Clinton's advisers.
Please refrain from posting outright propaganda and try to stick to facts and figures.
Not only is the labor force participation rate at record low rates, the demographic changes don't justify even a fraction of that drop, and the post-recession recovery has been one of the worst in US history.
>>73213906
The website you're quoting says spot rates are currently worse than period rates, a very dumb thing.
http://www.tradewindsnews.com/tankers/486949/vlcc-rates-bounce-after-charter-rush
Why are leafs and germans so fucking dumb and out of touch with reality? The level of cognitive dissonance is staggering. The low labor participation rate is due 100% to how easy it is to leech off of our government. Period. End of story.
You leafs don't have to deal with niggers like we do. You don't realize we have entire cities filled with them where they do nothing but kill each other and breed. And every fucking one of them gets a welfare check every month. Why the fuck would they be trying to get jobs?
