Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents Since World War II - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-02-2010, 03:08 PM   #61
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:24 AM
It was a poorly worded sentence, and it was throwing me off...

I know how averages work, and I also know it's stupid to compare a present presidents average with a previous president's aveage especailly without context.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 03:12 PM   #62
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 03:24 AM
How about Americans' net worth increase or decrease over a president's tenure?
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 03:41 PM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:24 AM
or how about the increasing concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 05:32 PM   #64
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
or how about the increasing concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population?
Quote:
How about Americans' net worth increase or decrease over a president's tenure?
Those would be interesting numbers to see as well. The unemployment numbers though are more often used by economist and politicians when describing how well or not well off the average American is in this country.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 05:42 PM   #65
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
It was a poorly worded sentence, and it was throwing me off...

I know how averages work, and I also know it's stupid to compare a present presidents average with a previous president's aveage especailly without context.
All that has been presented here are FACTS. Unbiased facts straight from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics database goes back to January 1948, which has allowed for the inclusion here of 12 different Presidential administrations.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 05:53 PM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
All that has been presented here are FACTS. Unbiased facts straight from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics database goes back to January 1948, which has allowed for the inclusion here of 12 different Presidential administrations.
If you've currently been at your job for a year and a half and someone before you had just run the company in the ground, do you think it would a fair comparison to show your numbers compared to someone a decade earlier who had been there for 8 years in prosperous times?

I mean they are just fact right?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 07:58 PM   #67
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
or how about the increasing concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population?
^That, and median income level would be very telling over a president's tenure.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 08:12 PM   #68
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
If you've currently been at your job for a year and a half and someone before you had just run the company in the ground, do you think it would a fair comparison to show your numbers compared to someone a decade earlier who had been there for 8 years in prosperous times?

I mean they are just fact right?
Hey, I only posted the factual numbers that are available. Most people would be curious if you were to exclude this President or that President.

Everyone already understands that Obama has only been in office 18 months.

If its inappropriate to look at the numbers so far while Obama has been in office, at what point, specifically which month, do you think it would be appropriate to view the numbers?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 08:18 PM   #69
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
^That, and median income level would be very telling over a president's tenure.
Interesting, but things like the poverty rate, unemployment rate, inflation rate, are the things that can really kick the population in the teeth. The misery index from the 1970s and early 1980s was based on the average of the unemployment rate with the inflation rate.

Its one thing to be making less money or not being payed enough to keep up with a cost of living, or watching someone rake in millions of dollars while your experiencing that, its another not to have a job or any sort of income.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 09:11 PM   #70
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
If its inappropriate to look at the numbers so far while Obama has been in office, at what point, specifically which month, do you think it would be appropriate to view the numbers?
Do you really need to be so pedantic about it, Sting?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 11:05 PM   #71
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Do you really need to be so pedantic about it, Sting?
BVS has mentioned multiple times in this thread that including Obama in this list, comparing all the Presidents for which there is data, is inappropriate because of the length of time Obama has been in office. I'm simply asking at what point if any would he consider it appropriate to include Obama in the comparison.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2010, 11:37 PM   #72
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
I'm simply asking
In an extremely pedantic way.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-03-2010, 02:59 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 03:24 AM
All due respect, I am tired of reading it too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
If its inappropriate to look at the numbers so far while Obama has been in office, at what point, specifically which month, do you think it would be appropriate to view the numbers?
What are we looking at the numbers to find?

Remember you posted "unbiased facts", as soon as you contextualize the comparison of those numbers, they are no longer objective. So what is it you're trying to say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The unemployment numbers though are more often used by economist and politicians when describing how well or not well off the average American is in this country.
Ok. So you know you're longer being 'objective', right?
Observations about facts "Ike is higher on the list than GHWB" can still be objective, but as soon as you assert what that is supposed to mean (as you do in the above quote) then you are subjectively framing the data yourself.

And because of this, it's akin to asking (are you a sports fan?) if Mark Sanchez will ever be as good as John Elway. It's a projected guess. It's incomplete. It's nothing more than pure speculation.

So to answer your question, you can select whatever time-frame you want to say whatever you want, just stop pretending these posts/arguments are unbiased and objective. Because you fail basic logic every time you go there. It's like your nonsensical selective data and ramblings about GDP and what it's supposed to mean. It's like using album sales to signify anything other than album sold. This is basic stuff here. I don't have a problem with arguing these factors, I use objective data myself to make subjective points.

To address the numbers provided, it's my opinion that Obama's only apple to apple on the list, for any number of reasons is Jimmy Carter. There is no inherent qualifier in my mind to what this list would signify. You have two one-term Presidents at the very top who had good economies and were sunk by war issues. So how is that comparative to Obama? You have several President's on the list who spent about 82% more time in office than Obama, with varying degrees of success. They are spread out all over. What's this supposed to speak to? Re-election chances? America going to hell in a handbasket? Or just "evidence that Obama generally sucks"?

I don't particularly have a man-crush on him. Never did, but I'm just tired of seeing your lines of argument.

Here's an example of an 'apples to apples' presentation of "unbiased facts": After 17 months GW Bush had an UE rate of 5.9 in June of 2002.
Simple as that.

But if someone wanted to, they could try and make it say whatever they wanted to. And that's fine, but we're not dealing with only "facts" in your arguments. That's my only point. So just tell us what you think it means. Because it doesn't always mean what you think it means.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 07-03-2010, 10:07 AM   #74
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Ok. So you know you're longer being 'objective', right?
Observations about facts "Ike is higher on the list than GHWB" can still be objective, but as soon as you assert what that is supposed to mean (as you do in the above quote) then you are subjectively framing the data yourself.


well summed up, and a good post.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-03-2010, 12:54 PM   #75
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

If its inappropriate to look at the numbers so far while Obama has been in office, at what point, specifically which month, do you think it would be appropriate to view the numbers?
Well if you want apples to apples, then after he has left office.

But even that's an indicator for what exactly?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com