Not your best work. The losses per month don't even approach the number of employable people in the US. If anything you should mention that the jobs created aren't enough to keep up with the population growth or that labor becomes cheaper, in theory, when more people are unemployed and thus people come more employable
@FreeMarketSwine Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@regelemihai To quickly explain this he means that the trend such as job losses is gonna fall no matter what happens because you can't report someones job loss more than once (unless rehired). So it would be appropriate to say numbers of jobs being lossed decreasing is not the best way of argueing the stimilus worked and saying that chart has any real relevance.
@101Snipeshot Ok, but the graph claims a trend in job growth, not mere job losses.
And second, that still doesn't make sense to me. If those who have lost their jobs are no longer counted, that would mean that the more jobs are lost the more it's gonna show how they're really increasing? Why does the unemployment rate still tower above 8% if that's the case? What am I missing?
@regelemihai Well yeah if more jobs are lost, but the entire workforce isn't gonna be cut so the job losses will tamper off unless some other drop comes along then they'll pick back up. The more your missing is fuzzy government math. Its not uncommon for politicians to lie. Even that over 8% isn't entirely correct. If you could the many who stopped looking for work its more like a 15%. So yeah as to where they even got this chart is probably questionable.
True, any and all statistics, including those coming from government sources, can always be twisted. But that doesn't really help us because to combat them, we need to cite sources with stats too.
Also, what does Lee mean when he;s talking about the "total employed" and the importance of that detail?
@regelemihai It is true that we must combat statistics with other statistics. Here we're making a logical arguement that job losses isn't exactly the best way to rate the stimilus sucess. He's talking about the total of people who have a job or the current population. No matter how bad things may get their is always will be anamount of people who have a job and the amount of jobs we lose is never gonna reach to where no one has a job. Its explaining more on to why job loss decreases
@regelemihai In a sort of more summed up term the whole thing is explaining that the stimulus wouldn't be the only cause of decrease in job losses since again that people can't be reported as having lossed a job twice in a row and companies will stop cutting back as time passes on and they are making acceptable amount of profit or in a non-profits case they are able to fully pay thier expenses again.
I understand. But if more and more people are losing their jobs, wouldn't it also necessarily have to show that the quantity of unemployed has increased?
@regelemihai Yes that what should happen. However the fuzzy math I mentioned earlier is that at the same time as people are losing jobs other people are giving up looking for jobs and leaving the work force. The unemployment of 8.3% isn't actually that because it only factors basically people on welfare and are currently looking for a job. If we did factor in the people who gave up and have left the workforce the percentage would probably look more like 15%.
@regelemihai That number might be a bit exaggerated because I'm not 100% sure on the exact statistic, but thats whats said most commonly, however rest assured if that percentage counted everyone who didn't have a job (excluding under 18 or hasn't had a job yet) that percentage would be much higher than 8.3%.
@regelemihai Well I guess I was listening to the right people then. Expect that number probably to increase and the government bsed unemployment to start dropping some more once people start giving up again.
Actually the unemployment rate is meaningless--as are most government statistics. They reworked these measurements to exclude people who have given up but would like to work and people who ran out on unemployment insurance... They used to be included in the stat as having no jobs, but now the government lies about everything as a matter of routine...
Anyone know what unemployment was at when Bush left office? I do. 4.6%. It got up to over 9% last year, now we're somewhere around 8.5%, why has it dropped? Well, simple version...the economy bottumed out finally, the only place it could go was up. Did the stimulous work? Not even a little bit. Questions? Visit my channel.
The most basic argument about this chart would be "HOW COULD WE HAVE SO MUCH IMPROVEMENT IF THE U3 AND U6 REMAINED AT A CONSTANT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR TWO YEARS!?!?!"
It's sad that this chart on youtube really is going to change people's minds
But Obama was the one who turned the trend around! The fact doesnt change that in the last months of the bush admin. we were losing tons of jobs and when Obama took over we stopped losing near as many.
How is it, the "stimulus" that Obama used is a success according to his supporters, yet the exact same one Bush did was a failure? I just don't get these brain dead partisans.
Economists fixed this problem a long time ago by using the Employment-to-population ratio and not surprisingly the ratio for the US is almost identical to that chart.
You didn't seriously think economists overlooked that did you?
@HowTheWorldWorks I've looked at the facts, and the bush tax cuts sucked. Bush received a huge surplus in average annual job increases, of 2.3%, and negated that to virtually zero. Look at the raw numbers. Clinton raised taxes and created 23.1 million jobs. Bush cut taxes and created a miserable 2.5 million jobs over eight years! Obama received bushes horrible economy were employment was in free fall and the stimulus prevented a depression. Those are the facts. Face them.
Actually, the facts are, accordingt to the BLS that :"From May 2003 until December 2007 ,the economy created 8.1 million jobs, or 145,000 a month.” Contrary to your claim that he only raised 2 million jobs over EIGHT years. Second, the Cliton tax hikes didn't have any positive affects at all--it's his tax CUTS from 1997 you're probably refering to, that indeed raised tax revenues and created jobs.
Learn your fact before you engage others with such cockiness.Makes you look silly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Face the facts. Bush cut taxes and had horrible employment numbers. The stimulus increased consumer aggregate demand and saved our economy. It was not perfect but without it we would have lost more jobs than in the bush years and entered a free fall depression.
@Ukweli93 Holy Crap are you a douche! - explain why 7 (SEVEN!!!) of Obama's Economic Team bailed already? hell, even Rahm Emmanuel jumped ship back to Chicago. Looming Healthcare & 1,000's of New Regulations are scaring the Job Creators...despite the 1,000's of Waivers Obama's given to so many Biz. Face It - You're Socialist Paradise was a pipe dream. The jobs won't come back till Nov. 2012 - You'll see the economy JUMP thru the roof by Summer 2013 - Capitalism baby!!!!
@bushonomics Lookup irs gov "Historical Table 23" You'll see range of rates: From 1945 to 1948, the lowest rate went from 23% to 16%; the highest went from 94% to 82%; Those are drops of 30% & 13%. Also, ieach rate applied at twice income levels previously. Do you care for evidence or rationale? Wish to learn?: weeklystandard com/articles/ultimate-stimulus_592145 html? fee org/articles/great-depression/ Which is irrelevant & why? Cause, effect & lag? More facts & explanation available.
I just wanted to take a moment to aplaud HowTheWorldWorks for his honest straight forward non-biased approach. He explains the information straight forward and doesn't add the sarcastic bellowing and the such that you see often. He presents the facts as they really are, great work!!
I apologize about my avatar name I'm really not a hater I just hate Obama's politics, adminastration and pretty much anything he has ever done since he's been president.
The chart was for private sector jobs added. It demonstrates clearly the positive impact of stimulus. It includes the losses incurred under Bush. It is pretty straightforward. You misrepresent (lie) what the chart is about.
thats like if i got stabbed in the stomach, and was bleeding out one pint of blood per hour, and i put a bandaid over it and now I am only bleeding out a half pint of blood per hour, eventually i am still going to die lol
What a dumb ass argument. This guys a condescending shit pile. Your argument makes no sense. That chart speaks for itself. The stimulus worked. Go fuck your mother. You're welcome.
You only pointed out one possible problem! What if there were still people who had jobs to lose? What then? You did not point out how the simulus did not work you just said this chart !COULD! be wrong
@MrRazzeldazzel88 then that means they've lost TWO jobs and still proves that the stimulus isn't doing what it's meant to do. "job losses" aren't counted as people who get fired, it's counted as positions that get terminated entirely
@ShinjukuHH Yes but the Data is being interpreted wrong. If jobs are lost in june and not regained you can't recount as lost again until they are regained and lost. Basically people were saying the stimulus worked because the numbers of jobs lost kept decreasing. Yes they were decreasing because the total job pool decreased also.....
@Darkeklaw Yep, suing a chart of total unemployment is just working better. BTW - the stimulus didn't work, because it had about 2/3 of tax cuts. Most people just paid off credit card debt or saved it, thus it just went to the MasterCard or Visa rather than into the economy.
We just need a REAL stimulus. Let's all chip-in and give blue-collar workers a job to fix roads, extend the powergrid etc...
Wow, that's your debunking? That Bush's job losses could not go on forever? And you say that with a straight face, as if you really did debunk the chart?
We're in the 5%-10% range of unemployment. That's not very close to the impossible 101% unemployment. There have been many historical cases of countries having much higher than 10% unemployment, so there's no way that this chart just shows something that was an unavoidable regardless of policies.
@dila813 "he is talking about the number of people employed, not the unemployment rate"
Wat. That's just two different ways of measuring the exact same thing. (Well, you can argue about the details of how unemployment rate is measured, but that's academic.)
@kvaks3000 No, he was pointing out the underlying flaw in the logic of this chart: Slowing down job losses is not a measure of success. Success would be keeping unemployment below 8%, or so the Obama Administration stated was the success criteria.
@aivanther "Slowing down job losses is not a measure of success."
Slowing down job loss is a *relative* success. Meaning, it could have been worse. It (the rate of jobloss) was worse. (That's the obvious point of the chart, I shouldn't have to restate it.)
> "Success would be keeping unemployment below 8%"
Yep, and they failed. Because the stimulus was much too small. Especially since at state and local level cuts were made (negative stimulus) so that the net stimulus was almost zero.
@kvaks3000 That's called revisionism. You can have no idea whether the "stimulus was much too small." All we know is that the stimulus didn't work because the unemployment rate rose during and after the stimulus. It is now pretty steady, but the rate sucks, steady or not. And the latest jobs report is hardly encouraging. Literally no jobs were created last month. The fact is, people have stopped looking which makes the statistics look much better than they really are.
Not when it was predicted beforehand. Paul Krugman and other economists (ie. not politicians and pundits) said many times in the winter of 2009 that the stimulus was much too small (and because of state and local cutbacks it turned out even smaller than they knew). Krugman also predicted that the insufficient stimulus would discredit stimulus as a tool, inviting right wingers to say "see, it didn't work".
@kvaks3000 What you're saying (without realizing it of course) is that Obama was warned it wouldn't work but he wouldn't listen.
As for state & local cutbacks it's not like they were a bolt from the blue. Everybody qualified to be president or just to vote knew they were coming.
@MrShoeguy "Obama was warned it wouldn't work but he wouldn't listen."
Yes, he was warned that the stimulus was too small. Maybe he didn't listen or he just listened to the wrong people. There are also plenty of people telling him about the importance of cuts and austerity. If not economists, then at least plenty of political advisers. So he listened to them, either for reasons of politics or he believes in those policies. Who knows.
@kvaks3000 Actually, no, Obama was NOT advised that it wa too small at any time. That was an after-the-fact excuse by Paul Krugman (which the rest of the economic profession understandably does not take seriously). And since spending ballooned and there wa never anything even resembling "austerity" the assertion that he listened to them is imbecilic.
There does not exist a single example of "governmnet stimulus" actually working - quite the opposite.
False. I suggest you google "2009 krugman stimulus". The first four hits are Krugman saying the stimulus is too small, before-the-fact. Are you lazy or just dishonest?
"There does not exist a single example of "governmnet stimulus" actually working"
False. Pick up any text book economics 101.
I'm not going to argue with someone who can't be intellectually honest.
@kvaks3000 The examples you site are all after the FIRST stimulus had actually begun. Nice try.
There does not exist an example of governmnetal stimulus actually working is true. There is no Econ 101 textbook anywhere that provides any such example. I should know; I've taught precisely that course.
Before complainig about someone's intellectual honesty, perhaps it would behoove you to demonstrate some.
@FletchforFreedom "The examples you site are all after the FIRST stimulus had actually begun. Nice try."
Such as the one from January 6., BEFORE Obama actually became president? Krugman writes: "I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, [...]. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.""
@kvaks3000 Such as the stimulus passed and implemented under the Bush administration which preceded Krugman's commentary. I didn't attribute all economic stupidity to Obama - though he certainly DOES excel in that regard.
@FletchforFreedom So when Krugman in 2009 (a year after the Bush bill you're refering to) was talking about the Obama stimulus bill being much too small, he was really talking "after-the-fact" about the Bush bill? Is that what you are trying to say?
Let me quote you in case you forgot what you wrote: "Obama was NOT advised that it wa too small at any time. That was an after-the-fact excuse by Paul Krugman".
Krugman was hardly writing about anything else, before-during-and-after-the-fact.
@kvaks3000 Despite your mischaracterization, yes that was what he was referring to. Still, Krugman was pointedly ignored as an Obama administration advisor and he is largely ignored by the rest of the economic community (a handful of Norweigian socialists notwithstanding) so, even had you not mischaracterizing his position, it still would not support your thesis.
@FletchforFreedom "In other words, before Obama took office and actually presented a plan, Krugman was denouncing it."
Yes, that's what happened, which you'd know if you were able to read the articles referred to. And that was possible for Krugman because Obama's team revealed information about their plans. Which you'd know if you were able to read the articles referred to.
It's not easy for Krugman to satisfy your timing requirements. Not before and not "after-the-fact". When?
@kvaks3000 Of course. It must have been a conspiracy. A Democratic Congress and President didn't pass a large enough stimulus (any stimulus is too big) so the right-wingers could say "see, it didn't work." See how that defies logic? Additionally, describe a time when government spending and stimulus has actually helped the economy recover.
It's how progressives define progress. Like if starting a war and having 100,000 soliders coming home in body bags then next month only having 90,000 body bags return home. Now that's progress, in doublespeak.
The papers read, "Another success! At least 10,000 soldiers saved!"
@mustang607 "It's how progressives define progress."
If that 10,000 drop in deaths came as a result of some specific effort, than that effort would have been some relative (and limited) success in the sense that it would have been worse without it.
That's not to say that Obamas economic policies have been a success. But that's because the stimulus was much too small. And too short. When it ended, so did the recovery.
Simple explanation: The recession ended in June 2009, four months after the current idiot took office--much before the stimulus was even 1/4th spent. The stimulus had nothing to do with it.
I looked up your claim about that college teaching a class completely about Karl Marx and that he was a good, and misunderstood guy. The university did not teach that class, rather, they taught very broad history and political classes that encompassed many influential people of that realm.
If economists say 20% of people are not working than 80% of people must be working.
Do those numbers of people "not working" count children, people that are retired, prisoners, the sick, the insane, as well as people who don't work because they can just sit back and get the many goodies from our so generous government?
I don't know, but I'm sure the goodies they get from government, aren't as good as the goodies Bankers, Defense Contractors, and the OIL industry get from our government.
A little perspective, taken with a bit of common sense can go a long way.
Poor people are not the problem. Why blame them. Big government is the problem. It's a viscous circle. The bigger the problems, the bigger government gets. The bigger government gets the bigger the problems.
This video is a deceit. Let's say there are 100 jobs available in the month of August. If there are 80 jobs available in September, this must mean by definition that there were 20 jobs lost. If the jobs shoot back up to 90 available jobs in October, and then back up to 100 jobs in November, this must mean by definition that there are fewer job losses. Not terribly complicated people.
@shmiggen "This video is a deceit. ... Not terribly complicated people" Except that's not what the chart is showing. This is what it is showing, using your numbers:
August: 100 jobs
September: 80 jobs - lost 20 jobs
October: 70 jobs - lost 10 jobs, fewer than last month
November: 65 jobs - lost 5 jobs, woohoo, lost fewer jobs
Notice, you are still down 35 jobs. The chart just shows the rate of los is slowing, not the total decreasing. And it doesn't count the increase in population.
The stimulus... Simple... Theft from the people to save the rich contributors of the politicians. Sheeple don't seem to understand how the political system works. A politician will get a very healthy compensation and a cushy "nothing" job title from these very same companies when their political term ends. It's all a "good ol' boys" club of ivy league elitists.
Very specious reasoning by Mr Doren here. The economy has enormous capacity to lose more jobs because we are at about 9% unemployment (even at 20% underemployment). What the chart is trying to say is that there was no reason that unemployment could not have kept falling much more than it did - why not to 30%?. The fact that it did not has some sort of explanation but the answer is not that we were running out of jobs to lose.
@Pinkybum The %9 figure is based on ppl who are STILL eligible to collect unemployment insurance. After 79 weeks you don't get anymore money. So they stop counting you as part of those statistics. The REAL unemployment is more like %30 if you count those ppl. No amount of stimulus will make businesses loosen capital while the gov 1) does not enforce existing contracts between employees and employers 2) changes the employer rights at will 3) randomly enacts employer unfriendly legislation
@chillichomper Your "points" don't make any sense - let alone be relevant to the argument Lee Doren is making. If you remember he was trying to say that there is a limit to the number of jobs that can be lost. But do you really think that limit was any where near 10 percent or even 20 percent of the underemployed? Why can't the economy lose 40 percent? What is stopping that? Therefore the argument was specious - we have never been anywhere near the limit of our economy to lose jobs.
Uh I think your statistics are just as "specious" as your claim about doren's reasoning. Use a big word yet you don't know dick about the economy from your argument. lmao
the cart not that good. when crashing phase stop job lost rate should go down. The stimulus inferred with the saving phase. Fear about government spending caused companies to save more and take less risk. our economy will not enter the investing phase until investor feel they have enough to lose. Investors prime the pump and the only one who can.
I went to the page and it is nothing but a lie. The whole page is nothing but lies. The charts show no facts on them at all. The person making the page is in la la land.
"Do you see why that chart [dx/dt] is ridiculous? What matters is the unemployment rate [x]..."
Actually, graphing rates of change can be extremely useful. I haven't read Doren's book, but judging from the knowledge of the subject he demonstrates here, apparently Calc I is now some sort of liberal plot to destroy America.
There are roughly 150 million people employed in the united states. If you take the worst month of that 22 month period, wich is arounr 800k jobs lost and assume that for every month of that period was just as bad, still only about 12% of the labor force would have lost their job. 12% not 100%, not close to 100% nowhere near 100%, the argument of "running out of people who could lose their jobs" to debunk the chart is just stupid.
The government does not count those that have dropped off the unemployment rolls because they have been unemployed so long they no longer get a check. This would be like me claiming I don't owe anyone any money because I have not paid my bills in over a year. The truth is we are in another great depression and have been for over 4 years now. The REAL unemployment rate is 26%. If you think thats bad wait and see what the crime rate does as more people drop off the radar.
@SHEEPLEwhisperer They don't just cook the books, they bake, fry, and broil the books. The amazing thing is how many people buy into these bullshit government numbers.
@UtherPendragan Right on the money. Great comment. And yes I am seriously considering buying a shotgun and getting a conceal carry permit to protect myself when all hell breaks loose 'cause of the desperation of the people that have fallen off the radar.
You know what the most ridiculous thing about that chart is? Throughout the entire article, they would have you believe that any changes to the economy in the year 2009 can be entirely credited to Bush and absolves Obama from any blame. This chart changes that message entirely, making Obama responsible for the 2009 upswing in employment.
It's amazing how dishonest some peole will be to prove a point.
Well i agree with the, you can only lose so many jobs" statement but the chart shows and increase in jobs created which on average has grown. He doesn't address this point.
@BorgKing001 Those jobs were created inspite of Obama & his failed policies. If Obama would encourage deregulation the number of jobs would go up. Also if we had the fair tax instead of the income tax the number of jobs would go up.
Also remember this recession/depression was created by the goverment spending to much money. Spending more money to get out of debt never works as it only digs you a deeper hole.
@v2joecr How could you possibly know they were created despite Obama's stimulus? I do agree you with though on the better way to create jobs. We must cure the disease, not just ease the symptoms.
The real unemployment rate of unemployed and underemployed people in this country has continued to rise. We have the lowest work force participation rate in 30 years. Is people don't wise up to the real problems the only solution may be a simple thinning of the herd. Not that I am recommending that but war and famine usually fallow this type of economic behavior.
You hate this chart? Well, I hate your misrepresentation of it. The fact twisting here reminds me more and more of things I see on channels advertising creationism.
@moonshot925 Sure. His numbers don't add up (what a surprise...). He could make that claim if 15% of all jobs would be lost every month. But the actual number was much lower. Therefore, the trend of loosing jobs could have continued for many months, if not years. Instead the numbers of joblosses not only decreased but, based on what I saw in the video, they reversed (job growth). So none of what Lee said has any bearing in reality. That is the mind twisting I see from creationists.
@usertripppleA 'Therefore, the trend of loosing jobs could have continued for many months' To make that claim you must know the percentage unemployment that the job losses were trending towards which noone does.
The jobs started to increase a year after the stimulus so there is no way of telling whether it was caused by the stimulas or it was just the recession ending naturally.
@666or999 In August 2011, 153.6 million americans were employed. At no point during the recession more than 1% of jobs were lost (much below that actually). Therefore, the job losing trend could have continued for many years. You know, numbers can be looked up, I suggest you try from time to time.
@usertripppleA 'Therefore, the job losing trend could have continued for many years.' you have given me no reason to believe it would have if no stimulus had happend.
@666or999 Did I say that? The point I am trying to make is that Lee's argument is on the same level as arguments made by creationists: building a strawmen which can be easliy refuted - but these strawmen have nothing to do with reality as it is the case here.
@666or999 Lee claims that the number of jobs lost had to decrease since you run out of people employed to be fired. That is a misrepresentation since the number of jobs lost is so small compared to the total number of jobs that it is insignificant. His argument is simply not valid. Lee said himself that you first of all have to know the number of total jobs in the economy. Something he apparently had not checked himself. Should I be surprised?
@usertripppleA Yeh that isn't a strawman. The thing that Lee got wrong is talking about 100% unemployment but when you realise that there would be a maximum level of unemployment from the recession the rest of the arguement still stands.
@666or999 What? So please tell me (including references please) where the maximum level of unemployment from a recession is? Besides the point that lee was talking about 100% unemployment. But please enlighten me, where the cut off is during a recession.
@usertripppleA I don't know but it is clear that the recession could only cause so much unemployment and all guesses to how much this is is pure speculation it is because of this that we can't tell whether it was the stimulus that caused this turn around or whether it was the recession naturally coming to a end.
@666or999 Based on other recessions in the past in this country and other countries, you have to admit that the unemployment rate could have gone much worse. Again, I am not claiming here that the stimulus was the main reason for end of the recession. It is impossible to say what the stimulus actually did, even though the data allow certain conslusion with a positiv interpretation of the stimulus. Nevertheless, Lee's argument still falls flat and is on the level of creationists.
@usertripppleA Well it's certainly no crocoduck or water shooting out of the earth's crust and lee's conclusion that the graph doesn't necessarily support the stimulas is in my opinion correct so i woldn't say it's that bad.
@666or999 Well, than you have a low standard of honesty. Claiming that the graph is nonsense because it is impossible for the numbers of lost jobs to stay constant or even increase is simply dishonest. Lee's argumentation shows that he is interested in manipulating people and not in contributing facts. You can make valid arguments both for and against the stimulus but this video is pure propaganda without any link to reality - i.e. dishonest.
Right, now let's keep the figures consistent with the facts.
Say that the total population is 100 people and every month we lost, say, 0.4 jobs. Since there are 12 months in a year, you actually could do that for, eh, let's just round down and call it 2 decades.
We hadn't lost even close to a FRACTION of enough jobs for your argument to be even mildly relevant.
@dmk2113 There is never 0 jobs no matter how bad a economy. You would expect loss of jobs per month to reach zero long before employment reached 0% with or without a stimulus.
@666or999 Yeah, that's a perfectly valid point. It's also not the point that he's making here. But either way, assuming that unemployment will approach an asymptotic limit at, say 30% (and that figure it still probably pretty low), we'd still have to lose jobs at the January 2009 (i.e. seasonal worker turnover) rate for about four years before job losses would start to flatten out of their own accord.
@dmk2113 That's because the realistic zero is not 0 people employed and because not every job is as (un)important. There are some tasks for which there will always remain demand and some jobs companies really can't do without. Also, the slowdown is a natural occurence during prolonged economic hardness because at some point, most of the weak companies are already out of business and most of the non-critical jobs have already been cut, making further job reduction harder.
@Shorackoff Right, um, but I'm pretty sure that zero point is not at 9% and change and I'm pretty sure that it wasn't hit, miraculously, when Obama stepped into office.
Doren's argument is perfectly valid as a general principle for dealing with finite quantities and should be obvious to anyone who took math in high school. It's also 100% irrelevant here.
i hate to say this but this is a really weak argument, youre trying too hard to discredit Obama
TheNobdy 5 days ago
@TheNobdy Discredit Obama... hahahaha you dont even have to try NDAA nuff said
xxNephlimxx 3 days ago
at least with Bush's stimulus, the people actually saw it in their tax returns, the one obama did went straight to the banks x.x
yosoydame 6 days ago
Not your best work. The losses per month don't even approach the number of employable people in the US. If anything you should mention that the jobs created aren't enough to keep up with the population growth or that labor becomes cheaper, in theory, when more people are unemployed and thus people come more employable
FreeMarketSwine 3 weeks ago
@FreeMarketSwine Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 week ago
@marionetemanJ I would love to see your 'overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead'. This ought to be good.
StewieSwan 1 week ago
I re-watched the video and I still don't understand the argument. Explanation please?
regelemihai 3 weeks ago
@regelemihai To quickly explain this he means that the trend such as job losses is gonna fall no matter what happens because you can't report someones job loss more than once (unless rehired). So it would be appropriate to say numbers of jobs being lossed decreasing is not the best way of argueing the stimilus worked and saying that chart has any real relevance.
101Snipeshot 1 week ago
@101Snipeshot Ok, but the graph claims a trend in job growth, not mere job losses.
And second, that still doesn't make sense to me. If those who have lost their jobs are no longer counted, that would mean that the more jobs are lost the more it's gonna show how they're really increasing? Why does the unemployment rate still tower above 8% if that's the case? What am I missing?
regelemihai 1 week ago
@regelemihai Well yeah if more jobs are lost, but the entire workforce isn't gonna be cut so the job losses will tamper off unless some other drop comes along then they'll pick back up. The more your missing is fuzzy government math. Its not uncommon for politicians to lie. Even that over 8% isn't entirely correct. If you could the many who stopped looking for work its more like a 15%. So yeah as to where they even got this chart is probably questionable.
101Snipeshot 1 week ago
@101Snipeshot
True, any and all statistics, including those coming from government sources, can always be twisted. But that doesn't really help us because to combat them, we need to cite sources with stats too.
Also, what does Lee mean when he;s talking about the "total employed" and the importance of that detail?
regelemihai 1 week ago
@regelemihai It is true that we must combat statistics with other statistics. Here we're making a logical arguement that job losses isn't exactly the best way to rate the stimilus sucess. He's talking about the total of people who have a job or the current population. No matter how bad things may get their is always will be anamount of people who have a job and the amount of jobs we lose is never gonna reach to where no one has a job. Its explaining more on to why job loss decreases
101Snipeshot 6 days ago
@regelemihai In a sort of more summed up term the whole thing is explaining that the stimulus wouldn't be the only cause of decrease in job losses since again that people can't be reported as having lossed a job twice in a row and companies will stop cutting back as time passes on and they are making acceptable amount of profit or in a non-profits case they are able to fully pay thier expenses again.
101Snipeshot 6 days ago
"can't be reported as having lossed a job twice"
I understand. But if more and more people are losing their jobs, wouldn't it also necessarily have to show that the quantity of unemployed has increased?
regelemihai 6 days ago
@regelemihai Yes that what should happen. However the fuzzy math I mentioned earlier is that at the same time as people are losing jobs other people are giving up looking for jobs and leaving the work force. The unemployment of 8.3% isn't actually that because it only factors basically people on welfare and are currently looking for a job. If we did factor in the people who gave up and have left the workforce the percentage would probably look more like 15%.
101Snipeshot 6 days ago
@regelemihai That number might be a bit exaggerated because I'm not 100% sure on the exact statistic, but thats whats said most commonly, however rest assured if that percentage counted everyone who didn't have a job (excluding under 18 or hasn't had a job yet) that percentage would be much higher than 8.3%.
101Snipeshot 6 days ago
@101Snipeshot
It is actually. I checked out recent data from the BLS, and the real current unemployment rate stands at 15%, so you got it exactly right.
regelemihai 6 days ago
@regelemihai Well I guess I was listening to the right people then. Expect that number probably to increase and the government bsed unemployment to start dropping some more once people start giving up again.
101Snipeshot 5 days ago
Actually the unemployment rate is meaningless--as are most government statistics. They reworked these measurements to exclude people who have given up but would like to work and people who ran out on unemployment insurance... They used to be included in the stat as having no jobs, but now the government lies about everything as a matter of routine...
Slave2Reason 3 weeks ago
Anyone know what unemployment was at when Bush left office? I do. 4.6%. It got up to over 9% last year, now we're somewhere around 8.5%, why has it dropped? Well, simple version...the economy bottumed out finally, the only place it could go was up. Did the stimulous work? Not even a little bit. Questions? Visit my channel.
realworldbycj 3 weeks ago
hey, update a link to the chart because your link is dead.
theWaterostrich 3 weeks ago
The most basic argument about this chart would be "HOW COULD WE HAVE SO MUCH IMPROVEMENT IF THE U3 AND U6 REMAINED AT A CONSTANT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR TWO YEARS!?!?!"
It's sad that this chart on youtube really is going to change people's minds
Redeye1524 3 weeks ago
The link to the chart is broken
Bongobutt123 3 weeks ago
But Obama was the one who turned the trend around! The fact doesnt change that in the last months of the bush admin. we were losing tons of jobs and when Obama took over we stopped losing near as many.
brokenclockstudios 1 month ago
@brokenclockstudios And the unemployment rates were? And Obama's predictions were? And how long have we stayed at our steady 9 - 10% unemployment?
Redeye1524 3 weeks ago
@brokenclockstudios Did you even watch the video?
madapiarist 3 weeks ago 2
it's the socialism stupid !
halloranedward 1 month ago
How is it, the "stimulus" that Obama used is a success according to his supporters, yet the exact same one Bush did was a failure? I just don't get these brain dead partisans.
KittenKoder 1 month ago 18
SO you dismiss the Bureau of Labor statistics, and claim we need to measure unemployment rates to determine if the stimulus worked.
all righty then.
The unemployment rate was rising when President Obama was sworn in,
and quickly hit double digits before the stimulus plan finally was put into circulation, and still rising,
and now it is down to 8%.
a fact never ever mentioned is-------------------->
"normal" unemployment is 6%. NOT ZERO.
tigerlily46514 1 month ago
@tigerlily46514 "And now it down to 8%"...uh after 3 years and how many lost jobs?
This is the most pathetic case of rain dance logic I've ever seen
Redeye1524 3 weeks ago
@HowTheWorldWorks
Economists fixed this problem a long time ago by using the Employment-to-population ratio and not surprisingly the ratio for the US is almost identical to that chart.
You didn't seriously think economists overlooked that did you?
sassypantz676 1 month ago
Comment removed
tuttjam 3 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks I've looked at the facts, and the bush tax cuts sucked. Bush received a huge surplus in average annual job increases, of 2.3%, and negated that to virtually zero. Look at the raw numbers. Clinton raised taxes and created 23.1 million jobs. Bush cut taxes and created a miserable 2.5 million jobs over eight years! Obama received bushes horrible economy were employment was in free fall and the stimulus prevented a depression. Those are the facts. Face them.
Ukweli93 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ukweli93 Clinton cut taxes.
quarterxchange 5 months ago
@Ukweli93 Clinton also Cut the corporate tax to its lowest point EVER for that time period.
shoelessjoe2555 3 weeks ago
@Ukweli93
Actually, the facts are, accordingt to the BLS that :"From May 2003 until December 2007 ,the economy created 8.1 million jobs, or 145,000 a month.” Contrary to your claim that he only raised 2 million jobs over EIGHT years. Second, the Cliton tax hikes didn't have any positive affects at all--it's his tax CUTS from 1997 you're probably refering to, that indeed raised tax revenues and created jobs.
Learn your fact before you engage others with such cockiness.Makes you look silly.
regelemihai 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Face the facts. Bush cut taxes and had horrible employment numbers. The stimulus increased consumer aggregate demand and saved our economy. It was not perfect but without it we would have lost more jobs than in the bush years and entered a free fall depression.
Ukweli93 5 months ago
@Ukweli93 Holy Crap are you a douche! - explain why 7 (SEVEN!!!) of Obama's Economic Team bailed already? hell, even Rahm Emmanuel jumped ship back to Chicago. Looming Healthcare & 1,000's of New Regulations are scaring the Job Creators...despite the 1,000's of Waivers Obama's given to so many Biz. Face It - You're Socialist Paradise was a pipe dream. The jobs won't come back till Nov. 2012 - You'll see the economy JUMP thru the roof by Summer 2013 - Capitalism baby!!!!
IDOLSMASHER 4 months ago
Scottit 5 months ago
Comment removed
Scottit 5 months ago
Comment removed
Scottit 5 months ago
Comment removed
Scottit 5 months ago
Comment removed
Scottit 5 months ago
I just wanted to take a moment to aplaud HowTheWorldWorks for his honest straight forward non-biased approach. He explains the information straight forward and doesn't add the sarcastic bellowing and the such that you see often. He presents the facts as they really are, great work!!
I apologize about my avatar name I'm really not a hater I just hate Obama's politics, adminastration and pretty much anything he has ever done since he's been president.
USmellLikeObamaShit 5 months ago
The chart was for private sector jobs added. It demonstrates clearly the positive impact of stimulus. It includes the losses incurred under Bush. It is pretty straightforward. You misrepresent (lie) what the chart is about.
Wingnutserstoopid 5 months ago
Comment removed
TylerNull 5 months ago
Can you comment on the other two charts in your link?
neonical 5 months ago
thats like if i got stabbed in the stomach, and was bleeding out one pint of blood per hour, and i put a bandaid over it and now I am only bleeding out a half pint of blood per hour, eventually i am still going to die lol
thedisbatcher 5 months ago
What a dumb ass argument. This guys a condescending shit pile. Your argument makes no sense. That chart speaks for itself. The stimulus worked. Go fuck your mother. You're welcome.
YouKnowWhatItIs3000 5 months ago
Comment removed
TylerNull 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
● ☭ ● ☭ ● ☭ ● ☭● ☭ ● ☭ ● ☭ ● ☭
JOBS LOST OR DESTROYED UNDER OBAMA
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
All Employees: Total nonfarm (PAYEMS)
133,563,000 -- JAN 2009
131,132,000 -- AUG 2011
------------
2,431,000 FEWER jobs today than when Obama was inaugurated.
TylerNull 5 months ago
Great video, Lee.
Sorry to be picky but it's a pet peeve of mine. Fewer, not less jobs.
mtolen1 5 months ago
You only pointed out one possible problem! What if there were still people who had jobs to lose? What then? You did not point out how the simulus did not work you just said this chart !COULD! be wrong
needarb 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
liar....
what if someone got a job and then lots that again?
MrRazzeldazzel88 5 months ago
@MrRazzeldazzel88 LOL. You really want to make that argument. That would mean the Stimulus was a miserable failure too.
HowTheWorldWorks 5 months ago 41
@MrRazzeldazzel88 then that means they've lost TWO jobs and still proves that the stimulus isn't doing what it's meant to do. "job losses" aren't counted as people who get fired, it's counted as positions that get terminated entirely
knightlion04 1 month ago
▲
▲ ▲
pokeybadger 5 months ago
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
texasgirly1979 5 months ago
Lee your book is great!!
.
.
. ★★★★★
MadBadVoodo 5 months ago
Wow, McLovin is selling books about the economy?
DarthTroller 5 months ago
Well, the chart is still correct - I mean, that's the data.
ShinjukuHH 5 months ago
@ShinjukuHH Yes but the Data is being interpreted wrong. If jobs are lost in june and not regained you can't recount as lost again until they are regained and lost. Basically people were saying the stimulus worked because the numbers of jobs lost kept decreasing. Yes they were decreasing because the total job pool decreased also.....
Darkeklaw 5 months ago
@Darkeklaw Yep, suing a chart of total unemployment is just working better. BTW - the stimulus didn't work, because it had about 2/3 of tax cuts. Most people just paid off credit card debt or saved it, thus it just went to the MasterCard or Visa rather than into the economy.
We just need a REAL stimulus. Let's all chip-in and give blue-collar workers a job to fix roads, extend the powergrid etc...
ShinjukuHH 5 months ago
congrats on your E-book!
Chggy317 5 months ago
Keynesians and those who follow them should be dragged out into the street and SHOT for High Treason!
yakyakyak69 5 months ago
Dude, Lee, that's awesome. Congrats on your book man.
Atreus21 5 months ago
Do you have the e-book in a PDF format that I could buy using paypal?
theproplady 5 months ago
I'm prepared for the global collapse.
ToTheConquered 5 months ago
@ToTheConquered Global collapse my ass, be prepared for a global uprising .
Nationofhonor 5 months ago
Come to University of South Florida pls! I'd love to see a live lecture!
OpenWide1158 5 months ago
Obama is a straight up liar, anyone believing his bullshit is ignorant, period. Ignorance can destroy the country.
weseyedwalk 5 months ago
People dumb enough to use that chart aren't smart enough to look at " unemployment rates ".
They find some way to create some chart to make it sound like he's doing well.
And they 'really' had to stretch on this one
jebjim7 5 months ago
Wow, that's your debunking? That Bush's job losses could not go on forever? And you say that with a straight face, as if you really did debunk the chart?
We're in the 5%-10% range of unemployment. That's not very close to the impossible 101% unemployment. There have been many historical cases of countries having much higher than 10% unemployment, so there's no way that this chart just shows something that was an unavoidable regardless of policies.
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 You really didn't get this?
OMG, dense dense dense ... he is talking about the number of people employed, not the unemployment rate or the number collecting unemployment
dila813 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dila813 "he is talking about the number of people employed, not the unemployment rate"
Wat. That's just two different ways of measuring the exact same thing. (Well, you can argue about the details of how unemployment rate is measured, but that's academic.)
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 No, he was pointing out the underlying flaw in the logic of this chart: Slowing down job losses is not a measure of success. Success would be keeping unemployment below 8%, or so the Obama Administration stated was the success criteria.
aivanther 5 months ago
@aivanther "Slowing down job losses is not a measure of success."
Slowing down job loss is a *relative* success. Meaning, it could have been worse. It (the rate of jobloss) was worse. (That's the obvious point of the chart, I shouldn't have to restate it.)
> "Success would be keeping unemployment below 8%"
Yep, and they failed. Because the stimulus was much too small. Especially since at state and local level cuts were made (negative stimulus) so that the net stimulus was almost zero.
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 That's called revisionism. You can have no idea whether the "stimulus was much too small." All we know is that the stimulus didn't work because the unemployment rate rose during and after the stimulus. It is now pretty steady, but the rate sucks, steady or not. And the latest jobs report is hardly encouraging. Literally no jobs were created last month. The fact is, people have stopped looking which makes the statistics look much better than they really are.
DaddyRTO 5 months ago
@DaddyRTO "That's called revisionism."
Not when it was predicted beforehand. Paul Krugman and other economists (ie. not politicians and pundits) said many times in the winter of 2009 that the stimulus was much too small (and because of state and local cutbacks it turned out even smaller than they knew). Krugman also predicted that the insufficient stimulus would discredit stimulus as a tool, inviting right wingers to say "see, it didn't work".
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 What you're saying (without realizing it of course) is that Obama was warned it wouldn't work but he wouldn't listen.
As for state & local cutbacks it's not like they were a bolt from the blue. Everybody qualified to be president or just to vote knew they were coming.
MrShoeguy 5 months ago
@MrShoeguy "Obama was warned it wouldn't work but he wouldn't listen."
Yes, he was warned that the stimulus was too small. Maybe he didn't listen or he just listened to the wrong people. There are also plenty of people telling him about the importance of cuts and austerity. If not economists, then at least plenty of political advisers. So he listened to them, either for reasons of politics or he believes in those policies. Who knows.
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 Actually, no, Obama was NOT advised that it wa too small at any time. That was an after-the-fact excuse by Paul Krugman (which the rest of the economic profession understandably does not take seriously). And since spending ballooned and there wa never anything even resembling "austerity" the assertion that he listened to them is imbecilic.
There does not exist a single example of "governmnet stimulus" actually working - quite the opposite.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom " an after-the-fact excuse by Paul Krugman"
False. I suggest you google "2009 krugman stimulus". The first four hits are Krugman saying the stimulus is too small, before-the-fact. Are you lazy or just dishonest?
"There does not exist a single example of "governmnet stimulus" actually working"
False. Pick up any text book economics 101.
I'm not going to argue with someone who can't be intellectually honest.
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 The examples you site are all after the FIRST stimulus had actually begun. Nice try.
There does not exist an example of governmnetal stimulus actually working is true. There is no Econ 101 textbook anywhere that provides any such example. I should know; I've taught precisely that course.
Before complainig about someone's intellectual honesty, perhaps it would behoove you to demonstrate some.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom "The examples you site are all after the FIRST stimulus had actually begun. Nice try."
Such as the one from January 6., BEFORE Obama actually became president? Krugman writes: "I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, [...]. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.""
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 Such as the stimulus passed and implemented under the Bush administration which preceded Krugman's commentary. I didn't attribute all economic stupidity to Obama - though he certainly DOES excel in that regard.
So, again, you need to get your facts straight.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So when Krugman in 2009 (a year after the Bush bill you're refering to) was talking about the Obama stimulus bill being much too small, he was really talking "after-the-fact" about the Bush bill? Is that what you are trying to say?
Let me quote you in case you forgot what you wrote: "Obama was NOT advised that it wa too small at any time. That was an after-the-fact excuse by Paul Krugman".
Krugman was hardly writing about anything else, before-during-and-after-the-fact.
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 Despite your mischaracterization, yes that was what he was referring to. Still, Krugman was pointedly ignored as an Obama administration advisor and he is largely ignored by the rest of the economic community (a handful of Norweigian socialists notwithstanding) so, even had you not mischaracterizing his position, it still would not support your thesis.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom "yes that was what he was referring to"
Eh, no he was talking about the Obama stimulus plan. Obviously. Your dishonesty is so blatant it's almost bizarre. I will leave you now. Goodbye.
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 In other words, before Obama took office and actually presented a plan, Krugman was denouncing it.
Gotcha.
The psychiatric term for your complaint is: projection.
Adieu.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom "In other words, before Obama took office and actually presented a plan, Krugman was denouncing it."
Yes, that's what happened, which you'd know if you were able to read the articles referred to. And that was possible for Krugman because Obama's team revealed information about their plans. Which you'd know if you were able to read the articles referred to.
It's not easy for Krugman to satisfy your timing requirements. Not before and not "after-the-fact". When?
kvaks3000 5 months ago
@kvaks3000 Of course. It must have been a conspiracy. A Democratic Congress and President didn't pass a large enough stimulus (any stimulus is too big) so the right-wingers could say "see, it didn't work." See how that defies logic? Additionally, describe a time when government spending and stimulus has actually helped the economy recover.
DaddyRTO 5 months ago
@kvaks3000
It's how progressives define progress. Like if starting a war and having 100,000 soliders coming home in body bags then next month only having 90,000 body bags return home. Now that's progress, in doublespeak.
The papers read, "Another success! At least 10,000 soldiers saved!"
mustang607 5 months ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
@mustang607 "It's how progressives define progress."
If that 10,000 drop in deaths came as a result of some specific effort, than that effort would have been some relative (and limited) success in the sense that it would have been worse without it.
That's not to say that Obamas economic policies have been a success. But that's because the stimulus was much too small. And too short. When it ended, so did the recovery.
kvaks3000 5 months ago
27 people wrote the chart
xtcarnage15586 5 months ago
How can I possibly believe a word you say when you're accepting cash from: en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute#Funding
mod83 5 months ago
Simple explanation: The recession ended in June 2009, four months after the current idiot took office--much before the stimulus was even 1/4th spent. The stimulus had nothing to do with it.
LogicalFlawDetector 5 months ago
I looked up your claim about that college teaching a class completely about Karl Marx and that he was a good, and misunderstood guy. The university did not teach that class, rather, they taught very broad history and political classes that encompassed many influential people of that realm.
MastaBlasta1991 5 months ago
The known result of the stimulus is more debt. What could have, would have or should have is anyone's guess.
Solverwiz 5 months ago
What I want to know is the total number of people not working. Does this figure even exist?
mustang607 5 months ago
@mustang607
Some economists have it at 20%.
Some industries like construction, are at 50% unemployment.
SHEEPLEwhisperer 5 months ago
@SHEEPLEwhisperer
If economists say 20% of people are not working than 80% of people must be working.
Do those numbers of people "not working" count children, people that are retired, prisoners, the sick, the insane, as well as people who don't work because they can just sit back and get the many goodies from our so generous government?
mustang607 5 months ago
@mustang607
I don't know, but I'm sure the goodies they get from government, aren't as good as the goodies Bankers, Defense Contractors, and the OIL industry get from our government.
A little perspective, taken with a bit of common sense can go a long way.
SHEEPLEwhisperer 5 months ago
@SHEEPLEwhisperer
I agree. The government hands out lot of goodies others have earned or will earn. That's why we are beholden to so much debt.
mustang607 5 months ago
@mustang607
Banker Bailouts vs Welfare
Endless TRILLION DOLLAR WARS vs Food Stamps
Damn poor people.
SHEEPLEwhisperer 5 months ago
@SHEEPLEwhisperer
Poor people are not the problem. Why blame them. Big government is the problem. It's a viscous circle. The bigger the problems, the bigger government gets. The bigger government gets the bigger the problems.
mustang607 5 months ago
This video is a deceit. Let's say there are 100 jobs available in the month of August. If there are 80 jobs available in September, this must mean by definition that there were 20 jobs lost. If the jobs shoot back up to 90 available jobs in October, and then back up to 100 jobs in November, this must mean by definition that there are fewer job losses. Not terribly complicated people.
shmiggen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shmiggen "This video is a deceit. ... Not terribly complicated people" Except that's not what the chart is showing. This is what it is showing, using your numbers:
August: 100 jobs
September: 80 jobs - lost 20 jobs
October: 70 jobs - lost 10 jobs, fewer than last month
November: 65 jobs - lost 5 jobs, woohoo, lost fewer jobs
Notice, you are still down 35 jobs. The chart just shows the rate of los is slowing, not the total decreasing. And it doesn't count the increase in population.
bsabruzzo 5 months ago
The stimulus... Simple... Theft from the people to save the rich contributors of the politicians. Sheeple don't seem to understand how the political system works. A politician will get a very healthy compensation and a cushy "nothing" job title from these very same companies when their political term ends. It's all a "good ol' boys" club of ivy league elitists.
BikerBry 5 months ago
I see! Good video.
Jotto999 5 months ago
the way you word it makes it devastating.
SRT480 5 months ago
Hi
when are you going to critique the story of bottled water.Its been ages since you promised to make a video critique of that.
Here is the link in case you haven't got it.
watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0
Thanks.
vibkeba 5 months ago
Very specious reasoning by Mr Doren here. The economy has enormous capacity to lose more jobs because we are at about 9% unemployment (even at 20% underemployment). What the chart is trying to say is that there was no reason that unemployment could not have kept falling much more than it did - why not to 30%?. The fact that it did not has some sort of explanation but the answer is not that we were running out of jobs to lose.
Pinkybum 5 months ago
@Pinkybum The %9 figure is based on ppl who are STILL eligible to collect unemployment insurance. After 79 weeks you don't get anymore money. So they stop counting you as part of those statistics. The REAL unemployment is more like %30 if you count those ppl. No amount of stimulus will make businesses loosen capital while the gov 1) does not enforce existing contracts between employees and employers 2) changes the employer rights at will 3) randomly enacts employer unfriendly legislation
chillichomper 5 months ago
@chillichomper Your "points" don't make any sense - let alone be relevant to the argument Lee Doren is making. If you remember he was trying to say that there is a limit to the number of jobs that can be lost. But do you really think that limit was any where near 10 percent or even 20 percent of the underemployed? Why can't the economy lose 40 percent? What is stopping that? Therefore the argument was specious - we have never been anywhere near the limit of our economy to lose jobs.
Pinkybum 5 months ago
Uh I think your statistics are just as "specious" as your claim about doren's reasoning. Use a big word yet you don't know dick about the economy from your argument. lmao
chillichomper 5 months ago
This stuff is common sense...
Rshen11 5 months ago
Anyone else having problems with the way the video was playing? Besides the technical difficulties..
Good video.
MRSketch09 5 months ago
whatever fogal
pistolpete667 5 months ago
the cart not that good. when crashing phase stop job lost rate should go down. The stimulus inferred with the saving phase. Fear about government spending caused companies to save more and take less risk. our economy will not enter the investing phase until investor feel they have enough to lose. Investors prime the pump and the only one who can.
spark300c 5 months ago
I went to the page and it is nothing but a lie. The whole page is nothing but lies. The charts show no facts on them at all. The person making the page is in la la land.
Trenaway 5 months ago
looking for growth is a fallacy. Growth breeds imperialism in turn breeding oligarchy.
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 5 months ago
i thought this video title was i hate this chair....hahaha
thebackbencher666 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i will def check it out...
thebackbencher666 5 months ago
Good point lee.... And besides that, the unemployment rate is too high.
TheShubLub 5 months ago
"Do you see why that chart [dx/dt] is ridiculous? What matters is the unemployment rate [x]..."
Actually, graphing rates of change can be extremely useful. I haven't read Doren's book, but judging from the knowledge of the subject he demonstrates here, apparently Calc I is now some sort of liberal plot to destroy America.
dmk2113 5 months ago
Oh boy, charts! Where's Ross Perot when you need him?
ricadrew 5 months ago
There are roughly 150 million people employed in the united states. If you take the worst month of that 22 month period, wich is arounr 800k jobs lost and assume that for every month of that period was just as bad, still only about 12% of the labor force would have lost their job. 12% not 100%, not close to 100% nowhere near 100%, the argument of "running out of people who could lose their jobs" to debunk the chart is just stupid.
tinman2k1 5 months ago
@tinman2k1 You obviously missed the point of the video.
Altimadark 5 months ago
Nice point on the chart.
Know lets talk about that 9.1 % (smile).
earlgray1947 5 months ago
zerohedge (dot) com ! come on over and lets have a conversation! bring your charts!
JWnFL 5 months ago
The government does not count those that have dropped off the unemployment rolls because they have been unemployed so long they no longer get a check. This would be like me claiming I don't owe anyone any money because I have not paid my bills in over a year. The truth is we are in another great depression and have been for over 4 years now. The REAL unemployment rate is 26%. If you think thats bad wait and see what the crime rate does as more people drop off the radar.
UtherPendragan 5 months ago 28
@UtherPendragan
They also count people who have to take part time jobs, and lower paying jobs, as all equally employed.
The government has a million tricks to cook the books.
SHEEPLEwhisperer 5 months ago 7
@SHEEPLEwhisperer They don't just cook the books, they bake, fry, and broil the books. The amazing thing is how many people buy into these bullshit government numbers.
UtherPendragan 5 months ago 22
@UtherPendragan Right on the money. Great comment. And yes I am seriously considering buying a shotgun and getting a conceal carry permit to protect myself when all hell breaks loose 'cause of the desperation of the people that have fallen off the radar.
chillichomper 5 months ago
@UtherPendragan Where did you get 26%? I googled it and a majority said its actually around 16%
Xsubsin 5 months ago
Comment removed
EarlFaulk 5 months ago
You know what the most ridiculous thing about that chart is? Throughout the entire article, they would have you believe that any changes to the economy in the year 2009 can be entirely credited to Bush and absolves Obama from any blame. This chart changes that message entirely, making Obama responsible for the 2009 upswing in employment.
It's amazing how dishonest some peole will be to prove a point.
JoshManYT 5 months ago
Well i agree with the, you can only lose so many jobs" statement but the chart shows and increase in jobs created which on average has grown. He doesn't address this point.
BorgKing001 5 months ago
@BorgKing001 Those jobs were created inspite of Obama & his failed policies. If Obama would encourage deregulation the number of jobs would go up. Also if we had the fair tax instead of the income tax the number of jobs would go up.
Also remember this recession/depression was created by the goverment spending to much money. Spending more money to get out of debt never works as it only digs you a deeper hole.
v2joecr 5 months ago
@v2joecr No it wasn't, it was created by rampant financial speculation in unregulated markets. What planet do you live on?
dmk2113 5 months ago
@v2joecr How could you possibly know they were created despite Obama's stimulus? I do agree you with though on the better way to create jobs. We must cure the disease, not just ease the symptoms.
BorgKing001 5 months ago
The real unemployment rate of unemployed and underemployed people in this country has continued to rise. We have the lowest work force participation rate in 30 years. Is people don't wise up to the real problems the only solution may be a simple thinning of the herd. Not that I am recommending that but war and famine usually fallow this type of economic behavior.
UncommonThinker 5 months ago
You hate this chart? Well, I hate your misrepresentation of it. The fact twisting here reminds me more and more of things I see on channels advertising creationism.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
@usertripppleA Are you going to say how he misrepresented it? Or are you just going to name call and spew hate?
moonshot925 5 months ago
@moonshot925 Sure. His numbers don't add up (what a surprise...). He could make that claim if 15% of all jobs would be lost every month. But the actual number was much lower. Therefore, the trend of loosing jobs could have continued for many months, if not years. Instead the numbers of joblosses not only decreased but, based on what I saw in the video, they reversed (job growth). So none of what Lee said has any bearing in reality. That is the mind twisting I see from creationists.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
@usertripppleA 'Therefore, the trend of loosing jobs could have continued for many months' To make that claim you must know the percentage unemployment that the job losses were trending towards which noone does.
The jobs started to increase a year after the stimulus so there is no way of telling whether it was caused by the stimulas or it was just the recession ending naturally.
666or999 5 months ago 2
@666or999 In August 2011, 153.6 million americans were employed. At no point during the recession more than 1% of jobs were lost (much below that actually). Therefore, the job losing trend could have continued for many years. You know, numbers can be looked up, I suggest you try from time to time.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
@usertripppleA 'Therefore, the job losing trend could have continued for many years.' you have given me no reason to believe it would have if no stimulus had happend.
666or999 5 months ago 2
@666or999 Did I say that? The point I am trying to make is that Lee's argument is on the same level as arguments made by creationists: building a strawmen which can be easliy refuted - but these strawmen have nothing to do with reality as it is the case here.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
@usertripppleA Wait what? When did he ever misrepresent what the graph was trying to demonstrate?
666or999 5 months ago 2
@666or999 Lee claims that the number of jobs lost had to decrease since you run out of people employed to be fired. That is a misrepresentation since the number of jobs lost is so small compared to the total number of jobs that it is insignificant. His argument is simply not valid. Lee said himself that you first of all have to know the number of total jobs in the economy. Something he apparently had not checked himself. Should I be surprised?
usertripppleA 5 months ago
@usertripppleA Yeh that isn't a strawman. The thing that Lee got wrong is talking about 100% unemployment but when you realise that there would be a maximum level of unemployment from the recession the rest of the arguement still stands.
666or999 5 months ago 2
@666or999 What? So please tell me (including references please) where the maximum level of unemployment from a recession is? Besides the point that lee was talking about 100% unemployment. But please enlighten me, where the cut off is during a recession.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
@usertripppleA I don't know but it is clear that the recession could only cause so much unemployment and all guesses to how much this is is pure speculation it is because of this that we can't tell whether it was the stimulus that caused this turn around or whether it was the recession naturally coming to a end.
666or999 5 months ago 3
@666or999 Based on other recessions in the past in this country and other countries, you have to admit that the unemployment rate could have gone much worse. Again, I am not claiming here that the stimulus was the main reason for end of the recession. It is impossible to say what the stimulus actually did, even though the data allow certain conslusion with a positiv interpretation of the stimulus. Nevertheless, Lee's argument still falls flat and is on the level of creationists.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
@usertripppleA Well it's certainly no crocoduck or water shooting out of the earth's crust and lee's conclusion that the graph doesn't necessarily support the stimulas is in my opinion correct so i woldn't say it's that bad.
666or999 5 months ago
@666or999 Well, than you have a low standard of honesty. Claiming that the graph is nonsense because it is impossible for the numbers of lost jobs to stay constant or even increase is simply dishonest. Lee's argumentation shows that he is interested in manipulating people and not in contributing facts. You can make valid arguments both for and against the stimulus but this video is pure propaganda without any link to reality - i.e. dishonest.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
The real unemployment rate is not eight percent, it's way higher.
tgseason12 5 months ago
Right, now let's keep the figures consistent with the facts.
Say that the total population is 100 people and every month we lost, say, 0.4 jobs. Since there are 12 months in a year, you actually could do that for, eh, let's just round down and call it 2 decades.
We hadn't lost even close to a FRACTION of enough jobs for your argument to be even mildly relevant.
dmk2113 5 months ago
@dmk2113 There is never 0 jobs no matter how bad a economy. You would expect loss of jobs per month to reach zero long before employment reached 0% with or without a stimulus.
666or999 5 months ago
@666or999 Yeah, that's a perfectly valid point. It's also not the point that he's making here. But either way, assuming that unemployment will approach an asymptotic limit at, say 30% (and that figure it still probably pretty low), we'd still have to lose jobs at the January 2009 (i.e. seasonal worker turnover) rate for about four years before job losses would start to flatten out of their own accord.
dmk2113 5 months ago
@dmk2113 That's because the realistic zero is not 0 people employed and because not every job is as (un)important. There are some tasks for which there will always remain demand and some jobs companies really can't do without. Also, the slowdown is a natural occurence during prolonged economic hardness because at some point, most of the weak companies are already out of business and most of the non-critical jobs have already been cut, making further job reduction harder.
Shorackoff 5 months ago
@Shorackoff Right, um, but I'm pretty sure that zero point is not at 9% and change and I'm pretty sure that it wasn't hit, miraculously, when Obama stepped into office.
Doren's argument is perfectly valid as a general principle for dealing with finite quantities and should be obvious to anyone who took math in high school. It's also 100% irrelevant here.
dmk2113 5 months ago
Lee.
I suspect that the chart was concocted by someone who was being schooled during the teachings of "New Math" a few decades ago.
bobbytiger 5 months ago 2