Obama outperforms Reagan on job growth and investing

[Jacob]

Obamo outperforms Reagan?

Hahahaha, hahaha, hahahahaha.......Hahahaha.

Only if you look at facts. If you look at Fox News talking points, the picture is much less clear.

[Sheilbh]

Then why are we still calling this one the Great Recession?

Because it was worse.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm
The US, at least, has recovered to pre-recession peak.

In the UK we managed that this year.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/sep/27/recessions-compared-1930-2008

In Europe on the other hand

I'm unconvinced that the drop in labor participation can be fully attributed to demographic trends.

I agree.

[CountDeMoney]

Federal employees increased significantly under Reagan (either total or just civilian exec branch), whereas the count has decreased slightly under Obama. 

"Slightly"? 

[Valmy]

No wonder government employees like Siege prefer Reagan.

[Razgovory]

Obamo outperforms Reagan?

Hahahaha, hahaha, hahahahaha.......Hahahaha.

It is heresy, the author should be thrown off the Laffer curve.

[jimmy olsen]

What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?

[Valmy]

What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?

Politically inconvenient.

[DGuller]

What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?

The long term jobless are still count as unemployed if they're looking for a job. 

[jimmy olsen]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

[alfred russel]

It is hard to make the case the recession is over or that we are in boom times when the middle class is so clearly stagnating.

[Admiral Yi]

It is hard to make the case the recession is over or that we are in boom times when the middle class is so clearly stagnating.

It's very easy to make the case the recession is over, since it's definitional.

[Razgovory]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

Why?

[Jacob]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

What are you getting at? Are you saying that long-term unemployment - aka "people who have given up" as well as "homemakers" - was significantly different during Reagan's years compared to Obama's? If so, feel free to tell us how you're reaching that conclusion.

If you don't think there's much of a difference, then what does it matter when the topic of discussion is comparing Reagan's performance with Obama's?

Or are you saying that we should include long-term unemployed during Obama's years but not during Reagan's, so we can preserve Reagan's apparent status as being good for the economy in spite of inconvenient facts?

... or something else?

[DGuller]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

And they do, in U4, U5, and U6 indices of unemployment.

[jimmy olsen]

What are you getting at? Are you saying that long-term unemployment - aka "people who have given up" as well as "homemakers" - was significantly different during Reagan's years compared to Obama's? If so, feel free to tell us how you're reaching that conclusion.

If you don't think there's much of a difference, then what does it matter when the topic of discussion is comparing Reagan's performance with Obama's?

Or are you saying that we should include long-term unemployed during Obama's years but not during Reagan's, so we can preserve Reagan's apparent status as being good for the economy in spite of inconvenient facts?

... or something else?

I have no idea what the long term unemployment rate in the 80s was. I'd like to know so that it can be compared to the long term unemployment rate now. Otherwise we're just throwing around pointless numbers that don't mean anything. You can't draw an accurate conclusion over whose better with those.