I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Obama took office in the middle of an 11 Million Full Time job hemorrhage. That means it's going to take a few years to even get back up to zero jobs gained for his term. For instance, in Obama's first year, 5.4 Million Full Time jobs were lost. Needless to say, it was a tremendous accomplishment for him to turn that around, but turn it around he did. Since the end of his first year in office, the country has GAINED 13 Million Full Time jobs-that's an excellent record for the last six years.

As far as unemployment goes, the number is tricky because there are several different unemployment numbers, the U-3, the U-6 and others which measure different things but which Obama bashers like to mix up so that it sounds like the economy is not doing well. But this chart will clear it up-this is the weekly number for first time unemployment claims. In America, when you lose your job you put in an unemployment claim. Take a look at how that turned around since Obama took office-Obama took office in Jan. 2009.



From running into an avalanche of new unemployment claims when you first took office to having those unemployment claims lower than before the crash-that is some accomplishment. Especially when you consider that more the number of people working now is considerably larger than before the crash.

While wages growth (real growth) goes backwards, and the middle class misses out on any growth at all, this is simply a nice graph.

No, it shows an amazing recovery of 11 Million Full Time jobs lost. Don't you just hate that? When that many jobs are lost, the number one priority is to get people working, even if it is for a few dollars a week less. However, now that we have recovered the number of jobs lost and then much more, the Median Weekly Earnings, inflation adjusted, is going up, and is now higher than before the crash.

So-big recovery in Full Time jobs, lowest number of people applying for unemployment per week in many, many years, and inflation adjusted earnings now going up higher than before the crash. Don't give me your little pitty-pat stats that you dredged up from the Russian data page to try to prove America isn't doing well. America is doing quite well indeed.

Russia, on the other hand, is headed right for disaster. Russia's GDP is LOWER than before the sanctions were applied. You have to understand that Russia's standard of living is so low that even in relative boom times, Russia is in a Great Depression compared to the United States. Now Russia, with its 7% inflation rate and 11% interest rate, is headed right down. As for the ruble, this tells the gruesome story:



LOL, anybody up for starting a pool about the month Russia goes under?

Not sure why you're using Russia as any kind of comparison. US trade sanctions, and the collusion to drop the price of oil (Russia's former trade ace), is behind their problems.

That's nothing to do with internal issues in Russia. It's all external.

You've yet to show that real wages growth is occurring in the US of A. Much like in Australia, if someone has four hours a week work, they are considered to be no longer unemployed.



It's easy to fudge the figures.

Fudge figures? Four hours a week? Dude, as I stated before, these are Full Time jobs we are talking about. Please try to pay attention. Thirteen million Full Time jobs added since the jobs hemorrhage stopped after Obama's first year. GDP headed up every year since 2009. Median Weekly Income, inflation adjusted, is rising and is now up over where it was before the crash. And incidentally, wage growth cannot be divorced from jobs growth. If a company is hiring a bunch of new people, usually they are paid a little less than experienced workers to start. So by hiring new people, the median earnings for that company actually goes DOWN, even though nobody in the company took a pay cut.

The people who talk of earnings without also talking about job growth are selling you a bill of goods.

I bring Russia up because you defend Russia and post the same things people on the internet who are defending Russia for a living post. Russia's standard of living is Depression-era by Western standards even in comparatively good times there. And now, with a shrinking GDP, 7% inflation and 11% interest rates, is not comparatively good times over there.

Why would I? You're ignoring what I post.

I'm not ignoring what you post, I'm answering your ill-thought out arguments. You are very good at picking and choosing minor statistics and ignoring the major, important ones when it suits your narrative. And sources such as Breitbart don't improve your credibility.

Anyway, here's showing that the American worker is not moving backwards, much as you would love to think he is. This is the Median Weekly Earnings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in constant 1982-84 dollars. This automatically adjusts for inflation. Real earnings growth is not as high as you would like, but it's not going backward. And for the past several years, there has been A LOT of Full Time jobs created, which will tend to drive the median weekly earnings down, since new workers get paid less than experienced workers.



By the way, that $346 in 1982-84 is worth $832.17 today.

If you'd bothered to check, their source was a CNN interview with fed reserve chair Helen Yellen.

I read the original CNN interview back when it was made. Janet Yellen did not ignore job growth in her presentation, but Breitbart cut that part out because it didn't fit their preferred narrative. The source I gave are official US Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is why if you want to talk economics instead of just advancing Russian propaganda, you go to the actual source of the numbers. I'll post them again, just so that you don't get lost. These are in constant 1982-84 dollars, which adjust for inflation. $345 back then equals $831.17 now.



The US worker is not going backwards. He is not going forward quite as fast as expected, but his position is improving.

And you're fixated on jobs growth why exactly?

It's a fiat economy, and debt is a creation; an illusion.

The fed creates money on a whim, but expects you to earn your share.

You say the Russian economy is on the way out, and I've explained to you how that's being manipulated by the OPEC nations.

I'm saying the same people who brought the US economy to its collective knees in 2007 are on the same track now, but it's not what interests you, right?

You've just spent several posts complaining about the middle class falling down into poverty. I just produced the evidence-which I am sure astounded you-that all that stuff you've been fed is pure BS. The figures prove it. American workers are doing better than before. 13 Million Full Time jobs created in the last six years and a growing median weekly wage-even after you adjust for inflation.The middle class is not disappearing and falling into poverty, as you try to claim. What do you think MAKES the middle class-Full Time jobs and weekly earnings that are not contracting.

Since you've been defeated on this idea the the US is falling into poverty, you now come up with this gold standard baloney. You've been proved wrong, the middle class is not disappearing as America's critics try to maintain, and we are moving forward. America is moving forward. Russia, on the other hand, is really falling by the wayside. It's currency is worth less than half of what it was worth two years ago. That's horrible.

Here's the US census chart for the middle-class, and it's you that's been banging on about it for a page and a half. It's called obfuscation, and you think you're good at this.

Charts here, and here.

As for your claim that I'm a Russian backer, I admire the fact that even while under the duress of trade sanctions, Putin can show your people how to deal with insurgents in a foreign nation.

Now get back on the OP please. This fixation on jobs is terminably tedious.

Dude, you're the one who started this baloney about America's middle class supposedly disappearing, you must be stupid to think I'd forget. And your charts show how you fail to go to the source data. For instance, a few charts mentioned household income. That's a deceptive stat. Why? Because the American household has shrunk slightly for the last few years in a row. People are moving out of the household, many of them wage earners. If you have three wage earners in a household that totals $100,000 income and one of them moves out to start their own household, then you now have one household of $67,00 income and a second household of $33,000 income. That's going to bring down your median. It is just this type of phonied up statistics taken from partisan websites and blogs that distorts the picture entirely.

Fact is, there are more people working Full Time jobs than ever before, we've added 13 Million Full Time jobs in the last six years to replace the 11 Million Full Time jobs lost in the crash of 2008-9, and that explosive job growth is now beginning to raise the median weekly pay, inflation adjusted. The middle class is in place, the United States currency has never been stronger, and the Russian currency has never been more of a joke. Well, not since 1991 when the Russian economy crapped the bed entirely.

As for your Russian relation, you spout out the same old tired talking points that all the paid Russian trolls do on other social media. "Fiat" currency, (part of a gold standard argument), how the United States better watch out for Putin in foreign affairs, how the United States is supposed to be a really poor country, etc. The United States has its poor areas, but even our poor areas are far wealthier than supposedly "middle class" areas in Russia. To Russians, living in Detroit would be like living in The Ritz.

It's US census data. You didn't check, did you?

Now you're banging on about people leaving home, and how this distorts data that you've already cited.

And you want me to pay attention?

Seriously, dude, the stats are there. US census stats. You're saying that they're manipulated by bloggers? The source is cited on each graph.

Get over it. Please. You're looking fixated.

What portion of the economy's performance is determined by policies from the Executive branch?

Seriously, dude. You should bother to check the census data before you attack others.

According to the Census data from 1999 to 2013 population has increased 11% and households have increased 17% so Blickers is correct in his example.

Yes, genius, the household income is from the census. However, the blogger who put the presentation together failed to mention that the average household has fewer people in it than it did in past years. In other words, people are moving out of the house. And when you have a household of three together making $100,000 a year, and one moves out, you have two households, one of which makes $67,000 a year and one of which makes $33,000 a year. That brings down the median household income. Not to mention the fact that Americans live longer, so a larger percentage of the median household income is people on lesser retirement incomes and a smaller percentage is people during their working/high income years. Is this too complicated for your Russian-informed mind to grasp?

Here's a graph of the average size of the American household for the last 20 years:



Fewer people in the average size household means less money coming in, as I illustrated before. And this, too, is from the census. Got the picture now? The middle class is not disappearing in America, contrary to the shrieks of the "America is doomed and I'm glad" crowd, like you.

The statistics in your graph don't match the grossly over inflated rhetoric in your essay. A decrease of less than 2% in the average (or is it median) population over a 20 year period won't account for the change in medial incomes you are implying. More gorilla dust.

I think most are missing the important point that most Americans are not saving for retirement. It doesn't matter what their income level was during their working years. The average retirement savings for all Americans is very small.
It's estimated at $104,000. With longer life spans, that's hardly enough to live in the same manner while working.

Quote Georgeob1:

Why thank you, George. I'm a big fan of yours too. However, if you had somehow managed to get through the grossly over inflated rhetoric in my essay and actually read through it before posting about it, you might have come across this line:
Quote Blickers:

Understand it now? Good.