I started Social Security at 62, and plenty of other boomers did so as well. If retirees were forced back into the labor market due to Social Security cuts, the unemployment rate would really suck.

eral drop since the recession.

people have dropped out & the reason is fewer jobs, fewer good-paying jobs.

So after watching many people (including Fox News http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-and-friends-to-correct-themselves/2012/09/11/07cb5130-fc53-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_blog.html) make adjustments to the current Unemployment rate (the U-3 rate), to include the reduced labor force numbers (which changes the U-3 unemployment rate to more like the U-6 rate (see http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm)), and not seeing any comparison to earlier U-6 rates (simply comparing today's U-6 rate to previous administrations' U-3 rate) I decided to look into the numbers to compare apples to apples, or U-3 to U-3, between previous administrations. I would love to compare U-6 to U-6 rates but if there are numbers going back further than 1994, I haven't been able to find them.

So I found this table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm and I made my own using that data to show the historical highs and lows, by state and by administration over the last 36 years (you can see it here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhrQ1Ls3bKILdGJ3TkRSU0RGSGVQeF9SUjc1cWxwTnc#gid=0 ). My goal was simply to get a visual feel for who had the most historical lows and highs.

Considering the generally accepted idea that we are or just were in the worst recession since the Great Depression, I was surprised at how few states hit their historical high unemployment rate under the Obama administration.

Granted, it's hard to blame a President (any President) who has only been in office for a few days/weeks/months for the numbers at that time but what is the right grace period for attributing numbers to your predecessor? Without a good answer for that I just left the Presidential periods as their time in office, no more no less. Though, it might be worthwhile to come up with what is a suitable transition period and indicate any historical rates in that period with some Asterisk of Note or something.

In related news, I came across an animated GIF explanation of the last few days and near future of the economy, it's pretty good. Disclaimer: adult language

Monetary Policy Explained With Animated Gifs

P.S. I'm new here, hi.

Because the fact of the matter is that this indicates that we're suffering from severe demand side problems which they don't seem to understand that this refutes their suggestions that we have problems on the supply side.

The economy added 96,000 jobs in August but nearly all of that is due to the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Over 80,000 of the 96,000 jobs were a result of the Birth Death Model. What that means is that the government assumes that 80,000+ jobs were created last month by new companies that aren't yet being polled by the agency. Is that possible? Well, maybe. Even if these jobs were created you have to wonder what kinds of jobs they are. Are these high paying manufacturing jobs or low skill service jobs? Plus how many of these "jobs" are really just part time work people use to get by until they can find full time work. Landscapers, house cleaners, pooper scooper service (yes it's real), window washers, etc. etc. are all technically jobs but they aren't productive jobs that can get the economy growing again.

So basically last month was a wash.

third world competition...and consequently third world standard of living is inevitable.

Until 1950's standards are back, taxing those who make more appropriately, and that thing called "rule of law" where crimes are punishable, even if they are done on Wall St., returns...nothing will significantly change.

Like Elizabeth Warren is known to say, THE SYTEM IS RIGGED.

I don't think the USA can blame the 3rd world or NAFTA for the decline of it's manufacturing base.

Germany is nearly as wealthy as the USA and 25% of it's workforce is employed in manufacturing. So it's possible to have high wages, high environmental standards and strong manufacturing.

your statement it's possible to have high wages, high environmental standards & strong manufacturing. Manufacturing being a very good sources of jobs, unions are labor protections...the decline of manufacturing base is due to the fact these things can be manufactured elsewhere where labor laws don't exist & wages are a pittance.

I'm confused as to what point you are making. If blame is to be laid, seems all roads lead to big business & the oligarchy, wouldn't you agree?

The tables at the bottom say that, before seasonal adjustment, 252,000 jobs were added in August, of which 87,000 are from the birth/death model. Thus, before seasonal adjustment, the birth/death jobs are 35% of the total jobs in August.

They they seasonally adjusted the 252,000 jobs down to 96,000 jobs.

Who knows, the birth/death model might be underestimating the number of jobs created by new businesses net of the jobs lost by failing businesses.

Are the 4.1 million jobs that the BLS claims were created in the last 30 months mostly faked estimates?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

Sounds like the kind of arguments I find from the righties on the news.yahoo.com comment section.