Regarding Issac Bailey’s article in the paper on July 10th, I found the statistics he cited interesting.
As he does on practically every occasion in which he cites stats he has once again cherry picked the numbers used. Bailey touts a 6.1 percent unemployment rate. The fact is that if he would have checked the Bureau of Labor Statistics u-6 numbers, he would have seen that the actual unemployment rate is 13.6 percent. That number includes people who have dropped out of the workforce.
Another fact that he failed to mention is that the workforce participation rate is 62.8 percent, the lowest since 1978. I'm sure that it was an oversight but Bailey also neglected to mention that 40 percent of workers in the country earn less than $20,000 per year.
Bailey touts the rise in the stock market; although many people with 401ks have some stock investment, 85 percent of stocks are owned by 5 percent of wealthy investors. Any economist would say that the historic rise in the stock market is due to the Fed pumping trillions of dollars into the system. This method keeps interest rates artificially low, which in turn harms savers and particularly the elderly.
If Bailey had the wherewithal to write an article in which he just laid out the facts instead of his attempt to make the uninformed feel as if Obama is actually doing something, then maybe I could stomach his articles. All any reader needs to do are a couple of quick Google searches, look at the real statistics, and they will be able to see that Bailey’s article, much like most of Obama’s statements are filled with inaccuracies.
I don't know about the "all is well" mentality of Bailey, but I think the average person, if asked if they are better off now than they were several years ago, would have a "different perspective."