US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[skyguy918]

It could be around there. But to use a number based on people collecting unemployment is seriously useless.

Maybe watch the video first (or do any sort of basic research on the topic) before digging your hole deeper.

[good sam]

Outrage Dilution

1 outrage out of 3 headlines in a week: Bad Persuasion
25 outrages out of 25 headlines in a week: Excellent Persuasion
At the moment there are so many outrages, executive orders, protests, and controversies that none of them can get enough oxygen in our brains. I can’t obsess about problem X because the rest of the alphabet is coming at me at the same time.

"In only a few days, Trump has made us question what-the-hell every other president was doing during their first weeks in office. Were they even trying?"

[aygart]

"In only a few days, Trump has made us question what-the-hell every other president was doing during their first weeks in office. Were they even trying?"

But he wrote a ridiculous tweet!

[yuneeq]

You are using "alternative facts" just like your savior. Anyone who believes the unemployment rate is 41% like Trump is an... 

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is considered alternative facts.
The government is now churning out alternative facts.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Tell me, are 95% of Americans who can work, employed?
90%?
80%?
70%?

Didn't think so.

[zh cohen]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368084.php

[skyguy918]

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is considered alternative facts.
The government is now churning out alternative facts.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Tell me, are 95% of Americans who can work, employed?
90%?
80%?
70%?

Didn't think so.

You're looking at labor force participation rate, which is very different from unemployment rate. But you'd know that if you'd bothered to learn anything about the topic.

As the clip I posted points out, labor force participation is most closely tied to demographics - ie when you have the massive cohort of the baby boomers hitting retirement, it brings the participation rate down, despite the actual unemployment rate falling as well. That's why it's not particularly instructive to the discussion on unemployment.

[Super Speed]

You're looking at labor force participation rate, which is very different from unemployment rate. But you'd know that if you'd bothered to learn anything about the topic.

As the clip I posted points out, labor force participation is most closely tied to demographics - ie when you have the massive cohort of the baby boomers hitting retirement, it brings the participation rate down, despite the actual unemployment rate falling as well. That's why it's not particularly instructive to the discussion on unemployment.

As long as you can skew the numbers to make your savior, BHO, look good you'll do it. Got it.

[skyguy918]

As long as you can skew the numbers to make your savior, BHO, look good you'll do it. Got it.

When you show a basic understanding of what each set of numbers represents, then you can start talking about skewing. I'm about as apolitical as it gets. Not everything has to be about R vs D. Seems like many here are more obsessed with BHO than any lib.

[yuneeq]

You're looking at labor force participation rate, which is very different from unemployment rate. But you'd know that if you'd bothered to learn anything about the topic.

As the clip I posted points out, labor force participation is most closely tied to demographics - ie when you have the massive cohort of the baby boomers hitting retirement, it brings the participation rate down, despite the actual unemployment rate falling as well. That's why it's not particularly instructive to the discussion on unemployment.

I'm not arguing what the "official" employment rate is.
I'm saying that the actual employment rate is the labor force participation rate. And that's 100% true.
The fact is, the shrinking workforce has huge negative ramifications to the economy, whether you want to blame the decline on Obama or not.

[aygart]

I'm not arguing what the "official" employment rate is.
I'm saying that the actual employment rate is the labor force participation rate. And that's 100% true.
The fact is, the shrinking workforce has huge negative ramifications to the economy, whether you want to blame the decline on Obama or not.

The bigger question isn't if it should be credited to or blamed on him but whether it is an indicator at all. If 20% of those not working are retired then the number is meaningless.

[skyguy918]

I'm not arguing what the "official" employment rate is.
I'm saying that the actual employment rate is the labor force participation rate. And that's 100% true.
The fact is, the shrinking workforce has huge negative ramifications to the economy, whether you want to blame the decline on Obama or not.

How do you figure? Have you read anything on the subject? No one uses labor force participation rate to measure unemployment. It's not that it's irrelevant to the economy overall - there can come a point where demographics create too small a labor force to sustain economic growth. That's not where we are though. One thing LFPR was very good at highlighting was the gender gap.

ETA: The reason why the BLS tracks unemployment separately from LFPR is specifically because the latter doesn't do a good job of measuring unemployment.

The bigger question isn't if it should be credited to or blamed on him but whether it is an indicator at all. If 20% of those not working are retired then the number is meaningless.

+1. And I wasn't suggesting that the drop in unemployment rate be fully attributed to Obama. I'm not particularly interested in that discussion, as it's in the past. The point is knowing where we stand today. It's being able to ignore the rhetoric that says we're in terrible shape and we need the president to take drastic action to improve our position.

[yuneeq]

The bigger question isn't if it should be credited to or blamed on him but whether it is an indicator at all. If 20% of those not working are retired then the number is meaningless.

The numbers don't discriminate. How about social security payment and welfare beneficiaries- how can we afford to pay out as usual when the primary source of funding (employment) go dry? Not exactly meaningless if you ask me.

[aygart]

It's being able to ignore the rhetoric that says we're in terrible shape and we need the president to take drastic action to improve our position.

We should always ignore anything saying we need a president to take drastic action

[aygart]

The numbers don't discriminate. How about social security payment and welfare beneficiaries- how can we afford to pay out as usual when the primary source of funding (employment) go dry? Not exactly meaningless if you ask me.

Now you want goalposts?

That is certainly an issue, but one which does not tell us anything about the effect a presidents policies had on employment.

[skyguy918]

The numbers don't discriminate. How about social security payment and welfare beneficiaries- how can we afford to pay out as usual when the primary source of funding (employment) go dry? Not exactly meaningless if you ask me.

If the numbers don't discriminate between retired persons and unemployed persons, then aren't you looking at the wrong numbers?

[yuneeq]

How do you figure? Have you read anything on the subject? No one uses labor force participation rate to measure unemployment. It's not that it's irrelevant to the economy overall - there can come a point where demographics create too small a labor force to sustain economic growth. That's not where we are though. One thing LFPR was very good at highlighting was the gender gap.

ETA: The reason why the BLS tracks unemployment separately from LFPR is specifically because the latter doesn't do a good job of measuring unemployment.+1. And I wasn't suggesting that the drop in unemployment rate be fully attributed to Obama. I'm not particularly interested in that discussion, as it's in the past. The point is knowing where we stand today. It's being able to ignore the rhetoric that says we're in terrible shape and we need the president to take drastic action to improve our position.

The point I was making is that unemployment rate does not tell us much about the health of the economy, and it seems you agree with that. No single statistic will tell us how well the economy is doing. You also need to take in account (stagnant) wage growth vs inflation, underemployment, and a slew of other statistics. My point about LFPR was simply a refutation of JTZ who thinks it's preposterous to believe that 38% of employable Americans are not working. Which is true. What the ramifications are- as I mentioned earlier- social security, and welfare money drying up.

[yuneeq]

Now you want goalposts?

That is certainly an issue, but one which does not tell us anything about the effect a presidents policies had on employment.

I specifically didn't say if Obama is responsible for the decline.
In regards to the unemployment rate, I believe the same.

[yuneeq]

If the numbers don't discriminate between retired persons and unemployed persons, then aren't you looking at the wrong numbers?

Depends what you're trying to learn from the data.
Are people are retiring too early? Will social security will go bust?
Are people are giving up on looking for jobs or are happy living off welfare?

Again, as I stated before- no single statistic will tell you all the answers we need to know.
You use the LFPR and the unemployment rate as the first numbers you look at before delving deeper into other data, like wage growth, welfare beneficiaries, GDP, etc.

[cholent]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/24/the_one_jobs_stat_donald_trump_should_follow.html

[skyguy918]

The point I was making is that unemployment rate does not tell us much about the health of the economy, and it seems you agree with that.

I certainly do not. I said LFPR doesn't tell us much that isn't better told by the unemployment rate. What the unemployment numbers show is that we're in about as good a position as were before the crash in '08. Of course we're not at 100% employment, and there's always room for growth.

No single statistic will tell us how well the economy is doing. You also need to take in account (stagnant) wage growth vs inflation, underemployment, and a slew of other statistics. My point about LFPR was simply a refutation of JTZ who thinks it's preposterous to believe that 38% of employable Americans are not working. Which is true. What the ramifications are- as I mentioned earlier- social security, and welfare money drying up.

He never said that. In fact he repeatedly used the appropriate term, unemployment rate, and you replied with LFPR.

Depends what you're trying to learn from the data.
Are people are retiring too early? Will social security will go bust?
Are people are giving up on looking for jobs or are happy living off welfare?

Again, as I stated before- no single statistic will tell you all the answers we need to know.
You use the LFPR and the unemployment rate as the first numbers you look at before delving deeper into other data, like wage growth, welfare beneficiaries, GDP, etc.

The point is that monetary and economic policy have a far greater effect on the unemployment rate than the LFPR. The president doesn't control demographics. At best a president can try to use policy to react to demographics. So using the 'low' LFPR to detract from the prior administration is disingenuous - as is ignoring the stabilization of unemployment during that period.