Economy: Question For Trump Supporter

[Ray From Cleveland]

It makes sense to view ALL the effects, to pretend that American energy industry doesn't exist doesn't help in getting the full picture of how lowered gas prices have affected economy.

In the recent 2016 article I linked to the upside on consumer side is weighed against downsides on oil industry side.

In the article you linked to only consumer side effects are considered and it is therefore half-blind to full effect on economy.

Okay, so how many are affected by the oil industry in the country compared to the hundreds of millions that benefit from lower fuel prices?

 

[pinqy]

The labor force participation rate is the percent of the population in the labor force The employment-population ratio is the percent of the population that is employed.

Doies that make more sense? Those are the internationally accepted economic definitions.

No, it doesn't make more sense. Labor means work.

Right. And the labor force are those willing and able to work.

Those not working are unemployed if they are looking.

Right

Those not looking and not employed would not be in the labor force.

Exactly. You seem to be understanding.

 

[edthecynic]

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.

I quoted the definition from that page. It says either or, not and. Learn to read.

The "SUM" means "AND."

 

[edthecynic]

You're considered unemployed if you're not working, but have looked for a job in the last month.
If you meet those criteria you are both unemployed and part of the workforce.

And for how many days, months or years of not finding any work would you be still be considered part of the work force?

As long as you continue to LOOK for work, YES!

 

[edthecynic]

You're considered unemployed if you're not working, but have looked for a job in the last month.
If you meet those criteria you are both unemployed and part of the workforce.

And for how many days, months or years of not finding any work would you be still be considered part of the work force?

As long as you looked in the last month, you're considered part of the workforce.

So if you looked for ten years you are part of the work force? Not in my world.

"Your world" is not REALITY!

 

[AntonToo]

The labor force participation rate is the percent of the population in the labor force The employment-population ratio is the percent of the population that is employed.

Doies that make more sense? Those are the internationally accepted economic definitions.

No, it doesn't make more sense. Labor means work. Those not working are unemployed if they are looking. Those not looking and not employed would not be in the labor force. Labels don't make things true.

Not in [labor force] but IN [labor force participation rate], because the rate is with respect to population.

 

[AntonToo]

It makes sense to view ALL the effects, to pretend that American energy industry doesn't exist doesn't help in getting the full picture of how lowered gas prices have affected economy.

In the recent 2016 article I linked to the upside on consumer side is weighed against downsides on oil industry side.

In the article you linked to only consumer side effects are considered and it is therefore half-blind to full effect on economy.

Okay, so how many are affected by the oil industry in the country compared to the hundreds of millions that benefit from lower fuel prices?

It's in the link:

A new paper, being presented Friday at a Brookings Institution conference, crunched the numbers to show just how closely these two factors offset each other. The paper estimates that higher discretionary income, thanks to low oil, boosted consumption by 0.61%. They estimate that the collapse of oil drilling reduced investment by 0.62%. In plain English, the boost to consumer-spending power from low oil prices almost exactly equaled the hit to investment from low oil prices.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's in the link:

A new paper, being presented Friday at a Brookings Institution conference, crunched the numbers to show just how closely these two factors offset each other. The paper estimates that higher discretionary income, thanks to low oil, boosted consumption by 0.61%. They estimate that the collapse of oil drilling reduced investment by 0.62%. In plain English, the boost to consumer-spending power from low oil prices almost exactly equaled the hit to investment from low oil prices.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

How many people do you know benefited from lower fuel prices compared to how many were negatively affected by them because they were invested in oil?

In the commodities market, it doesn't matter which way oil goes, just as long as your money is in the direction it's going. You make just as much money if oil goes up as if oil goes down.

 

[AntonToo]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

How many people do you know

Anecdotal evidence is not a real dispute serious studies.

You and I personally witness a very tiny spec of a fraction of what goes on in the world.

Lower oil prices and the U.S. economy: Is this time different? | Brookings Institution

There is a download of entire thing.

In there you will find

The primary reason why real GDP growth remained sluggish after 2014Q2 has been the much slower growth in nonresidential investment, which can be traced to a sharp decline in oil-related investment expenditures. This pattern as well is not new. A similar decline has been documented by Edelstein and Kilian (2007) after the 1986 oil price decline. For example, in the seven quarters after 1985Q4, lower oil-related investment created a negative stimulus of 0.44 percentage points of cumulative U.S. real GDP growth after accounting for the implied change in imports (compared with 0.62 percentage points in Table 8).