Economy: Question For Trump Supporter

[PoliticalChic]

People out of the labor force skyrocketed under Obama.....it's like a time warp back to the mid 1970's....sadly....

lol, see what happens when you show a RWnut irrefutable facts? You get inexplicable denial.

95,000,000,000 people......

Hard to imagine how anyone....anyone....is still supporting this dunce in the White House....


"... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery."
Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun

 

[Iceweasel]

So are we better off than the entire 1950's and 1960's?

So that's your stance, that we didn't get as bad as the 50's and 60's under DumBama? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

Remember too that in the 50's and 60's, many women didn't work so they could stay home and raise the family. As a child of the 60's, I can tell you that was the norm, so of course they were not in the workforce. Back then, the only women who did work full-time were unmarried women which there weren't many of around at that time.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

The point you missed is that we have record high amount of people no longer in the workforce; the worst it's been since the 70's when women started to work full time and some even being heads of single parent households. Since that time, the participation rate increased for many years. But today, women still work full time jobs. Now you might have a point if there was a sweeping trend of stay-at-home mothers in this country, but that never happened. In fact if anything, more women graduate college than men these days, and we have more working mothers than ever.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

No, that's not it. Our aging population continued to work after retirement. This chart from the BLS only goes into 2012, but that's when we seen the biggest jump in people dropping out of the workforce:


View attachment 91685

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Many retired EARLY because the economy is still shit and they didn't feel like flipping burgers part time after their company closed or moved.

 

[PredFan]

The American free market economy is so strong that despite 0bama's best efforts, even he cannot keep it down for long.

 

[edthecynic]

People out of the labor force skyrocketed under Obama.....it's like a time warp back to the mid 1970's....sadly....

It skyrocketed under Bush too. Bush set a new record every year, but only had Boomers retiring in any significant numbers in his second term.

Go ahead and support that. Or run off with your tail between your legs.

As you well know, I ALWAYS have the backup!!!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Not in labor force

 

[AntonToo]

But job growth does not match that story, do you see that?

So now you are agreeing with Republicans that the job market is crap?

....no what I'm saying is that trends in gas prices does not well correlate to job growth.

 

[Iceweasel]

People out of the labor force skyrocketed under Obama.....it's like a time warp back to the mid 1970's....sadly....

It skyrocketed under Bush too. Bush set a new record every year, but only had Boomers retiring in any significant numbers in his second term.

Go ahead and support that. Or run off with your tail between your legs.

As you well know, I ALWAYS have the backup!!!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Not in labor force

What do you think you backed up? It looks very much like unemployed going way up, how did Bush set records?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Nothing misleading about it. It's people well under retirement age (compared to the US population) that are leaving the job market.

 

[edthecynic]

So are we better off than the entire 1950's and 1960's?

So that's your stance, that we didn't get as bad as the 50's and 60's under DumBama? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

Remember too that in the 50's and 60's, many women didn't work so they could stay home and raise the family. As a child of the 60's, I can tell you that was the norm, so of course they were not in the workforce. Back then, the only women who did work full-time were unmarried women which there weren't many of around at that time.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

The point you missed is that we have record high amount of people no longer in the workforce; the worst it's been since the 70's when women started to work full time and some even being heads of single parent households. Since that time, the participation rate increased for many years. But today, women still work full time jobs. Now you might have a point if there was a sweeping trend of stay-at-home mothers in this country, but that never happened. In fact if anything, more women graduate college than men these days, and we have more working mothers than ever.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

No, that's not it. Our aging population continued to work after retirement. This chart from the BLS only goes into 2012, but that's when we seen the biggest jump in people dropping out of the workforce:


View attachment 91685

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Many retired EARLY because the economy is still shit and they didn't feel like flipping burgers part time after their company closed or moved.

Actually, retirees slowed down slightly from 15% still working to 18% still working.

 

[Iceweasel]

So that's your stance, that we didn't get as bad as the 50's and 60's under DumBama? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

Remember too that in the 50's and 60's, many women didn't work so they could stay home and raise the family. As a child of the 60's, I can tell you that was the norm, so of course they were not in the workforce. Back then, the only women who did work full-time were unmarried women which there weren't many of around at that time.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

The point you missed is that we have record high amount of people no longer in the workforce; the worst it's been since the 70's when women started to work full time and some even being heads of single parent households. Since that time, the participation rate increased for many years. But today, women still work full time jobs. Now you might have a point if there was a sweeping trend of stay-at-home mothers in this country, but that never happened. In fact if anything, more women graduate college than men these days, and we have more working mothers than ever.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

No, that's not it. Our aging population continued to work after retirement. This chart from the BLS only goes into 2012, but that's when we seen the biggest jump in people dropping out of the workforce:


View attachment 91685

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Many retired EARLY because the economy is still shit and they didn't feel like flipping burgers part time after their company closed or moved.

Actually, retirees slowed down slightly from 15% still working to 18% still working.

I thought you always had "backup"? You can't even understand the charts.

 

[edthecynic]

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Nothing misleading about it. It's people well under retirement age (compared to the US population) that are leaving the job market.

No, it is fewer people under the age of retirement taking the place of the retiring Boomers because less were born after the Baby Boom. DUH!!!

 

[edthecynic]

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

The point you missed is that we have record high amount of people no longer in the workforce; the worst it's been since the 70's when women started to work full time and some even being heads of single parent households. Since that time, the participation rate increased for many years. But today, women still work full time jobs. Now you might have a point if there was a sweeping trend of stay-at-home mothers in this country, but that never happened. In fact if anything, more women graduate college than men these days, and we have more working mothers than ever.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

No, that's not it. Our aging population continued to work after retirement. This chart from the BLS only goes into 2012, but that's when we seen the biggest jump in people dropping out of the workforce:


View attachment 91685

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Many retired EARLY because the economy is still shit and they didn't feel like flipping burgers part time after their company closed or moved.

Actually, retirees slowed down slightly from 15% still working to 18% still working.

I thought you always had "backup"? You can't even understand the charts.

You obviously can't understand anything.

 

[Iceweasel]

The point you missed is that we have record high amount of people no longer in the workforce; the worst it's been since the 70's when women started to work full time and some even being heads of single parent households. Since that time, the participation rate increased for many years. But today, women still work full time jobs. Now you might have a point if there was a sweeping trend of stay-at-home mothers in this country, but that never happened. In fact if anything, more women graduate college than men these days, and we have more working mothers than ever.

No, that's not it. Our aging population continued to work after retirement. This chart from the BLS only goes into 2012, but that's when we seen the biggest jump in people dropping out of the workforce:


View attachment 91685

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Many retired EARLY because the economy is still shit and they didn't feel like flipping burgers part time after their company closed or moved.

Actually, retirees slowed down slightly from 15% still working to 18% still working.

I thought you always had "backup"? You can't even understand the charts.

You obviously can't understand anything.

See above.

 

[AntonToo]

Ray, is there anything other than "right on baby!" that you can say about her posting?

She, like Weasel will not listen to anything sane I might have to say, but if it comes from you it can have a distinct therapeutic effect on their crazy.

Her evidence is compelling and I agree with it.

Can you find this "compelling evidence" that you speak of that actually addresses my response to her (and by the way to you when you made similar argument earlier)

Here is what I said:

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

This was a response to her claim that "jobs lost without stimulus would have been higher" is not a reasonable statement.


Can you find a single place where she directly acknowledges, let alone directly addresses what I said?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

....no what I'm saying is that trends in gas prices does not well correlate to job growth.

Sure it does, not with job growth, but with economic activity.

Before the housing bubble we hit $4.00 a gallon nationwide. When the recession hit, it dropped like a lead balloon. The price of fuel is controlled by the commodities market, and traders quickly sold their long positions and went to short positions which caused the price to decrease.

As things got better, prices once again increased. It continued that way until fracking oil made it's way into the market. Afterwords, we began to export more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Supply and demand is what creates fuel prices. I spent several years trading commodities, so I kind of understand how it all works even though I didn't trade fuel but once in my life. When traders start dumping their long positions, that's when the price decreases. The decision to make those trades is based on how much supply of oil and gasoline we do have in stock.

 

[edthecynic]

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

The point you missed is that we have record high amount of people no longer in the workforce; the worst it's been since the 70's when women started to work full time and some even being heads of single parent households. Since that time, the participation rate increased for many years. But today, women still work full time jobs. Now you might have a point if there was a sweeping trend of stay-at-home mothers in this country, but that never happened. In fact if anything, more women graduate college than men these days, and we have more working mothers than ever.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

No, that's not it. Our aging population continued to work after retirement. This chart from the BLS only goes into 2012, but that's when we seen the biggest jump in people dropping out of the workforce:


View attachment 91685

A very misleading chart. All it shows is that Boomers are retiring at a pretty steady 80+% rate only it conveniently leaves out the 80+% rate.

Many retired EARLY because the economy is still shit and they didn't feel like flipping burgers part time after their company closed or moved.

Actually, retirees slowed down slightly from 15% still working to 18% still working.

I thought you always had "backup"? You can't even understand the charts.

Americans Working Part-Time After Age 65
Americans Working Part-Time After Age 65

Don’t count on full-time retirement, even after age 65. About 15.5 percent of Americans age 65 and older were still working in 2008, according to recently released data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Most of those seniors (62 percent) have cut back to part-time work. But over a third (38 percent) continue to work 35 hours a week or more during the traditional retirement years.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/18/baby-boomers-retirement/

In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

 

[edthecynic]

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed

Acceleration due to gravity is the same for all objects. That is very different from saying everything falls at same speed.

Terminal velocity is terminal velocity.

You both leave out Galileo's caveat "in a vacuum." There is no terminal velocity in a vacuum.

 

[edthecynic]

People out of the labor force skyrocketed under Obama.....it's like a time warp back to the mid 1970's....sadly....

It skyrocketed under Bush too. Bush set a new record every year, but only had Boomers retiring in any significant numbers in his second term.

Go ahead and support that. Or run off with your tail between your legs.

As you well know, I ALWAYS have the backup!!!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Not in labor force

What do you think you backed up? It looks very much like unemployed going way up, how did Bush set records?

It is NOT unemployment, it is "NOT IN LABOR FORCE." And it is HIGHER every one of Bush's years therefore it was a new record every year of the Bush Regime. Bush only has Boomers retiring in today's numbers his last year.

 

[protectionist]

What is often overlooked when we talk about "jobs" and the US economy, is that many of what is being called US jobs, are NOT US jobs. They are jobs of foreign countries, that are located inside the USA. These are jobs held by foreigners (millions of them illegal), and the money they make, does not go back into the US economy, as sales for American businesses. It is extracted OUT of the US economy, and reinserted into the economies of those foreign workers working inside the US.

These remittances (loot of international burglary) are $133 Billion/year. The next time a liberal brags about the unemployment (or employment ) rate, remind them of that.

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2015

 

[AntonToo]

Sure it does, not with job growth, but with economic activity.

Before the housing bubble we hit $4.00 a gallon nationwide. When the recession hit, it dropped like a lead balloon. The price of fuel is controlled by the commodities market, and traders quickly sold their long positions and went to short positions which caused the price to decrease.

As things got better, prices once again increased.

That's right - gas prices were down when economy was down, up when economy was up - a correlation exactly opposite of what you were saying. Gas wasn't driving economy, economy was driving gas prices.

It continued that way until fracking oil made it's way into the market. Afterwords, we began to export more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Supply and demand is what creates fuel prices. I spent several years trading commodities, so I kind of understand how it all works even though I didn't trade fuel but once in my life. When traders start dumping their long positions, that's when the price decreases. The decision to make those trades is based on how much supply of oil and gasoline we do have in stock.

Again, everything is correct here, but it is BECAUSE we began to export more, our economy now less benefits from oil price drops. The economic growth of lower gas prices is offset by loss of American energy sector profits and jobs. On the net we now benefit less from low oil prices than in the past.

When oil prices first plunged in 2014, there was hope that cheap gasoline would be a giant stimulus for the U.S. economy. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen cited a statistic that the average household would save $700 in fuel costs.

Two years on, it’s not at all clear that oil prices provided a major net boost to economic growth. As oil prices declined, many U.S.-based oil producers were forced to sharply curtail their drilling activity. Waves of layoffs followed in the oil and gas industry. The drop presented both good and bad news for the overall U.S. economy.

Why the Stimulus from Low Oil Prices Never Really Boosted the Economy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

(the labor force is employed plus unemployed).

Huh?

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.

No, that's the correct definition.
If you aren't looking for work because you're retired, a student, institutionalized, disabled or discouraged, you're not part of the workforce.