Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%Oh my goodness. I see that you don't understand the stats from the BLS (unsurprising given your Lo Info Voter status).
No, you really don't.
No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.
View attachment 45613
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%
So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%
Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.
it is a safe bet
it will not pass
Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%Oh my goodness. I see that you don't understand the stats from the BLS (unsurprising given your Lo Info Voter status).
No, you really don't.
No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.
View attachment 45613
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%
So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%
Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.
That's not the question. The question was whether the constant LFPR method is a good one for declaring what the UE rate should be. It's not, because all it is is picking an arbitrary LFPR to be the correct one, and then making massive assumptions.Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%No, you really don't.
No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.
View attachment 45613
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%
So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%
Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.
Not in this case, hun.
We were in a RECESSION in January 2009 when Obama took office. The LFPR should be healthier now - but we haven't had a real recovery.
The declines for younger and prime age workers are very worrisome - and due to the growth killing policies of the Obama administration.
That's not the question. The question was whether the constant LFPR method is a good one for declaring what the UE rate should be. It's not, because all it is is picking an arbitrary LFPR to be the correct one, and then making massive assumptions.Ok, so we can agree that because the labor force participation rate is affected by non-economic factors, then the "constant labor force participation" method is not a good one.Now, what would the current IS rate be if we used the LFPR from, say, Eisenhower's time? His average was 59.4%No, you really don't. It's clear you don't even know what the BLS is.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
From their data, if the LFRP were at the same levels now as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 9.76%, an increase of 1.94 pts. The Labor Force would be 10M greater. In reality, while there have been 16M new entrants to the Labor Force during the Obama Era, the economy created jobs for only 40% of them. That is an APPALLING statistic.
View attachment 45613
So that would mean the Labor Force would be 148,894,000 (0.594*250,663,000)
Take away the 148,379,000 employed, and we'd have 514,000 unemployed and an unemployment rate of 514,000/148,894,000 = 0.3%
So, what's the correct UE rate? Still think "constant LFPR makes sense? He'll if they did that from the beginning with 1947's 58.3% LFPR, our UE rate would be -1.7%
Well, back in Eisenhower's time, women were not in the workforce for the most part. That changed in the 70s and 80s. If you'd like to go back to the 50s, then by all means, let's adopt the value systems as well.
Not in this case, hun.
We were in a RECESSION in January 2009 when Obama took office. The LFPR should be healthier now - but we haven't had a real recovery.
The declines for younger and prime age workers are very worrisome - and due to the growth killing policies of the Obama administration.
You do realize that some of the decline is because the 25-54 year old population has shrunk?
Obamacare is a deficit reducing law. Sorry GOP you lose again. Repeal would explode the deficitAnd tens of millions that did have health care DON'T!
You can prove this, of course. Using facts?
Meanwhile, taking the humans out of the equation, you're cool with adding $137 billion to the federal deficit?
The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.
Everything you do is to hurt people.
And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.
The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.
Everything you do is to hurt people.
And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.
In the long run, not immediately. It slowed the growth of increase. If all the states expand medicare like the bill called for that would go further in reducing premiums.The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.
Everything you do is to hurt people.
And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.
ObamaCare was supposed to result in an average family decrease of $2500 a year, not slow the rate of increase. Please stop the lies.
In the long run, not immediately. It slowed the growth of increase. If all the states expand medicare like the bill called for that would go further in reducing premiums.The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.
Everything you do is to hurt people.
And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.
ObamaCare was supposed to result in an average family decrease of $2500 a year, not slow the rate of increase. Please stop the lies.
That is simply not true. Obamacare is a tremendous success. You better hope it succeeds because if they went back to the old system now, most economists predict it would be a crashing blow to the economy. The only alternative would be single payer and I certainly would not be opposed to that.In the long run, not immediately. It slowed the growth of increase. If all the states expand medicare like the bill called for that would go further in reducing premiums.The rate of increase of premiums were cut sharply since Obamacare became law. Please stop the lies.Tens of millions of people that wouldn't have health insurance have it because of obamacare. Do you really think they won't vote against your party??? Event he ones that don't normally vote.
Everything you do is to hurt people.
And ten of millions more saw skyrocketing premiums and increased deductibles with the health insurance they already had. It seems all you folks can do is hurt people.
ObamaCare was supposed to result in an average family decrease of $2500 a year, not slow the rate of increase. Please stop the lies.
Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated. ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster and does not address the overall problem. It's like sticking a bunch of band-aids on a dam that's cracking.
Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated.
Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated.
Proof?
Many doctors aren't excepting Medicare anymore and a few states' exchanges have either completely collapsed or cost way more than anticipated.
Proof?
Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients