The unemployment rate is meaningless

[Manonthestreet]

Gas prices are at a 3 year high. Stock market is 3K points lower since Jan. We’re basically in a trade war. Farms set to close. The poor are paying for tax cuts that benefit billionaires. Nazis and KKK are more emboldened. POC are being targeted as threats. Tired of winning yet?

Gas price is no higher than Katrina prices

 

[Manonthestreet]

Major driver of debt is home prices......when 2 bedroom starter homes built in the fifties in first tier nondescript suburb go for 320 grand........ya know you're getting robbed...yet stupid Americans pile in and buy buy buy......

 

[Manonthestreet]

and student loans......lefty plantation prices must necessarily rise ya know.......

 

[Thinker101]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

Yes indeed, thank you Obama.

 

[expat_panama]

...The unemployment rate dropped for almost all of President Obama's administration...

Exactly --and it was a long slow gradual tapering off dragging on for 8 years giving us a record high average at 7.4%. Reality: dropping is good, but it's not enough. Normally a recovery is just that, the economy recovers. A long slow drop in the U6 is limp and underachieving.

Fine; let's get back on topic. The title of this thread is--

The unemployment rate is meaningless ​

--and a lot of folks might point out here that the limp underachieving non-recovery we had for 8 years also saw a huge drop in the work force participation rate along w/ an unacceptable shift from full time to part time employment.

imho those things have to mean something too.

 

[Crepitus]

...The unemployment rate dropped for almost all of President Obama's administration...

Exactly --and it was a long slow gradual tapering off dragging on for 8 years giving us a record high average at 7.4%. Reality: dropping is good, but it's not enough. Normally a recovery is just that, the economy recovers. A long slow drop in the U6 is limp and underachieving.

Fine; let's get back on topic. The title of this thread is--

The unemployment rate is meaningless ​

--and a lot of folks might point out here that the limp underachieving non-recovery we had for 8 years also saw a huge drop in the work force participation rate along w/ an unacceptable shift from full time to part time employment.

imho those things have to mean something too.

You do realize that President Obama's job numbers were better than tRump's consistently right? When he *took office* the numbers dropped off.

 

[expat_panama]

...the limp underachieving non-recovery we had for 8 years also saw a huge drop in the work force participation rate along w/ an unacceptable shift from full time to part time employment...

...You do realize that President Obama's job numbers were better than tRump's consistently...

The thread's about how the unemployment rate's not so good, so my post suggested we'd be better off looking at stuff like labor force and part-time work, and you're bringing up presidential job approval.

Why not?

Here's the hard numbers from Rassmussen:

They got Trump more popular than the other guy. Is this what you meant?

 

[Crepitus]

...the limp underachieving non-recovery we had for 8 years also saw a huge drop in the work force participation rate along w/ an unacceptable shift from full time to part time employment...

...You do realize that President Obama's job numbers were better than tRump's consistently...

The thread's about how the unemployment rate's not so good, so my post suggested we'd be better off looking at stuff like labor force and part-time work, and you're bringing up presidential job approval.

Why not?

Here's the hard numbers from Rassmussen:

They got Trump more popular than the other guy. Is this what you meant?

Where in my post didnyou see me mention presidential job approval? Please point it out because I musta missed it.

 

[expat_panama]

...You do realize that President Obama's job numbers were better than tRump's consistently....

...Trump more popular than the other guy. Is this what you meant?

...you see me mention presidential job approval? Please point it out because I musta missed it.

Somehow when you were talking about "job numbers" --some that belonged to Obama and others that belonged to Trump-- it gave me the idea that you could possibly be talking about job approval numbers. Then the fact that it seemed a bit off track and the fact that I knew I was guessing was why I had to ask if that's what you meant.

So now the fact that you didn't answer me but instead you asked where I got the "job approval" impression sort of hints that this is something else you're mad about.

Can we talk about the Unemployment Rate now?

 

[pinqy]

The unemployment rate is meaningless ​

--and a lot of folks might point out here that the limp underachieving non-recovery we had for 8 years also saw a huge drop in the work force participation rate along w/ an unacceptable shift from full time to part time employment.

imho those things have to mean something too.

Well, the labor force participation rate is mostly affected by demographics.

And as you can see it reached its peak in 2000 and dropped since.

As for part time employment, it went from 16.9% of employment at the start of the recession, and maxed out at 20.1% in January 2010. By the time Trump took office it was down to 18% and is currently at 17.7%
So I'm not sure what unacceptable shift you're referring to.

And still no one has said why they think the unemployment rate is useless. Of course, my guess is that if anyone does, it will be a complaint that the UE rate is useless at measuring something it's not designed to measure.

 

[Crepitus]

...You do realize that President Obama's job numbers were better than tRump's consistently....

...Trump more popular than the other guy. Is this what you meant?

...you see me mention presidential job approval? Please point it out because I musta missed it.

Somehow when you were talking about "job numbers" --some that belonged to Obama and others that belonged to Trump-- it gave me the idea that you could possibly be talking about job approval numbers. Then the fact that it seemed a bit off track and the fact that I knew I was guessing was why I had to ask if that's what you meant.

So now the fact that you didn't answer me but instead you asked where I got the "job approval" impression sort of hints that this is something else you're mad about.

Can we talk about the Unemployment Rate now?

Unemployment rate is what I was talking about. The job creation numbers have flattened out during tRump's *presidency*. The numbers for 2017 are lower than 2016. So yes, the unemployment rate continues to drop, but at a slower pace than in the previous administration.

 

[whitehall]

Is the employment rate ever meaningful to socialist anarchists? How can we gauge economic conditions without using the employment rate? Lefties used to brag about the unemployment statistics when they went down 1/2% during the Hussein administration but they are meaningless during successful republican administrations. Ho-hum.

 

[tyroneweaver]

but he damn sure handed the banks calm seas and smooth sailing while the people tread water -

gee, imagine that.

Yup time to unloose the Kraken

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh my. Oh my goodness. Well, this is yet another example of the amazing effect that Donald Trump is having on liberals: Now liberals are saying that the unemployment rate is "meaningless"! "Meaningless"! Of course, what else are liberals going to say now that the unemployment has dropped to an 18-YEAR LOW?

Needless to say, if the unemployment rate had ever dropped to 3.9% under Obama, liberals would have heralded this as solid proof that Obama's economic policies were working. But since this and all kinds of other good economic news are coming under Trump, liberals must shift their entire paradigm to deny the reality all around them.

 

[pinqy]

Oh my. Oh my goodness. Well, this is yet another example of the amazing effect that Donald Trump is having on liberals: Now liberals are saying that the unemployment rate is "meaningless"! "Meaningless"! Of course, what else are liberals going to say now that the unemployment has dropped to an 18-YEAR LOW?

Needless to say, if the unemployment rate had ever dropped to 3.9% under Obama, liberals would have heralded this as solid proof that Obama's economic policies were working. But since this and all kinds of other good economic news are coming under Trump, liberals must shift their entire paradigm to deny the reality all around them.

To be fair, most of the libs saying the UE rate is meaningless don’t really mean it but are trying to point out the hypocrisy of the cons that were making that claim under Obama, but now accept it under Trump.

I disagree with that approach as it is disingenuous and only points out their ultra-partisanship.

 

[expat_panama]

...no one has said why they think the unemployment rate is useless. Of course, my guess is that if anyone does, it will be a complaint that the UE rate is useless at measuring something it's not designed to measure.

Sounds like you're not happy w/ this thread and you're still hanging around. Me too. Looks like we're both idiots.

Let's get to work here and do some good. We should have common ground; like, most of us say that the American people are good and their well being is important, and that we should consult on reasonable policy choices. For those lurking who don't see it that way consider what Thomas Paine once said--

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead...”​

So if we care about America's economic well-being then we want to use the tools we got to fix what's broke and keep what's not broke. My take is this thread's for deciding if the UE's a good tool for knowing what's broke or not, and there are some who say the UE tells us the U.S. econ's in great shape. Let's you and I say "maybe".

Let's also say that we got lots of metrics and they all got uses. We should also agree that there are too many morons that hang thier hat on the UE and twist it any way they want.

Are we together on this now?

 

[LeftofLeft]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

Thanks GOP


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview

- More taxes, less take-home pay
- increased regulation, legal liability and egregious bloat abs reach of unions all add up to higher prices and fewer jobs during that time period.

 

[expat_panama]

...The job creation numbers have flattened out during tRump's *presidency*. The numbers for 2017 are lower than 2016. So yes, the unemployment rate continues to drop, but at a slower pace than in the previous administration.

That's probably good enough for most folks, simply saying what the numbers are w/o looking at them. Some of us like checking what bls.gov actually says:

Now, I like lower taxes and less gov't interference, so if there's a problem showing up in the employment/unemployment numbers I sure don't see it.

 

[Faun]

...The job creation numbers have flattened out during tRump's *presidency*. The numbers for 2017 are lower than 2016. So yes, the unemployment rate continues to drop, but at a slower pace than in the previous administration.

That's probably good enough for most folks, simply saying what the numbers are w/o looking at them. Some of us like checking what bls.gov actually says:

Now, I like lower taxes and less gov't interference, so if there's a problem showing up in the employment/unemployment numbers I sure don't see it.

Great, that shows the trend of job growth, which began many years ago, continues. Kudos to President Trump for not screwing it up yet.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh my. Oh my goodness. Well, this is yet another example of the amazing effect that Donald Trump is having on liberals: Now liberals are saying that the unemployment rate is "meaningless"! "Meaningless"! Of course, what else are liberals going to say now that the unemployment has dropped to an 18-YEAR LOW?

Needless to say, if the unemployment rate had ever dropped to 3.9% under Obama, liberals would have heralded this as solid proof that Obama's economic policies were working. But since this and all kinds of other good economic news are coming under Trump, liberals must shift their entire paradigm to deny the reality all around them.

To be fair, most of the libs saying the UE rate is meaningless don’t really mean it but are trying to point out the hypocrisy of the cons that were making that claim under Obama, but now accept it under Trump. I disagree with that approach as it is disingenuous and only points out their ultra-partisanship.

Humm, I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that the unemployment rate (the standard rate: the U-3) was meaningless. I do recall people pointing out that the U-6 unemployment rate, which even Bernie Sanders admitted is a better measurement of the employment picture, was still unusually high. Under Trump, the U-6 rate has dropped by a whopping 1.6 percentage points--from 9.4% to 7.8%, a reduction of 17%.