Trump's admin has a problem - unemployment is too damn low.

[imawhosure]

Irrelevant. It's commonly recognized that there is significant underemployment out there, so Trump's challenge is to maximize workforce potential.

If that happens, we could see significant growth in the GDP, even if the UE doesn't decrease much or at all.

Will he do it? Who knows. But that's the challenge and the opportunity.
.

It is commonly recognized BASED ON WHAT?

How can we have a sane discussion on employment without any objective standard of measuring it?

What is the proposed yardsick that will satisfy our wishy washy conservative friends?

I don't think there is a measurement that can be used.

We'll just have to hope for the best and see.

Most of us will be hoping for the best, even many of us who didn't vote for him.
.

What is it that you are "HOPING" for if nothing can be measured? What the **** is "best" and how would you know? Trump will tell you?

Am I the crazy one out here?

Have you ever gone to school and been in economics 101? Want to know how to tell how a country is doing economically using the simplest measure? It is called......wait for it.........that is correct.........GDP, or what used to be measured as GNP.

What that number tells you in essence is---------->when added together in a string, how long it will take for regular citizens to see their standard of living double. (rudimentary explanation) Now, you want to know what has been going on.........well then, look at those numbers. Are we growing? Yes! Are we growing at a rate that we think we should be? The answer to that question will be answered by Trump. If he pulls it off, you people are done! If he doesn't, we are done!

IN SUMMARY----------->

The Democrats say---------> everything is wonderful, and this is the new norm. Nothing can be done, and expect this rate of growth from here forward.

Republicans say-------------> Rate of growth is anemic because of to much government over reach, to high of taxes, and to many regulations forcing manufacturing and others out of country.

Now we are going to get the answer, and I have a feeling the leftists aren't going to like the answer that they are going to get! Just the opening up of energy will create enough jobs by itself to push GDP significantly higher, and put hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers back in decent jobs. Anything after that is just gravy on the taters leftists.

Nah, you guys are in deep doo, and if you think about it from an economic point of view, even you have to admit it!

 

[AntonToo]

Maybe when the 66% of the country that feel things have just remained the same or gotten worse feel things are getting better.

It is commonly recognized BASED ON WHAT?

How can we have a sane discussion on employment without any objective standard of measuring it?

What is the proposed yardsick that will satisfy our wishy washy conservative friends?

I don't think there is a measurement that can be used.

We'll just have to hope for the best and see.

Most of us will be hoping for the best, even many of us who didn't vote for him.
.

What is it that you are "HOPING" for if nothing can be measured? What the **** is "best" and how would you know? Trump will tell you?

Am I the crazy one out here?

A lot of what country "feels" is what it is told.

When Trump goes out there and talks about how horrible unemployment is and that it is perhaps 40% part of the country that supports this guy gets a FEELING that it is so.

Without objective measures such FEELINGS cannot be disputed, cannot be corrected and lead to BAD electoral decisions (see election of Trump).

The problem is that most people know the economy and job market sucks. Employers take advantage of employees because they damn sure know it. 1,000 guys will take your job in a heart beat. Everything the liberal believes in is ass backwards. A better economy means better pay and opportunity and we have NOT been on that road for too long.

How do they know it? Trump or opposition party told them?

They certainly do not see in their personal experience what is going on with 300 million Americans.

There are assertions people make and there are facts we can ONLY see through statistical data due to the overwhelming volume of it.

Where you fools are headed is a place where assertions are only supported by anecdotes - this severely degrades the quality of discourse, prevents us from finding any common language and is ultimately destructive to our democracy and our ability to make sound decisions as a country.

 

[kaz]

MediMatters = Soros/Clintons

Fake news.

Idiot, are you actually denying that administration refuses to commit to any objective measures of unemployment?

You cannot just categorically say "I don't like this source" and think you won the argument. It is Trump grade stupidity and intellectual laziness ...and it looks like it is contagious.

You don't look at any one measure, you look at a variety of them to get a fuller picture

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

MediMatters = Soros/Clintons

Fake news.

Idiot, are you actually denying that administration refuses to commit to any objective measures of unemployment?

You cannot just categorically say "I don't like this source" and think you won the argument. It is Trump grade stupidity and intellectual laziness ...and it looks like it is contagious.

It's your candidate and your party that invoked the fake news narrative to explain away their failures. Now you can eat it. The intellectual stupidity is all yours.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

You don't look at any one measure, you look at a variety of them to get a fuller picture

Indeed.

Number of families deemed to be in poverty: amongst the all time high.
Number of people on one form of government assistance or another: all time high.
Number of people out of the labor force: highest since the Carter regime.

But unemployment is low.

Yup, fake news.

 

[jknowgood]

MediMatters = Soros/Clintons

Fake news.

Idiot, are you actually denying that administration refuses to commit to any objective measures of unemployment?

You cannot just categorically say "I don't like this source" and think you won the argument. It is Trump grade stupidity and intellectual laziness ...and it looks like it is contagious.

Until welfare starts to go down the economy isn't as doing well.

 

[AntonToo]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

They are right, the UE is a terrible measure of employment health. Obama got a low one by discouraging workers and getting them to quit looking for jobs. That's why you, well not you someone not stupid, looks at a variety of rates. If you had a critical mind and looked at the LFPR with the UE, you'd immediately say Houston, we have a problem ...

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Guess what, the underlying reason ISN'T because that all or most of them are retirees. Most are people who have run out of unemployment, given up on looking for a job, and gone onto the dole.

And you have the hubris to accuse others of intellectual stupidity?

 

[AntonToo]

Have you ever gone to school and been in economics 101? Want to know how to tell how a country is doing economically using the simplest measure? It is called......wait for it.........that is correct.........GDP!

So employment is not a major economic indicator? Jobs and unemployment do not matter? Which class taught you that exactly?

You want GDP to be the yardstick of success? No problem CaptainMurica, at least you've managed to hitch your wagon to SOMETHING that is an objective measure we can have a sane discussion based on, which is less than can be said about Trump's administration or most Trumpsters.

 

[AntonToo]

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Guess what, the underlying reason ISN'T because that all or most of them are retirees. Most are people who have run out of unemployment, given up on looking for a job, and gone onto the dole.

And you have the hubris to accuse others of intellectual stupidity?

Go ahead, accept that LFPR is the primary yardstick of Trump's success.

I just don't feel like chasing goal posts for the next 4 years.

 

[kaz]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

They are right, the UE is a terrible measure of employment health. Obama got a low one by discouraging workers and getting them to quit looking for jobs. That's why you, well not you someone not stupid, looks at a variety of rates. If you had a critical mind and looked at the LFPR with the UE, you'd immediately say Houston, we have a problem ...

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Sure, I agree to that, it's a far better measure from where we are now. So if you're wrong, are you going to come out and say that or wait to get called out on it?

 

[Iceweasel]

Maybe when the 66% of the country that feel things have just remained the same or gotten worse feel things are getting better.

I don't think there is a measurement that can be used.

We'll just have to hope for the best and see.

Most of us will be hoping for the best, even many of us who didn't vote for him.
.

What is it that you are "HOPING" for if nothing can be measured? What the **** is "best" and how would you know? Trump will tell you?

Am I the crazy one out here?

A lot of what country "feels" is what it is told.

When Trump goes out there and talks about how horrible unemployment is and that it is perhaps 40% part of the country that supports this guy gets a FEELING that it is so.

Without objective measures such FEELINGS cannot be disputed, cannot be corrected and lead to BAD electoral decisions (see election of Trump).

The problem is that most people know the economy and job market sucks. Employers take advantage of employees because they damn sure know it. 1,000 guys will take your job in a heart beat. Everything the liberal believes in is ass backwards. A better economy means better pay and opportunity and we have NOT been on that road for too long.

How do they know it? Trump or opposition party told them?

They certainly do not see in their personal experience what is going on with 300 million Americans.

There are assertions people make and there are facts we can ONLY see through statistical data due to the overwhelming volume of it.

Where you fools are headed is a place where assertions are only supported by anecdotes - this severely degrades the quality of discourse, prevents us from finding any common language and is ultimately destructive to our democracy and our ability to make sound decisions as a country.

"They" know it because they have no choice if they choose to live in reality. One needs to live in an alternative world to believe otherwise. I suppose if you have a great government job you'd be isolated from the real one.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

Do you even know when the last time was that the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.9% or higher for 96 consecutive months? I'll give you a hint: FDR was president.

The UE rate could be zero just by announcing that it's zero.

 

[AntonToo]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

They are right, the UE is a terrible measure of employment health. Obama got a low one by discouraging workers and getting them to quit looking for jobs. That's why you, well not you someone not stupid, looks at a variety of rates. If you had a critical mind and looked at the LFPR with the UE, you'd immediately say Houston, we have a problem ...

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Sure, I agree to that, it's a far better measure from where we are now. So if you're wrong, are you going to come out and say that or wait to get called out on it?

Absolutely. You are on.

But this is where LFPR is headed, as quite accurately modeled as far back as early 2000s before anyone heard of Obama:

In 4 years LFPR will invariably decline further as baby boomers are retiring at increased rates and youngsters are spending more and more time in school.

It will stay flat at a tail end of growth cycle, but will drop like a rock at a first sign of any slow down due to demographic fundamentals.

 

[rightwinger]

You don't look at any one measure, you look at a variety of them to get a fuller picture

Indeed.

Number of families deemed to be in poverty: amongst the all time high.
Number of people on one form of government assistance or another: all time high.
Number of people out of the labor force: highest since the Carter regime.

But unemployment is low.

Yup, fake news.

Population is at an all time high

We also have more millionaires than any time in history

 

[AntonToo]

You don't look at any one measure, you look at a variety of them to get a fuller picture

Indeed.

Number of families deemed to be in poverty: amongst the all time high.
Number of people on one form of government assistance or another: all time high.
Number of people out of the labor force: highest since the Carter regime.

But unemployment is low.

Yup, fake news.

Population is at an all time high

Lol yea, adjustment for population is needed by using ratios not nominal numbers.

Labor force is currently the biggest it ever was also.

 

[Papageorgio]

Irrelevant. It's commonly recognized that there is significant underemployment out there, so Trump's challenge is to maximize workforce potential.

If that happens, we could see significant growth in the GDP, even if the UE doesn't decrease much or at all.

Will he do it? Who knows. But that's the challenge and the opportunity.
.

It is commonly recognized BASED ON WHAT?

How can we have a sane discussion on employment without any objective standard of measuring it?

What is the proposed yardsick that will satisfy our wishy washy conservative friends?

I don't think there is a measurement that can be used.

We'll just have to hope for the best and see.

Most of us will be hoping for the best, even many of us who didn't vote for him.
.

What is it that you are "HOPING" for if nothing can be measured? What the **** is "best" and how would you know? Trump will tell you?

Am I the crazy one out here?

Unemployment down, but many are working two and three jobs to make ends meet. If we establish jobs where one can work only one job to make ends meet, then that is progress. I doubt it will happen, under his or anyone else's watch but I am will to wait and watch.

 

[kaz]

As this article from forbes explains low unemployment is a problem for Trump, he ran on painting a bleak picture of America and promised to fix it. But of course reality of standard U3 4.5% unemployment with probably around 4.0% bottom out will not make for a great turn around story.

So what are the honest folks at the new administration to do? Well they take their cue from their leader and begin by denying that there is any such thing as objective measure of unemployment.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail using a variety of statistics to falsely claim that up to 42 percent of American people were unemployed. That stat was widely denounced for including all people “not in the workforce,” including retirees and stay-at-home parents.

When asked to commit to a particular, objective, well defined measure of unemployment Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer could not, and instead provided this piece of completely un-quantifiable measure:

“for too long it’s been about stats, ... about what number we are looking at, as opposed to what face we are looking at.”

So in this way Trump's administration can talk about whatever "face" it feels like, unbound by broad reality of what is actually going on with unemployment in America.

The White House Press Secretary Pivots From Attacking The Press To Gaslighting Them

The (clown) show must go on.

They are right, the UE is a terrible measure of employment health. Obama got a low one by discouraging workers and getting them to quit looking for jobs. That's why you, well not you someone not stupid, looks at a variety of rates. If you had a critical mind and looked at the LFPR with the UE, you'd immediately say Houston, we have a problem ...

I did look at LFPR may many many times and I am closely familiar with it's trend and underlying reasons.

Before I say anything about that, would you say we should measure Trump's success based on LFPR?

Sure, I agree to that, it's a far better measure from where we are now. So if you're wrong, are you going to come out and say that or wait to get called out on it?

Absolutely. You are on.

But this is where LFPR is headed, as quite accurately modeled as far back as early 2000s before anyone heard of Obama:

In 4 years years LFPR will invariably decline further as baby boomers are retiring at increased rates and youngsters are spending more and more time in school.

It will stay flat at a tail end of growth cycle, but will drop like a rock at a first sign of any slow down due to demographic fundamentals.

So seriously, your argument is that Obama failed to change the LFPR and that makes him good with jobs. Classic

 

[Staidhup]

The key numbers to consider are labor participation rate and expansion of government assistance. The reported unemployment rate only discloses those that desire to work or have unemployment insurance benefits available.

 

[AntonToo]

Irrelevant. It's commonly recognized that there is significant underemployment out there, so Trump's challenge is to maximize workforce potential.

If that happens, we could see significant growth in the GDP, even if the UE doesn't decrease much or at all.

Will he do it? Who knows. But that's the challenge and the opportunity.
.

It is commonly recognized BASED ON WHAT?

How can we have a sane discussion on employment without any objective standard of measuring it?

What is the proposed yardsick that will satisfy our wishy washy conservative friends?

I don't think there is a measurement that can be used.

We'll just have to hope for the best and see.

Most of us will be hoping for the best, even many of us who didn't vote for him.
.

What is it that you are "HOPING" for if nothing can be measured? What the **** is "best" and how would you know? Trump will tell you?

Am I the crazy one out here?

Unemployment down, but many are working two and three jobs to make ends meet. If we establish jobs where one can work only one job to make ends meet, then that is progress. I doubt it will happen, under his or anyone else's watch but I am will to wait and watch.

And you say this because....? Is there some data that you've seen that tell you that there is some outstanding number of people working multiple jobs today?

I've looked into this and do not see any data supporting your claims:

In fact the "roaring 90's" generally known for good economy had much bigger rates of multiple job holders (and keep in mind that this data doesn't even adjust for population increase )

In fact what we observe is exactly OPPOSITE correlation - the better the economy the MORE people working multiple jobs, which makes sense from perspective of number of jobs available per worker.