Obama economy continues to roar ahead

[Endus]

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

Clinton stopped using U5 in favor of U3 which looks better.

Yeah, no.

When the measures were improved back in 1994, what had been the U5 measure was renamed the U3.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

The pre-1994 U5 is the post-1994 U3. It's a name change, not a methodological one (for that particular measure; the others were adjusted more concretely).

https://www.ft.com/content/fc747050-...f-21b88f7d973f

Thick with irony.

Paywalled. Though even going by the title of the story alone, it's still not what zenkai was claiming.

[Kanegasi]

Sadly, Trump being Trump is the only thing that Hillary needs in order to get elected.

Fortunately, Clinton being Clinton is the only thing that Trump needs in order to get elected.

[Lenonis]

Hahahahhahahhhah


Hahahhahahahhahahahha

Hah. Hahah. Phew. Good laugh, thanks. Now prove it.

Wait...are you seriously asking people to prove what is not only basically common knowledge these days, but also a 2 second google search away?

I mean...Bush is known for his tax cuts, the unfunded wars, and Medicare part D -- all of which cut revenue and ballooned spending.

I don't think much of anyone argues about that point anymore.

[Dug]

Fortunately, Clinton being Clinton is the only thing that Trump needs in order to get elected.

That's not what the polls are showing. Trump needs to stay on message (direct anger at Hillary) if he wants even a slight chance of winning. If he keeps addressing every little slight against him then he's donezo.

[Orbitus]

I think he said something like 0 10 20 25% brackets. Also its funny a lib would quote 10 trillion when obama just did that. At least if trump did another 10 it would be smaller by % increase. Take that libs, ha.

Yes, Obama added another $10 trillion over his presidency BUT he did it with everything. That is the military, the wars, the extended Bush tax cuts, EVERYTHING. Trump's tax plan ALONE would add that. Then you add in his immigration bullshit, that would add another $1 trillion and take 20 years, the wall which is estimated to cost between $25 and $100 billion and stop NOTHING. Then add in the military expansion he wants to do, breaking of treaties, breaking of trade deals, etc. He would literally add $20 trillion to the debt in 4 years and probably be impeached.

- - - Updated - - -

Hahahahhahahhhah


Hahahhahahahhahahahha

Hah. Hahah. Phew. Good laugh, thanks. Now prove it.

Are you one of those that don't know the difference between debt and deficit. Because Obama most certainly reduced deficits. When Obama took office, the federal deficit, you know the difference between spending and the budget that was set by congress and the president, was $1.4 TRILLION. The current deficit is $534 billion. He has almost taken the deficit down by 2/3rds.

[Rhinopotamus]

Actually, it's that Obama "magically" saved the economy and Congress wouldn't let him try anything that would actually fix it for good.

Yeah, especially for the first four years!

[Kanegasi]

That's not what the polls are showing. Trump needs to stay on message (direct anger at Hillary) if he wants even a slight chance of winning. If he keeps addressing every little slight against him then he's donezo.

I really don't care about polls or partisan squabbling. I don't accept the party system. I may actually vote this election and I'm taking the candidates as one list. I will either vote for who I like the most or who I dislike the least.

[Orbitus]

Fortunately, Clinton being Clinton is the only thing that Trump needs in order to get elected.

Funny, it seems to be the other way around. Trump being Trump is why he is down on some polls over 10 points.

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't care about polls or partisan squabbling. I don't accept the party system. I may actually vote this election and I'm taking the candidates as one list. I will either vote for who I like the most or who I dislike the least.

So you think the polls are biased? Based on what?

[Daerio]

But how do we know that the government isn't also fudging the LFPR? And why is LFPR the correct statistics to use, rather than unemployment?

We don't know that they aren't fudging them, and we do know why they're inaccurate. The U1-6 numbers are purposefully misleading, however.

Trying to approach the statistics from the point of, "Well, why don't we classify them according to why they don't have a job?" is all based on making the numbers look better than they should.

If only 60% of the population is actually working, who gives a flying fuck why 40% of them aren't? Do we need to explain away the LFPR ahead of time, by using numbers that purposefully exclude people who aren't looking for a job, (PS, how do you classify those people?) are collecting retirement, went back to school, etc? Is that really the way to get an "accurate measure" of what's going on in the economy?

We know that when people lose their job they tend to go back to school or retire; what purpose is really served by pre-excluding those people? If 5% of the population lost their jobs and either retired or went to school, it would be disastrous for our economy; but it would be completely fine according to Endus and the unemployment numbers.

These unemployment statistics mean nothing when they P-hack them down to whatever looks good. What purpose do bullshit statistics serve? I don't know anybody who believes that shit; so they don't even have a role in shaping perception any more. I had a guy come up to me the other day while I was repairing a cash register at Dollar General the other day, talking about how he was a technician and he got laid off and he brought up the same bullshit statistic and asked me if I really believed that. NOBODY I've actually met has told me they really believe the economy is as good as you bullshit artists are trying to claim it is. So again I ask; what is the point in bullshit statistics that nobody really believes anyway? How much do we pay for the service of collecting and analyzing this bullshit data?

This 5% unemployment bullshit number has been floating around for months; I really don't know anybody who buys it.

I think analyzing the trends of the LFPR probably has more value than trying to analyze the trends of the U1-6 bullshit statistics; assuming the data they're presenting can be trusted in the first place. Presumably using IRS data, the government should know how many people are filing taxes and working above the table. The data can be analyzed beyond that; such as part-time vs full time; benefits, etc... but when you start trying to "tell a story" with the data like how Joe Bob retired because it was just his time and not because the economy crashed, that's when you're reaching into bullshit artistry.

[Felya]

From what I've read boomers only make up for half of the movement out of the labor force(even less by some estimates). Also and this I'm not sure of but u5 should also be a labor force statistic, so people exiting the labor force would make u5 go down same as with u3

Nope, it wouldn't have the same effect. One has a far larger pool than the other. A 1% shift in U3 that you describe, would be closer to .3% in U5. U3 and U5 have the same pool for working, but much larger pool that includes out of labor force.

Feel free to check projections from AARP and U5 unemployment. You are free to claim it's a coincidence, but it is what it is.

[Endus]

We don't know that they aren't fudging them

In much the same way that we don't know that, say, Trump isn't maintaining a rapecastle stocked with underage victims.

Making the assertion without evidence makes you a crank, though.

and we do know why they're inaccurate. The U1-6 numbers are purposefully misleading, however.

Trying to approach the statistics from the point of, "Well, why don't we classify them according to why they don't have a job?" is all based on making the numbers look better than they should.

If only 60% of the population is actually working, who gives a flying fuck why 40% of them aren't? Do we need to explain away the LFPR ahead of time, by using numbers that purposefully exclude people who aren't looking for a job, (PS, how do you classify those people?) are collecting retirement, went back to school, etc? Is that really the way to get an "accurate measure" of what's going on in the economy?

People who would want to work, but aren't looking because the job market sucks, are counted in the unemployment numbers.

How many times do I have to repeat that? Do you need a 5th or 6th link to the BLS stats that clearly state this?

We know that when people lose their job they tend to go back to school or retire; what purpose is really served by pre-excluding those people? If 5% of the population lost their jobs and either retired or went to school, it would be disastrous for our economy; but it would be completely fine according to Endus and the unemployment numbers.

It wouldn't automatically be "disastrous", as the variances in the labour force participation rate demonstrate pretty clearly. And they aren't "excluded". They're just not part of unemployment statistics, because they're not employed. They aren't part of the labor force. We "exclude" them for the same reason we exclude the housewives who've never worked a day in their lives, why we exclude those who are so disabled that working is out of the question. Because they are not going to be working, no matter what changes we make. Because they do not want to work, and for various reasons, do not have to.

These unemployment statistics mean nothing when they P-hack them down to whatever looks good.

The only one of us suggesting we manipulate statistics to make them show what we WANT them to show is you. By using your ignorance of what the unemployment numbers are, and that they do track labour force participation separately, so that factor is not excluded from consideration, at all.

There is no "government manipulation". There's just you, refusing to believe the actual data, because you have some meritless and evidence-free assumption that the economy MUST BE terrible, for reasons you cannot substantiate.

That's exactly what you're projecting onto others.

[Daerio]

It wouldn't automatically be "disastrous", as the variances in the labour force participation rate demonstrate pretty clearly. And they aren't "excluded". They're just not part of unemployment statistics, because they're not employed. They aren't part of the labor force. We "exclude" them for the same reason we exclude the housewives who've never worked a day in their lives, why we exclude those who are so disabled that working is out of the question. Because they are not going to be working, no matter what changes we make. Because they do not want to work, and for various reasons, do not have to.

Yes, this is really what it comes down to. Some feeble explanation as to why people aren't working, to make the statistics seem more favorable.

The data doesn't tell the story you're trying to make it tell.

Much like the vaunted health insurance enrollment numbers, which is also purposefully misleading bullshit artistry.

[Lenonis]

Here's where we are ladies and gentleman.

Facts and numbers are made up thus irrelevant. How someone feels is all that matters.

Unemployment down? Baloney! I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel it's worse than they say! I feeeeeeeeeeeel the economy is awful!

Vaccines don't cause autism? Baloney! I feeeeeeeeeeeeeel they are scary and dangerous! I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the pharmaceutical industry is just covering up their plan to make everyone autistic!

How do you have any sort of conversation in this environment. People have been using the U1-U6 data for decades without issue and now suddenly it's a big government conspiracy to make it all up?

If the government did something like that then why on earth didn't Bush put out fake numbers to hide the awful employment situation which arguably cost the GOP the 2008 election?

[Daerio]

How do you have any sort of conversation in this environment. People have been using the U1-U6 data for decades without issue and now suddenly it's a big government conspiracy to make it all up?

If the government did something like that then why on earth didn't Bush put out fake numbers to hide the awful employment situation which arguably cost the GOP the 2008 election?

See the thing with bullshit statistics is, only bullshit artists care about them.

Want to know how people normally know the economy is bad? They lost their job. They can't pay their debts. Their mom moved in to live with them. Times are bad for everybody they know. Hearing Obama or whoever else talking about how good the numbers look month to month does very little to shape perception, which was the point I was making.

Now as far as the statistics themselves being bullshit for decades; well see the first sentence again.

I'm calling them out today for being bullshit because they are, regardless of how long ago the Pope degreed them the word of God.

[shimerra]

Yes, this is really what it comes down to. Some feeble explanation as to why people aren't working, to make the statistics seem more favorable.

The data doesn't tell the story you're trying to make it tell.

Much like the vaunted health insurance enrollment numbers, which is also purposefully misleading bullshit artistry.

The data tells exactly that story. You literally just aren't mentally/intellectually capable of understanding the story it seems.

Endus has exactly described how unemployment statistics are described and tracked since they were created. Unemployment statistics have under absolutely zero circumstances where people who do not want to work, have zero desire to work, and regardless of the economic situation at the present time would not take a job if it was offered to them. You are trying to force people into the unemployment numbers to distort them to fit your asinine world view when they have never and should never be included in them.

There's other demographic issues that will impact the labor force but it's not because the "unemployment numbers" are being lied about, distorted, or not interpreted properly by others. And if this thread has soundly demonstrated anything it's that your interpretation/comprehension is lacking, not his.

See the thing with bullshit statistics is, only bullshit artists care about them.

Want to know how people normally know the economy is bad? They lost their job. They can't pay their debts. Their mom moved in to live with them. Times are bad for everybody they know. Hearing Obama or whoever else talking about how good the numbers look month to month does very little to shape perception, which was the point I was making.

Now as far as the statistics themselves being bullshit for decades; well see the first sentence again.

I'm calling them out today for being bullshit because they are, regardless of how long ago the Pope degreed them the word of God.

'know
If you get fired for incompetence the whole economy is not ruined and you do not magically "know the economy is bad". And neither is this the case if 5-6% of the labor force doesn't have a job. That's a fundamental reality of a capitalist systems. Not only is some unemployment necessary it's a reality unless you want a government entity to instantly give you a job when you lose your old one. Your perception, that we're living in a leftist economic hell hole, is not the perception of everyone which you are conflating for reality.

Your argument for why they are bullshit are bullshit. Even if the numbers are bullshit your attempts to disprove them are like a 2 year old's crayon drawing on the wall be compared to the Mona Lisa with the former being your argument and the latter being a credible criticism.

[Endus]

Yes, this is really what it comes down to. Some feeble explanation as to why people aren't working, to make the statistics seem more favorable.

The data doesn't tell the story you're trying to make it tell.

Much like the vaunted health insurance enrollment numbers, which is also purposefully misleading bullshit artistry.

We've got two sides on this.

On my side, the data.

On your side, stuff you are straight-out making up as you go along, because you feel the actual data must be wrong.

Only one of us is "purposefully misleading" anyone, and it's not the one of us relying on real-world facts and data. When those numbers don't line up with your ideological views, it has to be because they're manipulated, so you just ignore them and act as if there's a grand conspiracy against half the nation, because that's apparently more likely to you than the possibility that, just maybe, your ideological views on this are just wrong, and do not reflect real-world behaviour.

[Lenonis]

Want to know how people normally know the economy is bad? They lost their job. They can't pay their debts. Their mom moved in to live with them. Times are bad for everybody they know. Hearing Obama or whoever else talking about how good the numbers look month to month does very little to shape perception, which was the point I was making.

You aren't refuting my point -- in fact you are making it for me.

Your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeels are more important to you than the actual facts.

That's your right, but it doesn't make for compelling arguments.

[Daerio]

Mathematical proofs are when an equation you've claimed to be accurate are tested for their reliability.

You're attempting to say that the U1-6 numbers are an accurate estimation of the health of our economy.

I've described situation A) People lose their jobs; retire early for less income or take out loans to go to school. The trigger for this situation and it's impact on the economy is objectively bad: person lost their job. The goal is for this negative action to be accounted for properly in your statistical measure of how healthy the economy is.

According to Endus and U1-6, nothing bad has actually happened. Less people are working, because somehow less people needed to work?¿? With this rationale, could anything bad ever really happen?

According to the Labor Force Participation Rate less people are now working. An objective measurement of reality.

[Lenonis]

Not only is some unemployment necessary it's a reality unless you want a government entity to instantly give you a job when you lose your old one.

This is an actual business/economics concept: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...employment.asp

- - - Updated - - -

You're attempting to say that the U1-6 numbers are an accurate estimation of the health of our economy.

Well. No. It's one of many indicators. But a vast majority of economic indicators have improved since 2008. Nearly all of them in fact.

According to the Labor Force Participation Rate less people are now working. An objective measurement of reality.

You cannot make a statement that the labor force participate rate has dropped and say that it is due to negative factors. You absolutely have to understand WHY it's dropping...and someone already listed them (maybe Endus?) and many of them are actually either positive or demographically driven.

[Endus]

Mathematical proofs are when an equation you've claimed to be accurate are tested for their reliability.

You're attempting to say that the U1-6 numbers are an accurate estimation of the health of our economy.

I've described situation A) People lose their jobs; retire early for less income or take out loans to go to school. The trigger for this situation and it's impact on the economy is objectively bad: person lost their job. The goal is for this negative action to be accounted for properly in your statistical measure of how healthy the economy is.

According to Endus and U1-6, nothing bad has actually happened. Less people are working, because somehow less people needed to work?¿? With this rationale, could anything bad ever really happen?

According to the Labor Force Participation Rate less people are now working. An objective measurement of reality.

The LFPR is no more or less "objective" than the U1-6 measures. They simply measure different things.

You're the one arguing that there is a grand conspiracy at play to delude the American people. While providing absolutely nothing to actually make that case. Conspiracy theories aren't going to convince anyone without solid evidence.

And the U1-6 numbers not lining up with your theory isn't such evidence. It just suggests that your economic theories are wrong.