A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinton

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Gimmesometruth said:

I know better than to think U3 includes U6 data.

Click to expand...

U3=Civilian Labor Force minus employment (which includes all people working and that means employed part time for economic reasons) divided by the Civilian labor force.

You continue to believe that employed part time for economic reasons, 6 million of them, aren't included in the employment number which is wrong as they are. You cannot get a U-3 rate without employment and civilian labor force numbers.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Gimmesometruth said:

I know better than to think U3 includes U6 data.

Click to expand...

Sorry but the U-6 rate does include U-3 data, employment, under employment, and unemployed

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

Sorry but the U-6 rate does include U-3 data, employment, under employment, and unemployed

Click to expand...

That is the OPPOSITE of what I said, I said and had to remind you that U3 does NOT include U6 unemployment data. U6 is a HIGHER number BECAUSE it includes "part time for economic reasons" AND U3. Yer just so intellectually dishonest.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Gimmesometruth said:

That is the OPPOSITE of what I said, I said and had to remind you that U3 does NOT include U6 unemployment data. U6 is a HIGHER number BECAUSE it includes "part time for economic reasons" AND U3. Yer just so intellectually dishonest.

Click to expand...

Look six million Americans cannot get a full time job in this booming Obama economy that the left wants to tout. Maybe president elect Hillary will correct the problem.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

trouble13 said:

Thats an interesting approach and have to admit as much as i disagree with the stuff you post. I think this particular position is not unreasonable.

Im not sure what it would resolve but asking questions is something we should never discourage.





Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Thank you. I think all decent people only want the truth.... and hopefully we will get it.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

Look

Click to expand...

"...over there....don't look....at my inability to have any sort of grasp of Unemployment stats.."

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

No we are not at 5% unemployment as 6 million Americans are working part time for economic reasons. Your economic ignorance is staggering. What do those 6 million do to the unemployment numbers? You show how little you know about our economy and the state of the economy is in this country

Click to expand...

Im not an economics major by any means and find all the different uneployment ratings confusing which as best i can tell is by design.

My question is if there is a fairly straight forward way of evaluating the condition of the economy without using unemployment.

Would it be fair to measure it by a combination betwern total gdp and what portion the working class gets

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

6 million of that number is part time for economic reasons, they are in the employment number. You simply don't understand how the U-3 rate is calculated. why would anyone claim that part time for economic reasons would be unemployed. Stop with the liberal bs and admit you are wrong

Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:

U3 is NOT an employment number, U3 DOES NOT INCLUDED PART TIME FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.

Get a clue.

Click to expand...

Oh, good lord. Conservative is correctly stating that those working part time for economic reasons are included in the DENOMINATOR of the U-3, as they are part of the Labor Force. He was stating that because they are in the denominator and not the numerator, they make the rate lower than if they were in the numerator. That's self-evident.

I'm puzzled, Conservative, why you state that the numerator is "the labor force minus the employed." That's true, but your phrasing makes it sound like the unemployment level is derived from the Labor Force and the employment level (that the unemployment level is a dependent variable and that the LF and emp levels are independent). In reality, the employment and unemployment levels are independent variables, and the Labor Force is a dependent variable (Employed plus unemployed)

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

trouble13 said:

Im not an economics major by any means and find all the different uneployment ratings confusing which as best i can tell is by design.

My question is if there is a fairly straight forward way of evaluating the condition of the economy without using unemployment.

Would it be fair to measure it by a combination betwern total gdp and what portion the working class gets

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

IMO the best measure is the U-6 rate which shows the true state of the economy by giving us discouraged workers, the under employed which are people working part time for economic reasons meaning they want but cannot find a full time job, and by the total number of unemployed. GDP growth is a good measurement but can be skewed by things like massive govt. spending which is a component of GDP.

To me a strong economy is one where there AREN'T 6 million people working part time because they want but cannot find a full time job, there aren't 500000 people who dropped out of the labor for because of the poor economy, and an economy where African Americans and other minorities don't have unemployment over 8%. In addition a strong economy sustains itself and doesn't have 10 trillion more in debt. Massive govt. isn't necessary in a strong economy

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

pinqy said:

Oh, good lord. Conservative is correctly stating that those working part time for economic reasons are included in the DENOMINATOR of the U-3, as they are part of the Labor Force. He was stating that because they are in the denominator and not the numerator, they make the rate lower than if they were in the numerator. That's self-evident.

I'm puzzled, Conservative, why you state that the numerator is "the labor force minus the employed." That's true, but your phrasing makes it sound like the unemployment level is derived from the Labor Force and the employment level (that the unemployment level is a dependent variable and that the LF and emp levels are independent). In reality, the employment and unemployment levels are independent variables, and the Labor Force is a dependent variable (Employed plus unemployed)

Click to expand...

Thank you, I knew you would get it and yes my phasing was wrong. Not sure why I used that phasing but thank you for correcting me. 6 million Americans working part time for economic reasons are counted as employed which would make the unemployment numbers better. I will work to phrase things better. I really mean it when I say thank you as my Like shows.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

IMO the best measure is the U-6 rate which shows the true state of the economy by giving us discouraged workers, the under employed which are people working part time for economic reasons meaning they want but cannot find a full time job, and by the total number of unemployed. GDP growth is a good measurement but can be skewed by things like massive govt. spending which is a component of GDP.

To me a strong economy is one where there AREN'T 6 million people working part time because they want but cannot find a full time job, there aren't 500000 people who dropped out of the labor for because of the poor economy, and an economy where African Americans and other minorities don't have unemployment over 8%. In addition a strong economy sustains itself and doesn't have 10 trillion more in debt. Massive govt. isn't necessary in a strong economy

Click to expand...

U-6 is fine if that's what you prefer, just as long as when you're comparing eras you're consistent. What's pretty interesting is conservatives became suddenly interested in U-6 with Obama.

And the number of part time for economic reasons is about 5.7 million with the latest report. What you don't mention is at the top of an unsustainable bubble in July 2006 that number was about 4.3 million, and when Obama took office it was 7.8 million. So what number of part time for economic reasons is consistent with a "strong" economy? I'm not sure, but it's something north of 4.3 million, and less than the current 5.7 million. U-6 in July 2006 was 8.5% and it's now 9.3%.

I also agree somewhat about debt, but it's not just government debt. The economy during the 2000s before the crash was essentially fueled by increases in household debt, which roughly doubled to $15 trillion during those years, lots of that housing debt piled onto bubble housing prices. It's why the recession was so deep - consumers were working their way out of that unsustainable debt load, especially their mortgages and home equity lines that became underwater when housing prices reverted to somewhat normal.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

IMO the best measure is the U-6 rate which shows the true state of the economy by giving us discouraged workers, the under employed which are people working part time for economic reasons meaning they want but cannot find a full time job, and by the total number of unemployed. GDP growth is a good measurement but can be skewed by things like massive govt. spending which is a component of GDP.

To me a strong economy is one where there AREN'T 6 million people working part time because they want but cannot find a full time job, there aren't 500000 people who dropped out of the labor for because of the poor economy, and an economy where African Americans and other minorities don't have unemployment over 8%. In addition a strong economy sustains itself and doesn't have 10 trillion more in debt. Massive govt. isn't necessary in a strong economy

Click to expand...

Im thinking average household medians can also explain high umemployment and part time job rates. If the primary earner makes enough to support a family, some may choose to stay home and keep the home.

To be clear im not disagree with you about obamas economy. It is weak and anemic. The unemploymemt numbers alone i dont think tell the entire story.

I was a little, well more than a little drunk last night, so i did not really ask my question correctly. Judging our economic strength is done by a combination of numbers.

Unemployment is only a piece of the picture and in a different world it could indicate a strong economy. Look at the 1950s for example when most women did not work full time but our economy was strong.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

JasperL said:

U-6 is fine if that's what you prefer, just as long as when you're comparing eras you're consistent. What's pretty interesting is conservatives became suddenly interested in U-6 with Obama.

And the number of part time for economic reasons is about 5.7 million with the latest report. What you don't mention is at the top of an unsustainable bubble in July 2006 that number was about 4.3 million, and when Obama took office it was 7.8 million. So what number of part time for economic reasons is consistent with a "strong" economy? I'm not sure, but it's something north of 4.3 million, and less than the current 5.7 million. U-6 in July 2006 was 8.5% and it's now 9.3%.

I also agree somewhat about debt, but it's not just government debt. The economy during the 2000s before the crash was essentially fueled by increases in household debt, which roughly doubled to $15 trillion during those years, lots of that housing debt piled onto bubble housing prices. It's why the recession was so deep - consumers were working their way out of that unsustainable debt load, especially their mortgages and home equity lines that became underwater when housing prices reverted to somewhat normal.

Click to expand...

U-6 has always been of concern to me and most conservatives as it is the true representative of the economic activity. What I find rather disturbing is that you look at January as the time Obama took office as if he wasn't part of the Congress that generated those numbers prior to taking office. So 4.3 million at the time of the bubble and 10 trillion dollars later it is 5.7 which to you is good economic performance??

For some reason Obama isn't responsible for the poor numbers today for if you think 9.3% and 10 trillion dollars is good performance then you like far too many from the left ignore the election results. the people got it, when will you? President elect Hillary will correct the problem as the electorate gave the Obama record a booming endorsement

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

Thank you, I knew you would get it and yes my phasing was wrong. Not sure why I used that phasing but thank you for correcting me. 6 million Americans working part time for economic reasons are counted as employed which would make the unemployment numbers better. I will work to phrase things better. I really mean it when I say thank you as my Like shows.

Click to expand...

No problem...you try to be honest and fair, so on those rare occasions when you're right, I'll back you up.

So now for where you're wrong

Why do you think that people who are not working as many hours as they want should be considered unemployed?

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

trouble13 said:

Im thinking average household medians can also explain high umemployment and part time job rates. If the primary earner makes enough to support a family, some may choose to stay home and keep the home.

To be clear im not disagree with you about obamas economy. It is weak and anemic. The unemploymemt numbers alone i dont think tell the entire story.

I was a little, well more than a little drunk last night, so i did not really ask my question correctly. Judging our economic strength is done by a combination of numbers.

Unemployment is only a piece of the picture and in a different world it could indicate a strong economy. Look at the 1950s for example when most women did not work full time but our economy was strong.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

LOL, I was a little drunk too when I talked about the number being part of the U-3 without explaining it properly. The problem with working part time for economic reasons is the definition. These people want full time jobs but cannot find them in this economy. Those coupled with the discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force because of their inability to find a job or lack of confidence in the economy to create that job.

The problem with household medians is that it doesn't take into account personal responsibility and looks to the govt. to create that income which gets us back to unemployment and job creation. A strong economy will generate meaningful and good paying jobs which gets us back to the true role of the Federal Govt. which is to PROMOTE Domestic welfare by creating an atmosphere for economic growth and then getting out of the way.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

pinqy said:

No problem...you try to be honest and fair, so on those rare occasions when you're right, I'll back you up.

So now for where you're wrong

Why do you think that people who are not working as many hours as they want should be considered unemployed?

Click to expand...

I don't think they should be counted as unemployed just skew the numbers to a lower number than it should be with a better economy. I wonder how many of those people took part time jobs because their unemployment benefits ran out and now how many people are long term unemployed thus basically unemployable?

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

pinqy said:

No problem...you try to be honest and fair, so on those rare occasions when you're right, I'll back you up.

So now for where you're wrong

Why do you think that people who are not working as many hours as they want should be considered unemployed?

Click to expand...

As I have stated in this forum I was in management and employed over 1200 people so having to deal with turnover. In hiring I always checked the resume and tried to fill in the gaps as to why people were unemployed for so long always giving preference to people who worked part time vs. people who simply took an unemployment check especially the long term. Short term unemployment benefits are fine and necessary but not long term benefits approaching 2 years. To me that is laziness and I would explore the reason for collecting unemployment for two years rather than taking a part time job to keep their skills up.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

U-6 has always been of concern to me and most conservatives as it is the true representative of the economic activity. What I find rather disturbing is that you look at January as the time Obama took office as if he wasn't part of the Congress that generated those numbers prior to taking office. So 4.3 million at the time of the bubble and 10 trillion dollars later it is 5.7 which to you is good economic performance??

Click to expand...

No, I didn't argue that 5.7 is good, which is why I said a strong economy would have part time numbers LOWER than that. What I'm pointing out is that 4.3 wasn't a sustainable number with our economy given that it was built on a debt and housing bubble.

For some reason Obama isn't responsible for the poor numbers today for if you think 9.3% and 10 trillion dollars is good performance then you like far too many from the left ignore the election results. the people got it, when will you? President elect Hillary will correct the problem as the electorate gave the Obama record a booming endorsement

Click to expand...

You're not responding to my points, preferring to make up my arguments for me. I'll quit here unless you want to address what I actually did say.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

JasperL said:

No, I didn't argue that 5.7 is good, which is why I said a strong economy would have part time numbers LOWER than that. What I'm pointing out is that 4.3 wasn't a sustainable number with our economy given that it was built on a debt and housing bubble.



You're not responding to my points, preferring to make up my arguments for me. I'll quit here unless you want to address what I actually did say.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion but coming of what you and others have called the worst recession since the Great Depression this has been a terrible recovery, the worst recovery ever due to poor economic policies.

sorry if you don't believe I responded to your posts but in reality I did. You believe the economy was built on the debt bubble that was created when there are other periods of time that didn't have that bubble that did quite well. Reagan's term was an example but needless to say we are never going to agree. I believe in free enterprise, capitalism, and personal responsibility as does much of Flyover Country. The left doesn't so apparently that is what you choose

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

Conservative said:

That is your opinion but coming of what you and others have called the worst recession since the Great Depression this has been a terrible recovery, the worst recovery ever due to poor economic policies.

Click to expand...

And what should we have done? Bottom line is it was going to take years to dig out of the debt bubble and it did. Perhaps we could have made better economic decisions, but I'm not sure which one's you'd have preferred.

sorry if you don't believe I responded to your posts but in reality I did. You believe the economy was built on the debt bubble that was created

Click to expand...

Consumer debt doubled to $15 trillion, in less than 8 years. That's a bubble and growth built on a bubble is not sustainable. It's just reality.

when there are other periods of time that didn't have that bubble that did quite well. Reagan's term was an example but needless to say we are never going to agree. I believe in free enterprise, capitalism, and personal responsibility as does much of Flyover Country. The left doesn't so apparently that is what you choose

Click to expand...

In Reagan's terms we still made stuff. Now we make far less. And you say what the "left" doesn't believe, but I'd appreciate you quoting me instead of making up my positions for me.

Re: A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinto

JasperL;1066689026]And what should we have done? Bottom line is it was going to take years to dig out of the debt bubble and it did. Perhaps we could have made better economic decisions, but I'm not sure which one's you'd have preferred.

Click to expand...

That is the liberal narrative and one that most of the people in this country don't agree with as evidenced by the election results. Less people were affected by this recession than the 81-82 recession and if you didn't sell your home or have money invested in the stock market you lost nothing. this recession didn't affect my family at all although it hurt me on paper. 81-82 was compounded by high inflation and high interest rates with foreclosures just as high as this one and unemployment just as great only measured differently

Consumer debt doubled to $15 trillion, in less than 8 years. That's a bubble and growth built on a bubble is not sustainable. It's just reality.

Click to expand...

Extract out of that the people who bought homes they couldn't afford and knew they couldn't afford them? Factor out the driving up of prices caused by the dot.com bubble in the 90's and people with excess cash. Factor in speculators and greed that attributed to the spike in housing prices again beginning in the late 90's

In Reagan's terms we still made stuff. Now we make far less. And you say what the "left" doesn't believe, but I'd appreciate you quoting me instead of making up my positions for me.

Click to expand...

Reagan understood the American people, the left gives the people lip service and promoting class warfare vs. personal responsibility. What Obama did was more leftwing social engineering creating a stimulus that required certain actions for people to benefit. People with no jobs and no cash were offered incentives to turn in their clunkers. That is out of touch with reality. Obama spent money bailing out supporters including teacher's unions which did nothing to change personal behavior. Reagan's stimulus was totally tax cuts allowing people to make their own decisions and then the money generated from all those jobs created generated a peace dividend and promoted the private sector, something again the left doesn't understand