• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy added 223,000 jobs in May, but Trump's premarket tweet is the focus

code1211 said:
You're right. It tells me nothing. So much for surveys...

What does tell me something is how many people there are and how many people have jobs: The participation rate.

Right now, if your sister wants a job, it's a great time to be seeking one. The are more job openings than there are job seekers.
Click to expand...

FWIW, my sister in law is in the prime work years (her 40s) and not in the workforce, so she's not included in the participation rate. So the point was that just looking at the participation rate doesn't tell you all that much about the jobs market. As it happens, she has five kids, 2 she home schools, and my brother makes a good living that allows her not to work and to take care of the kids, which is a full time job, plus, so her not being in the jobs market is a good thing, for her, the family including the kids, and arguably for the economy because my brother's job pays enough to provide for a 7 person family. You can't determine that from the participation survey, but if BLS surveys her, she's not counted in the U-1 through U-6 stats because she doesn't have or want a job, so isn't "unemployed" by any definition. So the survey in her case is far superior to any data ADP can produce from their payroll records, and far superior to just looking at the participation rate.
 
JasperL said:
Well, I don't get a paycheck because I am self employed, but if I did, it's not on ADP's system. They have to use their data that doesn't cover 100% of employers and then make "vague adjusted estimates" to that data to give you a monthly report that purports to represent the entire U.S. economy that would include...ME! for example. I'm not unemployed, or looking for a job, but I don't get a paycheck processed by ADP.
Click to expand...
The self employed are not included in either the CES or ADP’s survey. The CPS, does cover you though.
 
JasperL said:
FWIW, my sister in law is in the prime work years (her 40s) and not in the workforce, so she's not included in the participation rate. So the point was that just looking at the participation rate doesn't tell you all that much about the jobs market. As it happens, she has five kids, 2 she home schools, and my brother makes a good living that allows her not to work and to take care of the kids, which is a full time job, plus, so her not being in the jobs market is a good thing, for her, the family including the kids, and arguably for the economy because my brother's job pays enough to provide for a 7 person family. You can't determine that from the participation survey, but if BLS surveys her, she's not counted in the U-1 through U-6 stats because she doesn't have or want a job, so isn't "unemployed" by any definition. So the survey in her case is far superior to any data ADP can produce from their payroll records, and far superior to just looking at the participation rate.
Click to expand...
The participation rate is exactly what it says - people of working age who are participating in the labor force, e.g. either employed or actively looking for work. It's a quick-look at the health of job market. The BLS also reports the Employment - population ratio which is The proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over that is employed. Your sister would be included in that calculation
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
You're right. It tells me nothing. So much for surveys...

What does tell me something is how many people there are and how many people have jobs: The participation rate.
Click to expand...
The Labor Force Participation rate comes from the Current Population Survey and is employed PLUS unemployed as a percent of the adult civilian no institutional population. It does not tell us anything about how many people have jobs: that would be the employment-population ratio. The unemployment rate is unemployed divided by employed plus unemployed.

Right now, if your sister wants a job, it's a great time to be seeking one. The are more job openings than there are job seekers.
Click to expand...
Job openings come from another BLS survey: Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey.
 
pinqy said:
Oh, I can give Conservative’s view easily enough:
The recession started in 2008 with a Democrat congress, so it was Obama’s responsibility, and fixing it is why he was elected. Conservative ignores the Bush stimulus, so I will too. The Obama stimulus was enacted in 2009, and we’ll consider the total amount as spent at that time or in the next 2 years. There was not a complete recovery by 2011, so the stimulus was a failure. The people were so disappointed by Obama that they gave Republicans a huge advantage in 2012 (don’t ask why Obama himself was re-elected).

Because the number of people working part time for economic reasons and the U-6 measure were at record heights since 1994, any perceived job growth was not real. Direction and trends of the data don’t matter, only the level or rate. So since not everything was at or better than pre-recession levels, and no year to year GDP growth wa above 3%, Obama’s entire economy was a failure.

Since the data have gotten better than pre-recession under Trump and because employment and unemployment etc are all improved from when Obama was in office, all the credit goes to Trump.

And seriously, that is my honest understanding of Conservative’s position stripped down. I really hope I did not misrepresent anything, beyond losing nuance, and I apologize if I’d I did: it was not my intent.
Click to expand...





If any one individual is responsible for the entire US economy, it’s the POTUS. Obama was responsible for fixing the economy, to bring it out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and he did. His performance shows greater advancement in the various economic measures than most any president since FDR. Remember, he took over an economy during a downward spiral.

Good thinking to ignore the Bush stimulus. You have no evidence to show that it was a positive contribution. That we got bang for the buck. You and Conservative are much alike in that way.

“pingy” doesn’t set the standard measurement for the success or failure of an economic stimulus package. Unlike you, I will cite supporting evidence that the Obama stimulus was successful:

https://www.thebalance.com/what-was-obama-s-stimulus-package-3305625

“The people were so disappointed by Obama that they gave Republicans a huge advantage in 2012 (don’t ask why Obama himself was re-elected).”

What evidence do you have to support your claim? If you can’t back up your own words, they are worth nothing. Of course, you shouldn’t be asked why Obama won. You can’t even prove why the Republicans won the House.


“Because the number of people working part time for economic reasons and the U-6 measure were at record heights since 1994, any perceived job growth was not real.”

Your premise is illogical. Conservative tried this once before. The claim was wrong then and was without relevant supporting data, as is yours. I don’t understand what you say and I don’t think you do either. Even going by CY instead of the FY years for which presidents are responsible, Obama ended with lower U3 and U6 rates than in 1994 and 1998. You don’t know what you’re talking about:

U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends

“Direction and trends of the data don’t matter, only the level or rate. So since not everything was at or better than pre-recession levels, and no year to year GDP growth wa above 3%, Obama’s entire economy was a failure.”

Oh yes, they do matter. As I said earlier in this post, “His performance shows greater advancement in the various economic measures than most any president since FDR. Remember, he took over an economy during a downward spiral.” That is logical reasoning. Obama had to swim against the economic flow. Trump is now swimming with the economic flow established under Obama.


“Since the data have gotten better than pre-recession under Trump and because employment and unemployment etc are all improved from when Obama was in office, all the credit goes to Trump.”

The trends established under Obama continue to rise under Trump, who is riding that trend and thus benefiting from Obama’s work.


“And seriously, that is my honest understanding of Conservative’s position stripped down. I really hope I did not misrepresent anything, beyond losing nuance, and I apologize if I’d I did: it was not my intent.”

I think you do effectively convey an understanding of Conservative’s position in this matter. Not that you need to provide evidence to support those positions in order to convey that understanding, which you don’t as neither does Conservative.
 
bluesmoke said:
If any one individual is responsible for the entire US economy, it’s the POTUS. Obama was responsible for fixing the economy, to bring it out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and he did. His performance shows greater advancement in the various economic measures than most any president since FDR. Remember, he took over an economy during a downward spiral.

Good thinking to ignore the Bush stimulus. You have no evidence to show that it was a positive contribution. That we got bang for the buck. You and Conservative are much alike in that way.

“pingy” doesn’t set the standard measurement for the success or failure of an economic stimulus package. Unlike you, I will cite supporting evidence that the Obama stimulus was successful:

https://www.thebalance.com/what-was-obama-s-stimulus-package-3305625

“The people were so disappointed by Obama that they gave Republicans a huge advantage in 2012 (don’t ask why Obama himself was re-elected).”

What evidence do you have to support your claim? If you can’t back up your own words, they are worth nothing. Of course, you shouldn’t be asked why Obama won. You can’t even prove why the Republicans won the House.


“Because the number of people working part time for economic reasons and the U-6 measure were at record heights since 1994, any perceived job growth was not real.”

Your premise is illogical. Conservative tried this once before. The claim was wrong then and was without relevant supporting data, as is yours. I don’t understand what you say and I don’t think you do either. Even going by CY instead of the FY years for which presidents are responsible, Obama ended with lower U3 and U6 rates than in 1994 and 1998. You don’t know what you’re talking about:

U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends

“Direction and trends of the data don’t matter, only the level or rate. So since not everything was at or better than pre-recession levels, and no year to year GDP growth wa above 3%, Obama’s entire economy was a failure.”

Oh yes, they do matter. As I said earlier in this post, “His performance shows greater advancement in the various economic measures than most any president since FDR. Remember, he took over an economy during a downward spiral.” That is logical reasoning. Obama had to swim against the economic flow. Trump is now swimming with the economic flow established under Obama.


“Since the data have gotten better than pre-recession under Trump and because employment and unemployment etc are all improved from when Obama was in office, all the credit goes to Trump.”

The trends established under Obama continue to rise under Trump, who is riding that trend and thus benefiting from Obama’s work.


“And seriously, that is my honest understanding of Conservative’s position stripped down. I really hope I did not misrepresent anything, beyond losing nuance, and I apologize if I’d I did: it was not my intent.”

I think you do effectively convey an understanding of Conservative’s position in this matter. Not that you need to provide evidence to support those positions in order to convey that understanding, which you don’t as neither does Conservative.
Click to expand...
What part of “ I can give Conservative’s view easily enough” made you think I agreed with any of it? You just wasted a lot of time.
 
Bullseye said:
The participation rate is exactly what it says - people of working age who are participating in the labor force, e.g. either employed or actively looking for work. It's a quick-look at the health of job market. The BLS also reports the Employment - population ratio which is The proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over that is employed. Your sister would be included in that calculation
Click to expand...

I know what the ratio is, but the point is by itself it tells us really nothing about the jobs market. The participation rate has been going down in large part because of an aging population, and retirees and the disabled have increased, lowering the participation rate. A healthy economy won't do much for those people. It also decreased because of discouraged workers, but we know who those are because of..........SURVEYS!! which that person discounts as fake news, not real data.

But sure, if you combing the recent changes in the rate and account for the aging baby boomers, the participation rate can be a useful piece of big picture data.
 
JasperL said:
I know what the ratio is, but the point is by itself it tells us really nothing about the jobs market.
Click to expand...
That's going to come as a big surprise to the thousands of economists and analysts who watch it closely.

JasperL said:
The participation rate has been going down in large part because of an aging population, and retirees and the disabled have increased, lowering the participation rate.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. Retirees and disabled people not working or actively looking for work are not included in the participation rate.

JasperL said:
[healthy economy won't do much for those people. It also decreased because of discouraged workers, but we know who those are because of..........SURVEYS!! which that person discounts as fake news, not real data.
Click to expand...
Discourtaged workers aren't counted in PR either. However their number has reduced over a half million in the last year.
jasper said:
But sure, if you combing the recent changes in the rate and account for the aging baby boomers, the participation rate can be a useful piece of big picture data.
Click to expand...
Once again, retired boomers don't count in the rat.
 
Bullseye said:
That's going to come as a big surprise to the thousands of economists and analysts who watch it closely.

Uh, no. Retirees and disabled people not working or actively looking for work are not included in the participation rate.
Click to expand...
They are in the denominator.

Discouraged workers aren't counted in PR either. However their number has reduced over a half million in the last year.
Once again, retired boomers don't count in the rat.
Click to expand...
Again, they are still in the population, therefore in the denominator.an increase in retirees, disabled etc causes the labor force participation to go down
 
Bullseye said:
That's going to come as a big surprise to the thousands of economists and analysts who watch it closely.
Click to expand...

And if they watch it closely, they also adjust the raw data for demographic changes affecting the overall rate, or they're not very good economists or analysts. A big part of the drop IS DUE to the aging baby boomers. If you don't understand how that's been affecting the numbers in recent years, you're doing bad analysis. It's that simple.

Uh, no. Retirees and disabled people not working or actively looking for work are not included in the participation rate.
Click to expand...

Right, they're not in the numerator, but are in the denominator if they're 16 or older, which has the effect of lowering the rate as the baby boomers retire. From BLS: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#definitions

The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any adjustment there for retirees or the disabled.... There are various measures of the participation rate, such as of people in their prime working years - 25-54 as I recall - and for women, blacks, etc. but the overall rate will count the labor force as the numerator and the total population 16 or older in the denominator. My 88 yo mother in law is in the overall participation rate denominator.

Discourtaged workers aren't counted in PR either. However their number has reduced over a half million in the last year.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. Discouraged workers are those who haven't looked for work in 12 months, and are therefore not counted in the workforce because they're not working or actively looking for a job. They are in the denominator, not in the numerator, which like retirees has the effect of lowering the participation rate. And you know their number has dropped because of SURVEYS, which was my original point....

Once again, retired boomers don't count in the rat.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're wrong if you're referring like I was to the overall rate. They're not in the 25-54 rate, but if I meant to refer to a subset of the overall rate, I'd have made that clear.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
You indicated that you wanted to discuss the comment made by Trump that he was looking forward to the release of the stats.

No mention of anything about the positive or negative content or any qualitative indication at all.

I posted an article showing that Obama actually commented on the report and the content of the report.

The <snip>'s indicate that the cut and paste's were culled from various parts of ht article and that parts were omitted for brevity. Sorry to have confused you.

Do you recall if there was a hullabaloo from the media or the Democrats when Obama actually violated the letter of the Rule that you are so concerned about?
Click to expand...

You still aren't discussing what I am, which is not Obama. That's why his name isn't in the subject line of this thread.
 
tres borrachos said:
You still aren't discussing what I am, which is not Obama. That's why his name isn't in the subject line of this thread.
Click to expand...

So what do you think about the economic numbers for the month of May in which 223,000 new taxpayers were created making Trump over 3.4 million new taxpayers during his first year and 4 months in office, PLUS almost one million part time for economic reason employees going full time. Looks like a win/win for a lot of people and new taxpayers for the treasury. Can you bring yourself to celebrate good news?
 
Conservative said:
So what do you think about the economic numbers for the month of May in which 223,000 new taxpayers were created making Trump over 3.4 million new taxpayers during his first year and 4 months in office, PLUS almost one million part time for economic reason employees going full time. Looks like a win/win for a lot of people and new taxpayers for the treasury. Can you bring yourself to celebrate good news?
Click to expand...

I already had a job. I didn't need to wait for a President to find one for me. I didn't Obama to find one for me either. Or any President for that matter. So sorry, I can't relate to people who need a politician to find them a job. But if there are people who did, and they have one now, that's good for them. Sure, let's celebrate.

We should change the Presidential oath while we're at it, because it seems you think the President pledges an oath to find people jobs while he's in office.
 
code1211 said:
I posted an article showing that Obama actually commented on the report and the content of the report.
Click to expand...
No, you showed that, before he read the report or knew what was in it, that Obama said it was expected to be a dismal report. I was working at BLS at the time, and if I remember correctly (I could be thinking of another incident) BLS did double check to make sure Obama had not read the report yet.

Therefore Obama did not violate policy. Trump did know what was in the report however and broke OMB Statistical Policy Directive 3. However, under Diective 4, if the embargo is broken, the data are to be released immediately (and this has happened with accidental early release). But since the data were not released early, we can conclude that BLS and DOL did not consider Trump’s comments an actual breach.
 
Conservative said:
Stunning ignorance and typical liberalism in lacking of understanding that we pay debt service on the actual debt not the percentage change. You on the other hand pick and choose the format that you believe is important but not relevant

As for proof again the best way to shut you and the left up is to post data so here it goes so STFU or apologize
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Click to expand...

Obama was president for 9 years?....wow...
 
tres borrachos said:
I already had a job. I didn't need to wait for a President to find one for me. I didn't Obama to find one for me either. Or any President for that matter. So sorry, I can't relate to people who need a politician to find them a job. But if there are people who did, and they have one now, that's good for them. Sure, let's celebrate.

We should change the Presidential oath while we're at it, because it seems you think the President pledges an oath to find people jobs while he's in office.
Click to expand...

For the last 8 years you have blamed Bush entirely for the recession and defended Obama at every turn out of pure hatred for Trump's personality. What has happened is what you want to ignore. Obama lost because of his record, and Trump is winning because of his. his pro growth, pro private sector has stimulated the private sector to create full time jobs. Trump with his words and his actions has done what you claim he never could or did do. Your comments are typical leftwing bull**** and you know it.

Obama left us with the worst recovery in the history of this nation because he was totally unqualified for the position he held. He had zero management, leadership, or organizational skills coming from a position of Community agitator but that is irrelevant to you and others because you liked him, he was a nice guy, a supposed good family man, hell I liked to but judged him solely on what he was elected to do and what he failed to do.

Now you can keep spouting the rhetoric or you can finally realize that it is time to celebrate success totally ignoring the Trump personality that you hate. 3.4 million more people have jobs today because the private sector focus, All economic numbers are back below pre recession numbers and the GDP growth is double what Obama left us. That is reality so stop with the bull**** and recognize outstanding results none of which are due to Obama other than the fact he gave us Trump
 
Who was president in January 2008?
 
Conservative said:
For the last 8 years you have blamed Bush entirely for the recession and defended Obama at every turn out of pure hatred for Trump's personality. What has happened is what you want to ignore. Obama lost because of his record, and Trump is winning because of his. his pro growth, pro private sector has stimulated the private sector to create full time jobs. Trump with his words and his actions has done what you claim he never could or did do. Your comments are typical leftwing bull**** and you know it.

Obama left us with the worst recovery in the history of this nation because he was totally unqualified for the position he held. He had zero management, leadership, or organizational skills coming from a position of Community agitator but that is irrelevant to you and others because you liked him, he was a nice guy, a supposed good family man, hell I liked to but judged him solely on what he was elected to do and what he failed to do.

Now you can keep spouting the rhetoric or you can finally realize that it is time to celebrate success totally ignoring the Trump personality that you hate. 3.4 million more people have jobs today because the private sector focus, All economic numbers are back below pre recession numbers and the GDP growth is double what Obama left us. That is reality so stop with the bull**** and recognize outstanding results none of which are due to Obama other than the fact he gave us Trump
Click to expand...

Too bad when you start a wall of text out with a lie. I voted for George W. Bush twice, and never blamed him for the recession. If you can find a single post on this board where I blamed it on Bush, then link it.

Sad when you have to lie, as you just did here. Sadder that you have a crush on the United States President.
 
pinqy said:
What part of “ I can give Conservative’s view easily enough” made you think I agreed with any of it? You just wasted a lot of time.
Click to expand...



No. What part of “Conservative ignores the Bush stimulus, so I will too.” doesn’t involve you in the mix of opinion? And I acknowledged literally your representation of Conservative, didn't I? To bring clarity to the matter, with what do you agree or disagree? Or, why bother?

Nice trolling trap, though, with this following pounce.
 
tres borrachos said:
Too bad when you start a wall of text out with a lie. I voted for George W. Bush twice, and never blamed him for the recession. If you can find a single post on this board where I blamed it on Bush, then link it.

Sad when you have to lie, as you just did here. Sadder that you have a crush on the United States President.
Click to expand...

Then your 24/7 Trump bashing confused me and if that is the case then MY APOLOGY. I have no interest in research your posts thus my apology, when are you going to apologize for not celebrating Trump's successes. My crush on any President is based upon economic policies NOT PERSONALITIES. how many times to I have to post that I DON'T LIKE TRUMP but voted for him because of the option and glad I did because the results being generated are exactly what I hoped for.
 
Conservative said:
Then your 24/7 Trump bashing confused me and if that is the case then MY APOLOGY. I have no interest in research your posts thus my apology, when are you going to apologize for not celebrating Trump's successes. My crush on any President is based upon economic policies NOT PERSONALITIES. how many times to I have to post that I DON'T LIKE TRUMP but voted for him because of the option and glad I did because the results being generated are exactly what I hoped for.
Click to expand...

No, your crush on any president is based on whether their is an R or D next to their name. If their is an R next to their name, you're going to automatically support and worship them. ANY of those 17 candidates that ran on the Republican side in 2015/2016 you would be here cheerleading for no matter what. You fool nobody. You're a Republican partisan hack to the core.
 
Conservative said:
Then your 24/7 Trump bashing confused me and if that is the case then MY APOLOGY. I have no interest in research your posts thus my apology, when are you going to apologize for not celebrating Trump's successes. My crush on any President is based upon economic policies NOT PERSONALITIES. how many times to I have to post that I DON'T LIKE TRUMP but voted for him because of the option and glad I did because the results being generated are exactly what I hoped for.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think I care who you voted for, or why you cheer Trump today. It's your right as an American. It's my right to not accept the man as a good President. Get over it. He doesn't even know you're alive, and doesn't care about you even if he did.

I'm not going to apologize for anything. I'm not dumb enough to think the US President creates private sector jobs. I said that when Obama was President too, which is why I wasn't on here screaming about his successes either.

You have to worship Trump without me. I'm waiting for a real man to come along and act like a decent human being. That isn't Trump. Sorry to upset you.
 
bluesmoke said:
No. What part of “Conservative ignores the Bush stimulus, so I will too.” doesn’t involve you in the mix of opinion?
Click to expand...
Any of it. To reword the sentence for you: “Since Conservative ignored that there was a stimulus under Bush, I won’t mention it either.” That’s called irony, because I did, in fact, mention it. It was a rhetorical device to emphasize A major deficiency in Conservarive’s view.

And I acknowledged literally your representation of Conservative, didn't I?
Click to expand...
Of course, but you also made personal remarks against me and stated that they were also my views.

To bring clarity to the matter, with what do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
I disagree with all his interpretations of the data, his inane claim that people hated Obama so much that they voted out Democrats from Congress but re-elected Obama, and basically all the politics he injects into what should be an economics analysis.


Or, why bother?
Click to expand...
Why bother what? Giving his view? Because it took me years to sift through his gibberish and repetitions. No matter what you ask, he’ll end up giving pretty much the same response regardless of any contradictory facts or analysis. I thought it would be easier if I broke down his view, making it easier to see how nonsensical it is.
 
Puigb said:
No, your crush on any president is based on whether their is an R or D next to their name. If their is an R next to their name, you're going to automatically support and worship them. ANY of those 17 candidates that ran on the Republican side in 2015/2016 you would be here cheerleading for no matter what. You fool nobody. You're a Republican partisan hack to the core.
Click to expand...

Really? You know me? Have we met? your opinion is simply your own and you have no fricken clue what you are talking about, my bet is I have voted for more Democrats in my life than you Republicans and my so called crush is on anyone who promotes a pro growth economic policy instead of social engineering and promoting class warfare.

Yes, I did indeed cheerlead for the Republicans in 2015-2016 because the alternative was continuation of the disastrous Obama economic policies and the worst recovery in history from a recession that affected the fewest American in history. it was a wonderful marketing ploy by the Democratic Party to indoctrinate people into believing it was the worst recession since the Great Depression. The misery index alone proves that fact

All can see your lean and see your actions here as you are baiting me with nothing but your own opinion and ignorance. The data supports my point of view but data is a foreign concept to people like you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom