• 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!

Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

American said:
Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low | CNS News
The number of those not unemployed, but employable and not working seems to be going up. This is a crisis in my opinion.
Click to expand...

If we could just get those Baby Boomers to keep working on into their nineties and stop retiring, the ungrateful ****s.

There are about 65 million Boomers.
The country is unusually top-heavy in that the generation following the Boomers was smaller than the Boomers generation.
Iirc, most generations have had more babies than the generation before them did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers#Size_and_economic_impact
The age wave theory suggests an economic slowdown when the boomers start retiring during 2007–2009.[SUP][21][/SUP] Projections for the aging U.S. workforce suggest that by 2020, 25% of employees will be at least 55 years old.[SUP][22][/SUP]​


Help out the good folks playing along at home...
Is there anyway that we can rule out demographics as a cause for this statistical trend so that we can place the blame entirely on Obama?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If we could just get those Baby Boomers to keep working on into their nineties and stop retiring, the ungrateful ****s.

There are about 65 million Boomers.
The country is unusually top-heavy in that the generation following the Boomers was smaller than the Boomers generation.
Iirc, most generations have had more babies than the generation before them did.

Baby boomers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The age wave theory suggests an economic slowdown when the boomers start retiring during 2007–2009.[SUP][21][/SUP] Projections for the aging U.S. workforce suggest that by 2020, 25% of employees will be at least 55 years old.[SUP][22][/SUP]​


Help out the good folks playing along at home...
Is there anyway that we can rule out demographics as a cause for this statistical trend so that we can place the blame entirely on Obama?
Click to expand...

Keep building Walmarts so we can get those greeter jobs. :lol:
 
American said:
Considering the population is growing every year, that is not saying anything good.
Click to expand...
But the population didn't grow at the same rate every year.
Some years it grew much faster than others.
The flip side is that this means that there will be years when the rate of people retiring will be greater than other years.

Or so it seems.
ymmv
 
Simon W. Moon said:
But the population didn't grow at the same rate every year.
Some years it grew much faster than others.
The flip side is that this means that there will be years when the rate of people retiring will be greater than other years.

Or so it seems.
ymmv
Click to expand...

People aren't all retiring at 65 today. Due to the greed of the Greatest Generation we're paying more in SS taxes and retiring later.
 
American said:
Due to the greed of the Greatest Generation we're paying more in SS taxes and retiring later.
Click to expand...
The greed of the Greatest Generation huh American?
You mean the ones like my Mother who paid into SS for well over 40 years?

You've got a lot of nerve to smear the Greatest Generation who fought and died
for people like you so you can sit here and smear them as being greedy.

We'll see how you feel when you get to their age, since they were all so greedy and dirt poor during the GOP Depression .
 
NIMBY said:
The greed of the Greatest Generation huh American?
You mean the ones like my Mother who paid into SS for well over 40 years?

You've got a lot of nerve to smear the Greatest Generation who fought and died
for people like you so you can sit here and smear them as being greedy.

We'll see how you feel when you get to their age, since they were all so greedy and dirt poor during the GOP Depression .
Click to expand...

Yeah, like my parents too. They voted themselves benefit increases that the system didn't cover, so our payroll taxes went up. Yeah that generation.
 
You mean the ones who donate to a public 401K which should be paying for itself.
Just as with ALL public pensions, both parties AFTER the Greatest Generation have screwed this pooch.

And it was a very smart GOP Paul Ryan who tried to take away one of the three COLA points from bloated VA pensions, saving billions.
And who fought him, neo-clowns and military politicians from both parties.

While I may disagree with some of Ryan's priorites, he is by far the smartest man in D.C. to handle the economy
and has forged an important relationship with Dem. Sen. Murray.

Ryan is supported by a Sen. Coburn who I have tremendous amount of respect for.
His back-in-black plan of 2011 is still the best grand bargain I've seen, though Simpson/Bowles is close.

And I'm torn as to why it didn't get the 14-4 vote needed--with Ryan voting no--and Coburn backing him--
due to concerns about what they felt Dems were doing.
American said:
Yeah, like my parents too.
They voted themselves benefit increases that the system didn't cover, so our payroll taxes went up. Yeah that generation.
Click to expand...
You won't have to worry about collecting SS if Ryan doesn't get this House in order,
as he takes over the House Ways and Means Chair next year--and basically runs it now.

There are plenty of mod/con Dems out here like me that are looking for some sanity from the House and ready to work with that sanity.
I will not back down from defending Obama from unfair criticism leading up to an election.

And yes I have a plan to rid ourselves of the National albatross of Reid even if Dems keep the Senate--
not to brag--but I have the ear of a few people on my Senator's staff, though he still supports Reid publicly for now--until after the election IMHO .
 
Hari Seldon said:
Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 was passed by Congress to ensure that banks meet the credit needs of their local communities and to encourage investment in the immediate communities served by depository institutions. Banks are rated periodically on their efforts to achieve these goals.

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) provides an interagency CRA rating database on its website.

In addition, each bank has available for public review a file giving its CRA rating and additional information that it is required to prepare.

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.

The Fed, in collaboration with the other financial regulatory agencies, is currently considering what can be done to make CRA a more effective regulatory incentive and how CRA can be revised to address the new community needs that have emerged in the wake of the foreclosure crisis. As part of this regulatory initiative, the agencies held CRA hearings and invited written comments on how to improve CRA in June 2010. In December 2010, the agencies published amendments to the rule to encourage financial institutions to participate in activities aimed at revitalizing areas designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for funds under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

FRB: Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?
Click to expand...



LOL !!

Yes, the GSEs are bankrupt because they bought " PRIME " loans.

Trillions in CDOs all over the world went belly up all at once because their tranches were filled with Securities backed by " Prime " Loans.

Give me a break.

Problem with that assertion is even Clintons AG disagreed with it as she specifically mentioned the 1995 CRA changes as the mechanism for the 86 percent increase in CRA commitments from 1995 to 1998.

What's qualifies as a CRA loan ? Well according to Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick ( Vice Chair at Fannie Mae ) they were ANY loan made with " flexible underwriting techniques " and up to 3 percent down.

AThe Federal Reserve Boards assesment lacks allot of credibility considering they didn't even mention that the CRA laws were CHANGED in 1995.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

DA60 said:
I don't usually do long, multi-quote posts...life is way too short, no offense (that goes for everyone). They usually just go on and on and on as both parties often answer every bloody quote.
Click to expand...
I understand, and while I'll still multi-quote, I will, for this post, restrict it to your factual errors and not discussion of concepts.

a) those that 'Did not search for work in previous year' (I wish the bloody BLS would label the lines) I count because they want to work but gave up looking.
Click to expand...
Untrue. The criteria is "Did not search for work in previous year." That's it. Nothing about ever having looked or "giving up." There are many reasons besides "giving up" for someone to leave the labor force and it is factually inaccurate to characterize all those who did not look in the previous year as having given up. And it is certainly incorrect to apply it to those who have never held a job.


I could care less what the BLS calls them, I call them unemployed. And I don't care how long they have been not searching - if they have no job, want a job and are available to work on reasonably short notice, then they are unemployed to me. Whether they have looked 'actively' or not is completely irrelevant to me on this. They are called 'discouraged' for a reason.
Click to expand...
No, they are not called discouraged. Discouraged has a specific definition and it is factually incorrect to apply that to all who want a job. Additionally, those Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now, have not looked in previous year, includes many people who are not available for work. It is not published how many or any reasons why they haven't looked in the previous year. So it is factually incorrect to apply any characterization to them.


So, they [marginally attached] don't have a job, they want a job and were available to take a job when asked. The secondary reasons are just that, secondary.
The fact some of them have ill health or a disability does not mean they are not available to work...it just adds a secondary reason for their discouragement.
Click to expand...
Again....discouraged has a specific meaning and definition and it is factually incorrect to apply it to all marginally attached. Discouragement is one of the "secondary reasons" you're talking about.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

DA60 said:
Additionally to my above post,

'un·em·ployed (nm-ploid, -m-)
adj.
1. Out of work, especially involuntarily; jobless.'

unemployed - definition of unemployed by The Free Dictionary


Thus, by definition, any person who is out of work, but wants to work, is unemployed.
Click to expand...
The definition you cite says nothing about "wants to work" nor does it say anything about availability, which you include in yours.

By the dictionary definition, children, prisoners, people in institutions, are all unemployed. Only those working are not unemployed by the dictionary definition...which would put the unemployment rate at around 54%.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

DA60 said:
...

This is simple; if you have no job, want a job and are generally available to work (regardless of your other complications or when you last 'actively' looked for work) - then you are an unemployed member of the work force in my opinion.
...
Click to expand...
There’s some unavoidable fuzziness about both "generally available to work" and "want a job."

My former boss retired two years ago, but could still be tempted to come back to working if offered a high-six-figure salary. Does he want to work or not? He certainly is "available" if you pay him enough. But you could imagine the ambiguity of what may be considered "simple."

There is no "true" unemployment rate, just various indicators that measure different things. Fortunately, these indicators pretty much move in tandem, so we’re not usually confused about whether the labor market is getting better or worse. But which measure you want to look at depends on what questions you’re asking.

What is false, however, is the claim that unemployment is 92 million. That's just if you count everyone over 16 and less than 65, that doesn't have a job, regardless of whether they want a job or not. Those 62 year olds you recently retired, retired for a reason. They don't want to work any longer.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

MTAtech said:
There’s some unavoidable fuzziness about both "generally available to work" and "want a job."

My former boss retired two years ago, but could still be tempted to come back to working if offered a high-six-figure salary. Does he want to work or not? He certainly is "available" if you pay him enough. But you could imagine the ambiguity of what may be considered "simple."

There is no "true" unemployment rate, just various indicators that measure different things. Fortunately, these indicators pretty much move in tandem, so we’re not usually confused about whether the labor market is getting better or worse. But which measure you want to look at depends on what questions you’re asking.

What is false, however, is the claim that unemployment is 92 million. That's just if you count everyone over 16 and less than 65, that doesn't have a job, regardless of whether they want a job or not.
Click to expand...

You make some good points. I may be quite willing to mow your lawn for $30 but not for $10. If taking a job only slightly increases (or reduces) my income (often by increasing my expenses) then why would I do so?
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

MTAtech said:
There’s some unavoidable fuzziness about both "generally available to work" and "want a job."

My former boss retired two years ago, but could still be tempted to come back to working if offered a high-six-figure salary. Does he want to work or not? He certainly is "available" if you pay him enough. But you could imagine the ambiguity of what may be considered "simple."
Click to expand...
Correct. Which is why, when the concept was being developed in the 1930's, the basic idea was the best way to know if someone wanted a job was to look at what he was doing about it. That's the "Activity" concept still used and which has been adopted by most other countries.

There is no "true" unemployment rate, just various indicators that measure different things. Fortunately, these indicators pretty much move in tandem, so we’re not usually confused about whether the labor market is getting better or worse. But which measure you want to look at depends on what questions you’re asking.
Click to expand...
While I probably could say it better myself....I'm too lazy ;)

What is false, however, is the claim that unemployment is 92 million. That's just if you count everyone over 16 and less than 65, that doesn't have a job, regardless of whether they want a job or not. Those 62 year olds you recently retired, retired for a reason. They don't want to work any longer.
Click to expand...
65 and older is included as well. Many countries do have an upper age cap, but not the U.S. About 40% of those not in the labor force are retired.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

pinqy said:
...

65 and older is included as well. Many countries do have an upper age cap, but not the U.S. About 40% of those not in the labor force are retired.
Click to expand...

Conservatives often like to call the retired and those who are students and stay at home parents: "slackers".

Ever notice that conservatives never seem to come up with any suggestions on how to lure retired people back into the labor market? Or any other fix for that matter. Maybe they believe that we should just have mass executions of everyone who isn't working - I dunno.

And they never seem to identify what the problem is with this issue. Like why having more stay at home moms or more wealthy retired people is a problem. I guess those people could all start looking for jobs, but unless we have the jobs, and the demand to support those jobs, it wouldn't really effect our economy at all. We simply don't have a labor shortage.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

imagep said:
Conservatives often like to call the retired and those who are students and stay at home parents: "slackers".

Ever notice that conservatives never seem to come up with any suggestions on how to lure retired people back into the labor market? Or any other fix for that matter. Maybe they believe that we should just have mass executions of everyone who isn't working - I dunno.

And they never seem to identify what the problem is with this issue. Like why having more stay at home moms or more wealthy retired people is a problem. I guess those people could all start looking for jobs, but unless we have the jobs, and the demand to support those jobs, it wouldn't really effect our economy at all. We simply don't have a labor shortage.
Click to expand...

There is a falacy in thinking that Republicans need a "suggestion" when it comes to ... well any of these domestic problems. Think about it, Democrats are for more government involvement, so of course there are going to be the ones to come up with all sort of suggestions so the government can (or try to) solve the problem. Republicans don't believe that every solution must begin with government, but with the private sector. So the next time you wonder "what is the Republican plan" understand that they may not have one, because they know that getting involved would only make things worse (see 90% of government programs ever...). And when they do have a suggestion, it generally means they are giving away responsibilities. Take the VA issue for example, many Republicans just wanted to hand out vouchers and allow the veterans to get help from private facilities.

It really all boils down to just how much you believe government can accomplish, or more importantly, how efficiently it can.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

DA60 said:
This is simple; if you have no job, want a job and are generally available to work (regardless of your other complications or when you last 'actively' looked for work) - then you are an unemployed member of the work force in my opinion.

The BLS (and you I assume) don't agree...fine, you don't agree. With respect, I don't much care if you two don't agree.
Click to expand...

The BLS reports all those numbers and has six alternate definitions of "unemployment rate" to cover multiple scenarios. Are you saying the "official" rate that is now designated as U-3 ought to be U-5 or U-6? That would be fine, but as someone else pointed out, you'll have to go back in time and redefine "unemployment" from at least the early Clinton administration, which is as I recall the last time the definitions were changed. Or, you could pull U-5 and/or U-6 from all those years and present that in a graph for a more comprehensive look at true "unemployment."
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

Hamster Buddha said:
There is a falacy in thinking that Republicans need a "suggestion" when it comes to ... well any of these domestic problems. Think about it, Democrats are for more government involvement, so of course there are going to be the ones to come up with all sort of suggestions so the government can (or try to) solve the problem. Republicans don't believe that every solution must begin with government, but with the private sector. So the next time you wonder "what is the Republican plan" understand that they may not have one, because they know that getting involved would only make things worse (see 90% of government programs ever...). And when they do have a suggestion, it generally means they are giving away responsibilities. Take the VA issue for example, many Republicans just wanted to hand out vouchers and allow the veterans to get help from private facilities.

It really all boils down to just how much you believe government can accomplish, or more importantly, how efficiently it can.
Click to expand...

Great answer, perfectly logical.

Except that it still leaves conservatives with no answers to our problems. Now maybe a better answer would have included government action, like cutting taxes for the middle class, or giving a list of specific regulations that should be repealed in order to allow our economy to expand, creating more jobs and jobs with higher paying wages.

Conservatives often do make generally statements about these things (cutting taxes and reducing regulations), but they rarely offer up a specific plan that includes specific taxes that they want to eliminate which will lure people back into the labor market, or specific regulations to end.

Reducing government IS governmental action.
 
American said:
An administration that declares a 6.1% unemployment rate in this economy is either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?
Click to expand...

The BLS is using the same definitions they've used for decades now. It's true that U-3 isn't a complete picture of the unemployment situation, but then that's why BLS publishes all the other data people are using here to discredit U-3, and U-4 through U-6. The information is out there, and Obama is using the same yardstick used by Bush and Clinton at least. Now he has to use a different yardstick that gives worse numbers because why exactly? Did you demand that Bush use U-6 instead of U-3?
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

ttwtt78640 said:
You make some good points. I may be quite willing to mow your lawn for $30 but not for $10. If taking a job only slightly increases (or reduces) my income (often by increasing my expenses) then why would I do so?
Click to expand...

I agree and would dare say that better compensation or working conditions are the only things that would lure workforce dropouts back into the work force.

But at this particular point in time, when we have a high unemployment rate, the private sector don't need more people in the work force.

That's why the lfpr to me is pointless. If companies need more workers than they can find, they will offer to pay more, or they will give more hours to workers who want to work more. Until our unemployment rate drops below 5% or so, that's simply not likely to happen.

I find it odd that the same people who are complaining about our declining lfpr are against the types of things that may draw more workers into the work force, such as lower taxes for the middle class and/or a higher minimum wage.
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

JasperL said:
The BLS reports all those numbers and has six alternate definitions of "unemployment rate" to cover multiple scenarios. Are you saying the "official" rate that is now designated as U-3 ought to be U-5 or U-6? That would be fine, but as someone else pointed out, you'll have to go back in time and redefine "unemployment" from at least the early Clinton administration, which is as I recall the last time the definitions were changed. Or, you could pull U-5 and/or U-6 from all those years and present that in a graph for a more comprehensive look at true "unemployment."
Click to expand...

1) The only official unemployment rate is the U-3...you surely know as well as I do that almost no one in either the mass media or amongst the ignorant masses pays any attention to anything but the U-3.

2) Why do you need to go back and change past U-3's?
When they changed the CPI calculation process over the years, they did not go back and change previous years/decades CPI levels (to my knowledge).

Besides, it ain't hard to change the previous numbers if you did decide to do so. You just take those that I think should be included (as I mentioned above) and add that number to both the work force and the unemployed numbers and redo the calculation. It would take all of 45 seconds per year. Big deal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

pinqy said:
The definition you cite says nothing about "wants to work" nor does it say anything about availability, which you include in yours.

By the dictionary definition, children, prisoners, people in institutions, are all unemployed. Only those working are not unemployed by the dictionary definition...which would put the unemployment rate at around 54%.
Click to expand...

Come on now.

First, I am not talking about the Civilian Noninstitutional Population - I am obviously talking about the Labor Force.

The definition for the former is:

'Civilian noninstitutional population: Persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, who are not inmates of institutions (e.g., penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.'

The definition of the latter is:

'Civilian labor force: All persons in the civilian noninstitutional population classified as either employed or unemployed.'

How are the labor force components (i.e., civilian noninstitutional population, civilian labor force, employed, unemployed, and unemployment rate) defined?


Second, I guess you missed the part in my linked definition that said 'especially involuntarily'.

Which obviously means, in essence, that anyone who does want to work.



Listen, I don't much care about your opinions on this. I ONLY care about your technical knowledge because (according to you) you supposedly worked at the BLS.

I don't care what your interpretations of various BLS bullsh!t is...I ONLY care about raw data and actual definitions.

No offense, but why on Earth would I care in the slightest what some faceless, nameless guy on a chat forum (with an apparent closed mind on this subject) thinks about this? ANd that goes for anyone else that fits that description on almost any subject.

The same goes for your previous post - which I basically saw no links within so I ignored it.





Good day.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Yeah, leave it to a member of the Ayn Rand Institute to blame the government.....

I see yours and raise you mine (and my Forbes article is by an actual published contributor to Forbes, not something written on their website....)

http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
Thomas, Hennessey and Holtz-Eakin: What Caused the Financial Crisis? - WSJ
Three Causes of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis - ForensisGroup.com


I can also give you a first hand witness account of this as I did a considerable amount of business planning for a boiler-room mortgage originator with big credit lines (and tons of unreasonable incentive) provided by Lehman and Countrywide.
Click to expand...

I've read three or four books on the bubble and burst and it's just clear that this was mostly deregulation gone amok. The data is there, the accounts of insiders confirm it. But all that really isn't needed. The bottom line is the lenders at that time were begging people to take out loans - the commercials ran non-stop in my region - low doc, no doc, bad credit, "Take out a home equity loan - go to Paris!!!" etc. The stock prices for the big lenders were hitting all time highs. Bonuses hitting all time highs for the CEOs, all the way down to individual selling loans who were all paid huge bonuses to get a warm body sign on the dotted line. Multiple people have testified about widespread fraud on the part of lenders to fake income numbers to get loans approved. Etc.

To believe the lenders were "forced" to do anything defies belief. They were making record profits, record bonuses, and people are honestly claiming the government "forced" them to rake money in by the bucketful? It's crazy talk.

Second and even more damning is there was a WORLDWIDE debt and housing bubble. The "it was all the democrats' fault" people will have to explain how CRA reached most of Europe, and allowed debt and housing bubbles bigger than our own. The bottom line is a global bubble requires a global cause and that global cause was a worldwide flood of easy money, make largely possible by the ballooning of derivatives from roughly a standing start to $600T in notional amounts outstanding.

Sept09_CF1.jpg

Barry Ritholtz does a good job debunking the right wing talking points here:

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
 
Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

DA60 said:
1) The only official unemployment rate is the U-3...you surely know as well as I do that almost no one in either the mass media or amongst the ignorant masses pays any attention to anything but the U-3.

2) Why do you need to go back and change past U-3's?
When they changed the CPI calculation process over the years, they did not go back and change previous years/decades CPI levels (to my knowledge).

Besides, it ain't hard to change the previous numbers if you did decide to do so. You just take those that I think should be included (as I mentioned above) and add that number to both the work force and the unemployed numbers and redo the calculation. It would take all of 45 seconds per year. Big deal.
Click to expand...

The point is all those numbers are gathered and reported, with apples to apples comparisons over decades. U-3 in 2014 = U-3 in 1994 = U-3 in 2004. It would be easier to convince the "media" to ignore U-3 and quote only U-5 or U-6.

Look, I get it, you think the employment situation is worse than the "official" numbers suggest. Probably, although the "official" number has always had the same biases you're complaining about. And I agree that U-3 doesn't tell the whole story, but all it takes to tell the whole story is to pick one of the other definitions already reported by BLS and just focus on THAT. The data are there. I just don't see the big deal here. Anyone who cares about the data knows where to find the numbers.
 
JasperL said:
I've read three or four books on the bubble and burst and it's just clear that this was mostly deregulation gone amok. The data is there, the accounts of insiders confirm it. But all that really isn't needed. The bottom line is the lenders at that time were begging people to take out loans - the commercials ran non-stop in my region - low doc, no doc, bad credit, "Take out a home equity loan - go to Paris!!!" etc. The stock prices for the big lenders were hitting all time highs. Bonuses hitting all time highs for the CEOs, all the way down to individual selling loans who were all paid huge bonuses to get a warm body sign on the dotted line. Multiple people have testified about widespread fraud on the part of lenders to fake income numbers to get loans approved. Etc.

To believe the lenders were "forced" to do anything defies belief. They were making record profits, record bonuses, and people are honestly claiming the government "forced" them to rake money in by the bucketful? It's crazy talk.

Second and even more damning is there was a WORLDWIDE debt and housing bubble. The "it was all the democrats' fault" people will have to explain how CRA reached most of Europe, and allowed debt and housing bubbles bigger than our own. The bottom line is a global bubble requires a global cause and that global cause was a worldwide flood of easy money, make largely possible by the ballooning of derivatives from roughly a standing start to $600T in notional amounts outstanding.

View attachment 67172559

Barry Ritholtz does a good job debunking the right wing talking points here:

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Click to expand...


LOL !!

What " Books " have you read ? 3 or 4 huh ?

And you still dont know what you're talking about.

Its easy to believe the Federal Government forced lenders to lower their standards.

Janet Reno even bragged about the effectiveness of the new CRA regulations in 1998. Said the New Regulations forced banks to offer " fair credit ".

She bragged about the 13 lenders she successfully sued so far and the coming new lawsuits she had planned.

And it wasn't just the DOJ targeting lenders. HUD sued banks and so did Plaintiff attorney's like Barrak Obama.

All for " discrimination ".

It worked apparently. Homeowner-ship under Clinton shot up from 63 percent in 1993 to 68 percent in 2000.

Yay for lowering standards.....

It rose another 1 percent under Bush
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom