DiscussMormonism.com

Trump was again, born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

The number of unemployed is indeed down by 239,000, but where did they go? Not to the ranks of the employed, which rose by only 3,000. It turns out they left the labor force entirely, which is why the civilian labor force fell by 236,000 even though the total population grew.

So, sure, the unemployment rate is down, but it’s because 236,000 people gave up and quit looking for work—which means they no longer get counted as unemployed.

So, sure, the unemployment rate is down, but it’s because 236,000 people gave up and quit looking for work—which means they no longer get counted as unemployed.

This is what I've been saying for years. As long as people can get on disability, why would they accept employment? How else do people survive while "giving up looking for work?"

The labor participation rate is about the same now as when Obama left office.

Dec. 2016 - 62.7%
Jan. 2017 - 62.9%
Apr. 2018 – 62.8%

This is what I've been saying for years. As long as people can get on disability, why would they accept employment? How else do people survive while "giving up looking for work?"

Baby Boomers retiring over the last several years has been the main reason why the number of Americans not in the labor force has been continuing increasing.

citing a Rachel maddow graph and providing an anonymous "quote" does not make your post any less ignorant... but thanks for establishing that your posts may be more economically illiterate than another poster on this board of a similar fiscal handicap..perhaps you've read some of their posts? posted under KevinGraham?

Baby Boomers retiring over the last several years has been the main reason why the number of Americans not in the labor force has been continuing increasing.

How do people make a living when they have given up looking for work?

Hawkeye wrote:Trump was again, born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

You can't have it both ways though. If we're going to give any President credit or blame for the unemployment numbers, than any President gets to the credit for good numbers, including Trump. If Sanders or Clinton had won, would we be more inclined to give them credit?

I don't think the President has much to do with the unemployment rate either way, so I don't give Trump credit for the declining rate, but I don't give Obama credit either, or Bush, or Clinton.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/much-pr ... broadcast/

ajax18 wrote:

So, sure, the unemployment rate is down, but it’s because 236,000 people gave up and quit looking for work—which means they no longer get counted as unemployed.

This is what I've been saying for years. As long as people can get on disability, why would they accept employment? How else do people survive while "giving up looking for work?"

The only people getting on disability dumbass, are the veterans who had been fighting in the Republican wars. The drops happening now are about baby boomers retiring.

subgenius wrote:citing a Rachel maddow graph and providing an anonymous "quote" does not make your post any less ignorant... but thanks for establishing that your posts may be more economically illiterate than another poster on this board of a similar fiscal handicap..perhaps you've read some of their posts? posted under KevinGraham?

Good thing most people reading this forum have finished elementary school and understand that the graph wasn't just some photo someone drew, but rather an accurate description of empirical data provided by the BLS. I suggest you go back and get educated before trying to play with adults here.

cinepro wrote:

Hawkeye wrote:Trump was again, born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

You can't have it both ways though. If we're going to give any President credit or blame for the unemployment numbers, than any President gets to the credit for good numbers, including Trump. If Sanders or Clinton had won, would we be more inclined to give them credit?

I don't think the President has much to do with the unemployment rate either way, so I don't give Trump credit for the declining rate, but I don't give Obama credit either, or Bush, or Clinton.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/much-pr ... broadcast/

I'm not giving anyone credit or blame, I'm just stating the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation. The fact is the Right Wing media along with Trump are constantly pounding this meme that Trump's mere presence in the White House has been a tremendous benefit for Americans and they're constantly touting the stock market along with unemployment numbers. But for 8 years these same unemployment numbers were dismissed by these same people because of the Labor Participation Rate that was driving it. Once Trump steps foot in office, suddenly the LPR becomes a thing of the past never to be discussed again.

Looking at raw job numbers, 2017 was the worst year for job creation since 2009. But you wouldn't know that because the LPR keeps pushing down the unemployment rate. When the black guy was in office we were told this was just a government scam to hide the REAL truth about how many people didn't have a job.

Here is another graph that makes the point about how Trump has been taking credit for the DOW and then suddenly he stops talking about it after his policies start to kick in. Gee, wonder why?

Hawkeye wrote:
Here is another graph that makes the point about how Trump has been taking credit for the DOW and then suddenly he stops talking about it after his policies start to kick in. Gee, wonder why?

My point is that it is (most likely) a misnomer to post graphs with arrows pointing to "Obama takes office" and "Trump takes office." As you can plainly see, there were dips and rises during Obama's terms, and there will no doubt be dips and rises during Trump's terms. It's not about whether or not Trump is talking about the Dow after "his policies kick in." It's about whether or not "his policies" are actually affecting the Dow, and whether the Dow is even a worthy metric of the economy.

I'd say the exact same thing if Hillary were President and the Dow had done the same thing. Just because Presidents pretend like the Dow means something doesn't mean we have to pretend as well.

Why do we still care about the Dow?