Fake news controlled by the majority.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unemployment at 17 year low...
- Thread starter BSM1
- Start date
Did you read the post I quoted?
He subtracted the number of full time jobs from the adults between 18 and 64 to give an unemployment figure of 40%.
Tom
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
I was wondering how many Democrats would reply to that. 
I was wondering how many Democrats would reply to that.
Reply to what? I accept @colombus' correction as to the meaning of his post and the one he referenced.
Again, the downward trend in unemployment through the eight years of the Obama and less than one year of Trump simply is the continuation of the natural trend, and likely a natural recovery and not caused by Obama nor Trump.
Opinion noted.I was wondering how many Democrats would reply to that.
Tom
Strangely, 94.5 million american are no longer in the labor force and the work force participation in September was around 63% (Labor Force Participation : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
It is important to note that in October, 88,500 of those jobs added were waiters and bartenders - low paid jobs
Looking at this graphic, I wouldn't be that excited:
Okay, okay...I would never dis someone's mother, so I won't take that bait.
But, since it's been brought up earlier, let's say for the sake of argument we exclude stay-at-home moms from the figures.
So, how many stay-at-home moms are there currently?
After Decades of Decline, A Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers
How many moms are there in the United States?
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb12-ff08.html
The years are slightly off, but it gives us something to work with.
29% of 85.4 million = 24,650,000
83,000,000 - 24,650,000 = 58,350,000
58,350,000/207,000,000 = 0.28 = 28% unemployment
So, my basic point still stands, even with this minor alteration.
However, I'm not convinced that excluding stay-at-home moms from the labor force is very useful either. It's not like it was 50 years ago when most families were able to live well on a single income, which allowed for stay-at-home moms. Nowadays, only the very affluent are able to actually afford it. Many more might be on public assistance and/or living in impoverished conditions. Or they and their kids might be living with their parents.
Either way, I don't think it would be correct to exclude them from the statistics, since their lives could obviously improve if they had access to good jobs to boost their income. If that's not possible for them, then that's a reflection of the state of affairs in the US economy which should be reflected in unemployment statistics.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Boy, did I mess up! I forgot to add the source material. Let's try again, shall we?
Last Month, the U.S. Added 261,000 Jobs; Here’s the Takeaway
Mea Culpa!
Last Month, the U.S. Added 261,000 Jobs; Here’s the Takeaway
Mea Culpa!
Personally I like U6 but all are trending in the same direction.
I have seen this reference before and it does change anything. The decline in unemployment cannot be attributed to anything Trump has done.
In an economy where winners and losers are measured by cash, she is. In the better world, she's fully employed just not for cash.
Skwim
Veteran Member
In order to ascribe anything to Trump (or anyone else) you have to show a cause/effect relationship. So, what ya got?
The ball's in your court.
.
.
It's useful to look at the lag in the economy to such factors as stock market collapses and other causes of recessions to when we reach bottom. That takes years as does coming out of the bottom and reaching a new top.
What can be attributed to Trump is that the stock market loves him and keeps going higher so there was no "Trump caused a crash" headline. I'll give him that and only that.
But I also want to know how many are employed for decent wages sufficient to provide a decent life for a family. Having growth in below living wage jobs is not a win for anyone and this applies to both the current and past president. There's a structural problem in America and solving that is an issue.
What can be attributed to Trump is that the stock market loves him and keeps going higher so there was no "Trump caused a crash" headline. I'll give him that and only that.
But I also want to know how many are employed for decent wages sufficient to provide a decent life for a family. Having growth in below living wage jobs is not a win for anyone and this applies to both the current and past president. There's a structural problem in America and solving that is an issue.
I have read up on it. I know how the stats are compiled, and that's why I consider them "spin" more than any accurate reflection of the state of affairs in the US economy. The bottom line is that they're not designed to generate truth or accuracy, but to propagate "faith" in the economy and the political system. Without that faith, everything falls apart.
Obviously, since they're employed.
I can't see that the number would be large enough to make a difference.
They are still able to work.
Then that would make the unemployment rate even higher, since teen unemployment is generally higher than the general stats.
It depends on how one defines "disabled." I've worked with numerous employers who hire people with various disabilities. They might have to make some accommodations for them, but just because someone is "disabled" doesn't mean they're unable to work. In some cases, it does mean that, so this is another case where the meaning of a word is "open to interpretation."
Again, this is obvious, since they're employed.
So, if they don't wish to work and are not actively seeking employment, then what are they doing? Just sitting around and sponging off of others? If that's what is going on, then shouldn't that also be reflected in statistics which are supposed to tell us the current status of the economy?
Well, yes, life is complicated, but the "unemployment rate" is viewed as a kind of "scorecard" (among various other so-called "key indicators") which are supposed to give Americans an accurate and truthful view of the true state of the US economy. It should not be used to throw around a few stats as part of massive political spin and propaganda to make people "feel good." That's what it's all about. I can see through the lies and the spin.
The spin is obvious. If the numbers are good, politicians claim credit. If the numbers are bad, it's not their fault.
Untangling cause and effect in our complex economy is hard but over time we can see at least some cause-effect correlations.
Twas just a joke (re some recent references here & there).
I'm not American so this discussion is quite meaningless to me.
But i do have a point of interest.
Many years ago i visited a communist country when the wall was high and the cold war higher. This country boasted 100% employment. One way they achieved this wonderful ideal was at 8 am, the traffic lights were turned off, a person with 2 paddles, red one side, green the other, would walk to the centre of the junction and spend 2 hours signalling traffic to stop or go. At 10am the lights were turned back on. The same procedure occured from 4 until 6.
Hardly relevant but employment related and, i think interesting.
Another thing i noticed was the proliferation of blue or grey box trucks with Albania written on the side. The sheer number, (i would see 200+ of these trucks each day) peeked my interest as to what could Albania be exporting in such vast quantities. When i returned to the uk i did a little research to discover the only thing Albania exported was electricity. Then i really began to think.
But i do have a point of interest.
Many years ago i visited a communist country when the wall was high and the cold war higher. This country boasted 100% employment. One way they achieved this wonderful ideal was at 8 am, the traffic lights were turned off, a person with 2 paddles, red one side, green the other, would walk to the centre of the junction and spend 2 hours signalling traffic to stop or go. At 10am the lights were turned back on. The same procedure occured from 4 until 6.
Hardly relevant but employment related and, i think interesting.
Another thing i noticed was the proliferation of blue or grey box trucks with Albania written on the side. The sheer number, (i would see 200+ of these trucks each day) peeked my interest as to what could Albania be exporting in such vast quantities. When i returned to the uk i did a little research to discover the only thing Albania exported was electricity. Then i really began to think.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what Trump had to do with it....It has been falling for years. What policies do you think he implemented that caused the trend to continue? He may well have influenced it. Glad he didn't reverse the trend.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
It's a sucker bet. No thanks.Are you then going to give Trump "credit" for the fact that today's monthly job report also shows that the average wage slipped slightly downward? I bet not. Anyone want to wager this?