GasBandit
Staff member
It didn't take much for me to believe that In Living Color told the true story of how it was written.
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I mean, the way they calculate the employment rate IS pure bullshit fiction. The labor participation rate never recovered, they just didn't count people who gave up and stopped looking for work as unemployed.
And yeah, the democrats definitely do share at least equally in the blame for the 2008 crash, given that they screamed "RACISM" every time someone suggested it might not be the best idea to cook the books to social-engineer the indigent into homeownership.
And yeah, the democrats definitely do share at least equally in the blame for the 2008 crash, given that they screamed "RACISM" every time someone suggested it might not be the best idea to cook the books to social-engineer the indigent into homeownership.
Which hasn't changed, so there' no difference now... well, except for one:
Also, you haven't been browsing reddit today if you didn't know that "there;s a chart for that too": http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
And here's the participation rate, where, at least you're right that it hasn't recovered (it does seem to have stabilized, at least), but that's only about 5% less then in 2000
YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.1 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.4 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.3 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.9
2014 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8
2015 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.7 62.6 62.6 62.3 62.5 62.5 62.7
2016 62.8 62.9 63.0 62.8 62.6 62.7 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7
2017 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.7 62.7 62.7
You still on that bullshit?
If it was just because the US doing it because of what you said, and not because the banks found a way to package bullshit with gold and sell them at the price of gold, then it would have only affected US banks, and not the whole world, because the BS would only be packaged there.
....
And, also, Obama wasn't exactly a prominent Democrat yet when what you're complaining about happened, so, you know, even if true, blaming him over it is a bit on the nose.
I don't think he even mentioned Obama 0_o
No, the image he responded to did.
GasBandit
Staff member
Rather than an inscrutable matrix of numbers, here's a better look at the LFPR
That 3% drop during the Obama administration is about 9 million people/jobs. If you went by 07's LFPR, that obama "recovery" would have shot up over 10% unemployment and stayed there, pretty much.[DOUBLEPOST=1517424945,1517424787][/DOUBLEPOST]
That 3% drop during the Obama administration is about 9 million people/jobs. If you went by 07's LFPR, that obama "recovery" would have shot up over 10% unemployment and stayed there, pretty much.[DOUBLEPOST=1517424945,1517424787][/DOUBLEPOST]
FTFY[DOUBLEPOST=1517425132][/DOUBLEPOST]
The world IS affected by US banks. And yes, the subprime mortgage collapse WAS the primary catalyst, and all attempts to take measures to stop it WERE shouted down by democrats - most notably Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Is it really that hard to subtract 62.9 from 67.3 ?
Also, does having a big chart that says exactly what i said helps your argument how?
....
2007: 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2016: 62.8 62.9 63.0 62.8 62.6 62.7 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7
So actually it would be less then 10%, since 4 (maybe 5) out of 62 is 6.5-8%. But that's besides the point, really.
...
Since the data is for 16 and up, we need more data to see how many of those are boomers that aged out of the labour force, and us lazy Gen X'rs haven't replaced by being born in lesser numbers.
And you're really not giving him enough credit for actually stabilising it after years of it clearly dropping precipitously.
...
But then again, we're discussing something completely different then that chart i posted, since, again, nothing has changed this year about how they calculate it, so the point there stands just fine.
Clearly you haven't understood (or bothered to try) what i was saying.
If the bad loans where just in the US (let alone just to people buying homes), the international effects wouldn't have been as severe. Or don't you remember the Dot Com crash?
It was the 1st domino to fall. Without all the others behind it, it would have been one short domino fall.
So, not Obama then. Glad we agree.
Also, reality is a bit more complicated then "X did it": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac
GasBandit
Staff member
The fact that it has always been bullshit and that hasn't changed, doesn't mean that it is making a valid point. It was bullshit, it is bullshit.
What exactly did you think the point of it was, besides the fact that Trump bragging about his jobs numbers is BS, since they';re the same as those he complained about under Obama?
...
I mean, i understand that you where complaining about your pet issues there, but, as i said, they're not the ones being attacked by that image.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's a trump-hater's strawman depiction of a trump lover's alleged position, sarcastically refuted by using a graph that ostensibly (but not actually) depicts a recovery because it is using a metric that can literally say anything a politician wants it to without regard to the actual situation it purports to represent.
That's my beef.
I wonder which one is Melania.
Do i really need to link to Spicer saying the jobs are real now again?
Or Trump tweeting about it? For fucks sakes, he just recently told Jay-Z about black unemployment like days ago.
Also, if the recovery wasn't real under Obama, it's not real under Trump either, so i can't for the life of me imagine why you're arguing the Trump stuff too, after i pointed out we're talking about something else.
No sorry, the chart can't say anything you want, even if, by not including the people that are not in the labour force any more (for various reasons), it isn't as accurate as it should be in order to show if it actually is a good recovery or not.
GasBandit
Staff member
You say that, but I remember when 5% unemployment under Dubya during Gulf War 2 was trumpeted as a sign the economy was collapsing. Even though people (like me) pointed out that 5% unemployment under Clinton was heralded as indicating the economy was booming. Yes, people CAN make statistics say anything they want them to, especially when the way they come up with them is rigged.
So you remember people lying, and, to you, that means the charts they where misrepresenting where at fault?
I mean, for fucks sakes, dude, you're the one pointing out that the charts said the same thing both times.
GasBandit
Staff member
What I've said, every time, is that the unemployment rate is a meaningless metric that can be manipulated to mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.
And i countered that no, it's not, you just need to be aware of the context in which it's calculated, and what it misses.
You know, like all statistics. People just suck at understanding statistics.
You might as well say science is meaningless because, if you ignore a variable, the results don't tell you whole "situation" (excluding variables on purpose in order to see the "situation" without the variable is perfectly legitimate science, you just have to acknowledge that etc.)
It's a meaningless metric for determining if you have poverty, but that's also true if wages keep up with inflation, but are too low in the first place...
It's like it only shows the % of people that have a job...
figmentPez
Staff member
And what meaning does that have in any political context? (Are we going to have a debate over the meaning of the word meaning?) In a political speech, is there ever a time when saying "the unemployment rate has gone down" correctly informs the listener of some greater point? Or does it just sound good, despite having no correlation with what a politician is using it to imply?
FTFY.
You left out a pretty big piece of context for the employment rate.
The stat can be useful when viewed with context and more information, but it's largely meaningless on its own. Especially when someone tries to use it as a talking point.
It's almost as if i think sarcasm works best if you leave something to the imagination of the listener, and don't just spell everything out...
All stats are meaningless if the listener has no idea of what it actually represents. Or, worse, if they don't understand that context always matters.
And that includes Gas' dear little LFPS. For all we know most of the people not looking for work could just be enjoying their veteran's pension... oh, wait, we're talking US, change that to homelessness and being harassed by small town sheriffs. heh, couldn't resist
And, once again, i'm going to point out that that in no way changes the idea behind the chart i posted and it's accuracy about the trumpets views.
Also, you're using the LFPS in the same way, since we have no context about the people that are no longer looking for work... how many are just boomers ageing out of the work force? And how many are Rambo?
GasBandit
Staff member
I guarantee you that the 9 million people who fell out of the workforce between 2008 and 2009 were not all boomers retiring en masse at that exact moment. The myriad "nobody has a job/we're all underemployed" articles that dominated for years after that would attest that the decrease in the LFPS was not a bunch of jobs opening up due to retirement.
