Closed Thread
You're using "trend" wrong. In the context of these reports "trend" refers to the long-term demographic trend, IE: what would've happened anyway. Which means the Kansas City Fed is saying exactly the thing you were just calling "bogus": that the unemployment rate with a normal demographic trend would still have been 10.7% in 2010, and 10% in 2011.
It is bogus because it is not a real number, it is if this was happening...and it predates Obama. It started under Bush. He had higher unemployment also using the trend numbers. It was being cited by Romney and others as the real unemployment rate.
This has nothing to do with my own claim, nor the point we've been arguing all this time, but I'll reply anyway: when someone says such-and-such is the "real" rate, they're clearly saying that they think it's a better measure. Of course, there is no real rate. Not U3, not U6, not U579. They measure different things, all of which have relevance. There is no empirical way to decide which is the best measure at any one time.
You can bounce around and look at different things, but the stock market goes up and down when the monthly unemployment numbers are released, not the decrease in the active labor participation rate.
But this is neither here nor there. I'm not trying to defend whatever random pronouncement people have made about which measure to use. I'm simply saying that you can't use the unemployment rate by itself to assess the health of the labor market. We agree on this now, yes? Because I don't think we did before.
You can look at other things, I didn't say you couldn't. But you were citing a statistic as evidence of a conclusion that is greatly disputed so is very poor evidence.
Nope; the participation rate was steady under Bush. That's the whole point! Bush's drops in unemployment were the result of an actual increase in hiring, not a lot of people suddenly dropping out of the labor force.
That is not what I read. Not at all. I'll get a source later.
Again, the Kansas City Fed report says half; the Chicago Fed report says less. But either way, the original argument seems to have ended: it's established that we have an unprecedented drop in participation, that the unemployment rate has no way of accounting for it, and thus the unemployment rate is artificially lowered by it. This makes it an inadequate metric for dismissing criticisms about Obama's economic policies.
The Chicago Report's conclusions are the trend is half.
Where does it say that 2011 was half the number? It says that the mark below trend was 1.1% in 2011, but that's it. And 1.8% is a total over four years. You can't subtract 1.1 from 1.8 to get the real difference or anything.
The overall number over four years for the below trend was 1.8, but it was 1.1 in 20011. So it would seem it was much higher in the first year, the first year Obama was in office, and down to 1.1 in 2011. The actual below trend number in the final year is 1.1. What it was in the first half of 2007 can't be directly attributed to Obama's policies. If you really want to claim Obama is responsible for that reduction beyond demographic changes, then you have to examine the numbers each year. Were they steadily declining? You can't subtract the average for a difference, but if the last year is 1.1, it stands to reason if the unemployment rate keeps dropping, then the trend for 2011-2012 has to be much lower than 2007-2011. So the job picture is getting better and the 1.8 number is less important as a statistic because the last recorded stat for a year is almost half that.
And it seems beyond argument that the Chicago Fed agrees with Heritage, at least roughly. Heritage says controlling for demographics, a fifth of the drop from '07 to '11 would've happened anyway. The Chicago Fed says from '08 to '11, a fourth would've happened anyway. What's the issue, exactly? It's cherry-picking because, at first glance, you didn't realize that the mention of half was referring to a different time period?
The difference is emphasis. The Heritage report is drawing a conclusion from the numbers the Chicago report doesn't. He cherry picks to do that because the actual number from 2011 is 1.1, showing a definite and major downward trend. This negates the Heritage report's claims Obama's policies is harming the economy. No real cause and effect. If the much higher numbers occur early in his presidency and there is a huge drop in the later years, then there is steady measurable improvement. When does the biggest drop and increase occur year by year? It is not in the Chicago stats because that is not what they were focused on. Without that you can't even attempt to show a correlation between Obama's policies and the labor participation rate. The Heritage guy is taking a report with an entire different purpose and distort it for his own use.
I really can't figure out what any of this means. Please rephrase.
It is bogus because it is not a real number, it is if this was happening...and it predates Obama. It started under Bush. He had higher unemployment also using the trend numbers. It was being cited by Romney and others as the real unemployment rate.
This has nothing to do with my own claim, nor the point we've been arguing all this time, but I'll reply anyway: when someone says such-and-such is the "real" rate, they're clearly saying that they think it's a better measure. Of course, there is no real rate. Not U3, not U6, not U579. They measure different things, all of which have relevance. There is no empirical way to decide which is the best measure at any one time.
You can bounce around and look at different things, but the stock market goes up and down when the monthly unemployment numbers are released, not the decrease in the active labor participation rate.
But this is neither here nor there. I'm not trying to defend whatever random pronouncement people have made about which measure to use. I'm simply saying that you can't use the unemployment rate by itself to assess the health of the labor market. We agree on this now, yes? Because I don't think we did before.
You can look at other things, I didn't say you couldn't. But you were citing a statistic as evidence of a conclusion that is greatly disputed so is very poor evidence.
Nope; the participation rate was steady under Bush. That's the whole point! Bush's drops in unemployment were the result of an actual increase in hiring, not a lot of people suddenly dropping out of the labor force.
That is not what I read. Not at all. I'll get a source later.
Again, the Kansas City Fed report says half; the Chicago Fed report says less. But either way, the original argument seems to have ended: it's established that we have an unprecedented drop in participation, that the unemployment rate has no way of accounting for it, and thus the unemployment rate is artificially lowered by it. This makes it an inadequate metric for dismissing criticisms about Obama's economic policies.
The Chicago Report's conclusions are the trend is half.
Where does it say that 2011 was half the number? It says that the mark below trend was 1.1% in 2011, but that's it. And 1.8% is a total over four years. You can't subtract 1.1 from 1.8 to get the real difference or anything.
The overall number over four years for the below trend was 1.8, but it was 1.1 in 20011. So it would seem it was much higher in the first year, the first year Obama was in office, and down to 1.1 in 2011. The actual below trend number in the final year is 1.1. What it was in the first half of 2007 can't be directly attributed to Obama's policies. If you really want to claim Obama is responsible for that reduction beyond demographic changes, then you have to examine the numbers each year. Were they steadily declining? You can't subtract the average for a difference, but if the last year is 1.1, it stands to reason if the unemployment rate keeps dropping, then the trend for 2011-2012 has to be much lower than 2007-2011. So the job picture is getting better and the 1.8 number is less important as a statistic because the last recorded stat for a year is almost half that.
And it seems beyond argument that the Chicago Fed agrees with Heritage, at least roughly. Heritage says controlling for demographics, a fifth of the drop from '07 to '11 would've happened anyway. The Chicago Fed says from '08 to '11, a fourth would've happened anyway. What's the issue, exactly? It's cherry-picking because, at first glance, you didn't realize that the mention of half was referring to a different time period?
The difference is emphasis. The Heritage report is drawing a conclusion from the numbers the Chicago report doesn't. He cherry picks to do that because the actual number from 2011 is 1.1, showing a definite and major downward trend. This negates the Heritage report's claims Obama's policies is harming the economy. No real cause and effect. If the much higher numbers occur early in his presidency and there is a huge drop in the later years, then there is steady measurable improvement. When does the biggest drop and increase occur year by year? It is not in the Chicago stats because that is not what they were focused on. Without that you can't even attempt to show a correlation between Obama's policies and the labor participation rate. The Heritage guy is taking a report with an entire different purpose and distort it for his own use.
I really can't figure out what any of this means. Please rephrase.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
