Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

AA, that's only part of the picture although your post intentionally addressed unemployment rates in the context of job creation, since those numbers are what DSL was picking on Trump with.

I don't think there is any escaping that the Obama presidency was good for the economy all things considered despite what the R's and Trump might say about that. I make this assertion in the context of the kinds of questions that get asked come election time, "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? Compared to the R president BO replaced, GWB, all the numbers taken in their entirety (see the link below) suggest a large number of Americans were WAY better off.

While unemployment is, in fact, lower (3.7% compared to 4.8%) during Trumps's presidency compared to Obama's, that figure taken in isolation is not particularly meaningful. Overall It's not likely that a similar complete analysis will favor Trump over Obama when that question is asked come November, 2020. You can be sure Trump and his supporters will insist it is. The numbers, I suspect, aren't going to lie like he does.

I'll add that if a trade deal between the US and China isn't reached pretty soon and the markets and global economy tank because of business discomfort and uncertainty over trade, Trump is going to take a huge hit - and rightfully so.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

[AlabamAlum]

Jeff,

Historically low unemployment rates is essential to consider when one is looking at the BLS' stat of "job creation." The Bureau of Labor Statistics ONLY gives credit for job creation with a filled job (not for a created job opening that remains unfilled). You can like Milton Friedman or not, but I agree with him on this.

The fact that we are close to Obama levels of "job creation" with a sub 4% unemployment is fairly amazing.

[Dr. Strangelove]

AA

Only point is that the Obama economy was nowhere close to as bad as has been portrayed in conservative media. By 2016 national unemployment was under 5% for almost the entire year and Trump has seen it fall by about 1.0 to 1.3% farther.

I understand and get that there are parts of the country that never recovered from 2008 and Obama "skipped over" them. As I said with Talent a month or two ago, I can make an educated guess that most of those same parts of the country haven't actually improved much under Trump (there's been no rush to invest In West Virginia or sudden population growth in Mississippi). New York City, Seattle, San Fran, Boston, DC, all the despised so-called coastal elites are still reaping the vast majority of the benefits as they have done for decades.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

[Dr. Strangelove]

There is also no real ideological pattern to the states with the lowest or highest unemployment. States with smaller populations tend to have lower unemployment though (except for Alaska).

Top 10 (July 2019)
1. Vermont (2.1%)
2. North Dakota (2.4%)
3(t). Iowa (2.5%)
3(t). New Hampshire (2.5%)
5(t). Hawaii (2.8%)
5(t). Utah (2.8%)
7(t). Colorado (2.9%)
7(t). Idaho (2.9%)
7(t). Massachusetts (2.9%)
7(t). South Dakota (2.9%)
7(t). Virginia (2.9%)

Bottom 10 (July 2019)
1. Alaska (6.3%)
2. Mississippi (5.1%)
3. New Mexico (4.9%)
4. Arizona (4.7%)
5. West Virginia (4.6%)
6. Washington (4.6%)
7(t). Michigan (4.3%)
7(t). Louisiana (4.3%)
7(t). Kentucky (4.3%)
10(t). Illinois (4.2%)
10(t). North Carolina (4.2%)

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

[AlabamAlum]

AA

Only point is that the Obama economy was nowhere close to as bad as has been portrayed in conservative media. By 2016 national unemployment was under 5% for almost the entire year and Trump has seen it fall by about 1.0 to 1.3% farther.

I understand and get that there are parts of the country that never recovered from 2008 and Obama "skipped over" them. As I said with Talent a month or two ago, I can make an educated guess that most of those same parts of the country haven't actually improved much under Trump (there's been no rush to invest In West Virginia or sudden population growth in Mississippi). New York City, Seattle, San Fran, Boston, DC, all the despised so-called coastal elites are still reaping the vast majority of the benefits as they have done for decades.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

[AlabamAlum]

There is also no real ideological pattern to the states with the lowest or highest unemployment. States with smaller populations tend to have lower unemployment though (except for Alaska).

Top 10 (July 2019)
1. Vermont (2.1%)
2. North Dakota (2.4%)
3(t). Iowa (2.5%)
3(t). New Hampshire (2.5%)
5(t). Hawaii (2.8%)
5(t). Utah (2.8%)
7(t). Colorado (2.9%)
7(t). Idaho (2.9%)
7(t). Massachusetts (2.9%)
7(t). South Dakota (2.9%)
7(t). Virginia (2.9%)

Bottom 10 (July 2019)
1. Alaska (6.3%)
2. Mississippi (5.1%)
3. New Mexico (4.9%)
4. Arizona (4.7%)
5. West Virginia (4.6%)
6. Washington (4.6%)
7(t). Michigan (4.3%)
7(t). Louisiana (4.3%)
7(t). Kentucky (4.3%)
10(t). Illinois (4.2%)
10(t). North Carolina (4.2%)


https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

It is absolutely amazing that the worst unemployment in the country is only 6.3%. Just phenomenal. Especially when you consider some of the challenges Alaska faces.

[iam416]

Things are horrific. White Nationalism is running everything.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jeff,

Historically low unemployment rates is essential to consider when one is looking at the BLS' stat of "job creation." The Bureau of Labor Statistics ONLY gives credit for job creation with a filled job (not for a created job opening that remains unfilled). You can like Milton Friedman or not, but I agree with him on this.

The fact that we are close to Obama levels of "job creation" with a sub 4% unemployment is fairly amazing.

It's my understanding that Friedman also believed in a "natural rate of unemployment." It can't be lowered by demand management - typically increased government spending or monetary policies like "helicopter money." Lowering the natural rate of unemployment, according to Friedman, can be achieved by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation.

So, yeah, I'm really fine with Friendman and have been since Econ 101 my freshman year at M.

Also worth noting that the Trump administration's apparent agreement with Friedman's supply side theories can be correctly associated with the sub-4% unemployment rate Americans are enjoying right now ....... although you'd never know, if you're reading press reports or listening to the communists running for president, that things are actually pretty good in the USA right now.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Ha, look who's sitting next to the president in the picture linked below. The article accompanying the picture has a point. I'm not a believer in any of Trump's contrived conspiracies but the US economy, nor the global economy overall, are hurting to the extent the doomsayers say they are.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-claims-conspiracy-behind-recession-warnings-report-2019-8

[AlabamAlum]

I assumed you took freshman econ at M well before Friedman was born.

What's so funny is that once you lower the job applicant pool to historically low levels like we have now, you are forced to fill many positions with immigrants or leave the job unfilled. Doing the latter means that you do not get credit for the job's creation. About 1-2% of the potential workforce is unemployable and another 1-2% don't really want to find a job (but they want to "stay on the role to get the dole").

[iam416]

Historically low unemployment rates is essential to consider when one is looking at the BLS' stat of "job creation." The Bureau of Labor Statistics ONLY gives credit for job creation with a filled job (not for a created job opening that remains unfilled). You can like Milton Friedman or not, but I agree with him on this.

The fact that we are close to Obama levels of "job creation" with a sub 4% unemployment is fairly amazing.

This is correct.

It's also quite correct to note that the fundamentally capitalist economy coupled with extremely high barriers to significant change means that the United States sails forward almost regardless of who is at the helm. My concern with that paradigm remains with the latter variable and the lowering of those barriers through the increased use of EOs. As to the former, even though the entire D party has gone full-on socialist, I'm not particularly concerned that the fundamentals will change because there isn't an "EOing" your way to Leninist Russia. Even though I'm sure Warren will try.

In the meantime, let's all enjoy the NYT splendid #1619 series. I assume AOC gave it her stamp of approval as they're, you know, actually running the series. The shameless effort to turn this into a "Vote for me or you're Racist" election by the Ds and the whole of national media is high gear. I mean, it's actually breathtaking to me to see it in operation.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[froot loops]

[iam416]

Things are horrific. Unreal. Really looking forward to #1619 project to learn just how much awful we are than I even imagined.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I hear a socialist is about to be President and trannies are rapin people left and right in unisex bathrooms and demanding to wax their balls.

Mad Max level shit. Society's over.