Some interesting facts in this article - PSA - they ain't good

[brycejones]

So we're supposed to be swayed by the guy using ain't in the thread title?

 

[Bart*Simpson]

From the brink of a second Great Depression to 4.9% unemployment. Not bad.

5% unemployment with 37.2% (in May) of able-bodied, working-age Americans out of work.

Gee, do you think someone's cooking the books? Do you wonder why they're lying to you right out in the open?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/

 

[dank69]

5% unemployment with 37.2% (in May) of able-bodied, working-age Americans out of work.

Gee, do you think someone's cooking the books? Do you wonder why they're lying to you right out in the open?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/

Your link is broken

 

[fskimospy]

5% unemployment with 37.2% (in May) of able-bodied, working-age Americans out of work.

Gee, do you think someone's cooking the books? Do you wonder why they're lying to you right out in the open?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/

Can you explain how you think someone is cooking the books?

 

[brycejones]

5% unemployment with 37.2% (in May) of able-bodied, working-age Americans out of work.

Gee, do you think someone's cooking the books? Do you wonder why they're lying to you right out in the open?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/

Why is it one of you dumbasses shows up in every thread about unemployment? Please be very specific about how the numbers are being rigged. Please account for adults in school, staying home with the kids, etc in your math of how the 'real' unemployment rate is some number much closer to 37% than roughly 5%. Should be no problem for you to do it. Hopefully you can do a better job then linking to articles.

 

[brycejones]

Your link is broken

Lots of things are broken with Bart the link is just a metaphor.

 

[echo4747]

Can you explain how you think someone is cooking the books?

It not really cooking the books. but the way the news media reports this info is very misleading. They should report the good with the bad (4.9% unemployment rate is fairly good ... 37.2% able bodied working age americans not in the workforce is bad) It is somewhat compounded by the fact that, in this day/age it usually takes 2 working adults to provide the same level of lifestyle that just only a few decades ago one employed family member could provide.

 

[fskimospy]

It not really cooking the books. but the way the news media reports this info is very misleading. They should report the good with the bad (4.9% unemployment rate is fairly good ... 37.2% able bodied working age americans not in the workforce is bad)

They literally do this already. While it was tangentially mentioned this month it was directly referenced last month and is in fact mentioned in nearly every story on job report numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-wages.html?_r=0

On the other side of the ledger, the labor force participation rate declined for the second consecutive month, to 62.6 percent, and the number of people working part time for economic reasons rose sharply.

Since they are doing exactly what you say you want them to do, what's up?

Also, the labor force participation rate does not just include 'able bodied working age Americans' it includes everyone 16 and over regardless of how able bodied they are. A 108 year old person is in the 'labor force'. A quadriplegic is in the 'labor force'.

It is somewhat compounded by the fact that, in this day/age it usually takes 2 working adults to provide the same level of lifestyle that just only a few decades ago one employed family member could provide.

This is a pretty nebulous idea but overall no it does not require this.

 

[Phynaz]

The CBO says that it is reasonably likely the US will never see growth above 3% again

And that makes it ok?

 

[fskimospy]

And that makes it ok?

What do you mean by ok? If the US is never going to see 3% growth in a year then it's silly to fault someone for not achieving it, no?

 

[abj13]

And that makes it ok?

You do realize that GDP growth also raises the inflation rate, correct? The Federal Reserve tries to target an inflation rate of 2%, which usually means GDP growth should be restricted to a maximum of ~3% (higher/lower depending on who you read). GDP growth above those percentages translates into higher inflation, and risks getting into cycles of hyperinflation etc. The United States has already faced the dangers of sustained high rates of inflation, see the 1970's.

Anytime someone writes something to to the extent of "If a president fails to achieve a GDP growth over 3% is a failure" means
1) The writer understands the economy at the level of Donald Trump
2) Failed macroeconomics
3) Doesn't understand the role of Federal Reserve

 

[retrospooty]

Anytime someone writes something to to the extent of "If a president fails to achieve a GDP growth over 3% is a failure" means
1) The writer understands the economy at the level of Donald Trump
2) Failed macroeconomics
3) Doesn't understand the role of Federal Reserve

Its quite obvious by the entire post that the OP doesn't understand anything about the economy, he is just parroting misleading facts collected by an agenda based outlet for the purpose of misleading its readers.

Here is a more accurate version of what happened.
- Bush and his reps did a horrific job, and in congress left Obama with the economy in an absolute tailspin. The worst since the great depression.
- Obama did a "so so" job helping the recovery
- There are many other factors and players involved

Yes, lets all pile on the lesser of the problems here.

 

[IronWing]

Looks like we have a minor import problem here. Either that or the forum automatically strikes out points of view that make no sense.

 

[werepossum]

People like to say that we've lost our manufacturing base but that's not really true. Our manufacturing output is as high as ever and continuing upwards. What we have seen is a fairly serious decline in manufacturing employment, which is different.

What we really have in this case is a major expansion of automation when it comes to manufacturing which increases the returns for capital and decreases the returns for labor. It's not that much of that new spending is going overseas, it's that much of that new spending is going to fewer individuals here because a car that took 100 people to build 50 years ago takes 5 now. (made up numbers)

It's also important to note that trade overall comprises a bit over 20% of US GDP and that includes both imports and exports, so the vast majority of stimulus spending is staying within the economy.

Two things here. First, that manufacturing number is whacked because the car that took 100 people to build 50 years ago takes 5 now in part because so many of its components are now made in China or Mexico. I'm seeing the same thing in construction products: Sure, the light fixture is billed as being manufactured in America, but the casting is from China, the connectors are from China, and the LED driver is from China. Americans assemble the board (if that), cast the lens, and then assemble the final product. I'm also seeing the results of that, as my third large client is being bought out by a Chinese-owned company. Chinese people are not enamored of little green portraits of dead Americans; they take that huge trade imbalance and put part of it to work buying American companies, so that they also get the profit that comes from cheap labor.

The other point is that the consumer goods market is almost wholly imported goods. When people have a sudden and temporary increase in cash due to stimulus, they very seldom have enough to buy a new car or a new house. They probably do have enough to buy a new stereo, television, MP3 player, etc. The manufacturing cost (and increasingly the manufacturer's profit and expenses) from that sale leaves our economy. It may come back in small measure, but we have a huge trade imbalance simply because we buy much more than we sell.

 

[fskimospy]

Two things here. First, that manufacturing number is whacked because the car that took 100 people to build 50 years ago takes 5 now in part because so many of its components are now made in China or Mexico. I'm seeing the same thing in construction products: Sure, the light fixture is billed as being manufactured in America, but the casting is from China, the connectors are from China, and the LED driver is from China. Americans assemble the board (if that), cast the lens, and then assemble the final product. I'm also seeing the results of that, as my third large client is being bought out by a Chinese-owned company. Chinese people are not enamored of little green portraits of dead Americans; they take that huge trade imbalance and put part of it to work buying American companies, so that they also get the profit that comes from cheap labor.

The other point is that the consumer goods market is almost wholly imported goods. When people have a sudden and temporary increase in cash due to stimulus, they very seldom have enough to buy a new car or a new house. They probably do have enough to buy a new stereo, television, MP3 player, etc. The manufacturing cost (and increasingly the manufacturer's profit and expenses) from that sale leaves our economy. It may come back in small measure, but we have a huge trade imbalance simply because we buy much more than we sell.

Hiw exactly do you mean our numbers are 'whack'? It doesn't matter if things manufactured in the US use foreign made parts any more than it matters if those parts manufactured in China use foreign made machines to do it. US manufacturing output is as high or higher than ever.

As for what happens with stimulus spending, you're forgetting that the cost of every item purchased is not only manufacturing costs it is transport (US spending), intellectual property (US), salesperson salary (US), rent for facilities (US), advertising (US), etc.

Look at this example of a hypothetical shirt for sale. Clothes can be a more extreme example than some other things, but check out how little of the cost of $14 Bangladesh is actually seeing.
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/what-does-that-14-shirt-really-cost/

So again no, the vast majority of stimulus spending stays in the country. Hell, if you don't want to look at it that way just look at our trade deficit as a % of GDP, then subtract that from 1.

 

[werepossum]

Hiw exactly do you mean our numbers are 'whack'? It doesn't matter if things manufactured in the US use foreign made parts any more than it matters if those parts manufactured in China use foreign made machines to do it. US manufacturing output is as high or higher than ever.

As for what happens with stimulus spending, you're forgetting that the cost of every item purchased is not only manufacturing costs it is transport (US spending), intellectual property (US), salesperson salary (US), rent for facilities (US), advertising (US), etc.

Look at this example of a hypothetical shirt for sale. Clothes can be a more extreme example than some other things, but check out how little of the cost of $14 Bangladesh is actually seeing.
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/what-does-that-14-shirt-really-cost/

So again no, the vast majority of stimulus spending stays in the country. Hell, if you don't want to look at it that way just look at our trade deficit as a % of GDP, then subtract that from 1.

That's an outlier though. Wages in some Chinese cities are approaching American cities'. When GE brought back its high end appliances, that's why - they were paying as much for Chinese labor as for American labor. In general, the more intricate and difficult to produce product, the more the manufacturer earns. And as I said before, China is also buying American companies, so they take the manufacturing costs AND the profit.

 

[norseamd]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...ending-one-father-or-meltdown-us-economy.html

Here's some of the more interesting bits:

• Obama is the only president in the history of America to preside over 7 straight years of GDP growth under 3 percent.

• Obama will become the only president in America’s history to never produce a single year of 3% or higher GDP.

• The longest previous streak of under 3% GDP in the history of America was four years (1930 to 1933) during the depths of the Great Depression.

• There are 70 percent more Americans collecting entitlement checks than working in the private sector (148 million “takers” vs. 86 million “makers”).

• 13 of the 23 Obamacare State Co-Op Exchanges have failed (gone bust and broke). The remaining 10 have losses of over $200 million per year.

• In this Obama economy, 40% of American workers now earn less (adjusted for inflation) than a full-time minimum wage worker in 1968.

• Forty-three percent of student loan borrowers aren’t making any loan payments.

Trump might represent the end of when a republican candidate has a chance of being president. But it also shows how Democratic policies in general are starting to kill this country by a death of a thousand needles.

FWIW - some of the line items in this article unfairly attribute 100% of the blame to Obama.
He did come into one of the worst economic situations in recent memory. But he still bears at least some of the responsibility for failing to adequately address many of the above noted issues.

What, has Obama not given the IT Law hoodlums enough Swarovski Crystals?