Obama outperforms Reagan on job growth and investing

[DGuller]

What are you getting at? Are you saying that long-term unemployment - aka "people who have given up" as well as "homemakers" - was significantly different during Reagan's years compared to Obama's? If so, feel free to tell us how you're reaching that conclusion.

If you don't think there's much of a difference, then what does it matter when the topic of discussion is comparing Reagan's performance with Obama's?

Or are you saying that we should include long-term unemployed during Obama's years but not during Reagan's, so we can preserve Reagan's apparent status as being good for the economy in spite of inconvenient facts?

... or something else?

I have no idea what the long term unemployment rate in the 80s was. I'd like to know so that it can be compared to the long term unemployment rate now. Otherwise we're just throwing around pointless numbers that don't mean anything. You can't draw an accurate conclusion over whose better with those.

You objection is on the face of it valid, until one looks at the facts.  The the official unemployment rate, and the more expanded measure that includes "unemployed but not officially so", are always going up and down in lockstep.  That relationship hasn't really changed appreciably going all the way back to Great Depression.  Therefore, the unemployment numbers you declare pointless are in fact very pointful.

[CountDeMoney]

What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?

See, that doesn't matter, because according to Yi, it's just housewives that would prefer to stay home.

[CountDeMoney]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.

[DGuller]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.

Uh, no.  You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.

[CountDeMoney]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.

Uh, no.  You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.

I'm not Googling any hoes.  And no hoe is going to tell me that they're successfully tracking the long-term unemployed to the degree of those on the welfare rolls.

[HVC]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.

Uh, no.  You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.

man times are tough when even hookers can't get a job


Yes I know I'm the last one to make a spelling joke.

[DGuller]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.

Uh, no.  You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.

I'm not Googling any hoes.  And no hoe is going to tell me that they're successfully tracking the long-term unemployed to the degree of those on the welfare rolls.

Speaking from ignorance is more convenient?

[Eddie Teach]

Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me, but I don't remember Guller or Jacob gushing about how well the economy is doing in threads where the discussion didn't begin with an article couching the debate in terms of praising Obama for "his" awesome economy.

[DGuller]

Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me, but I don't remember Guller or Jacob gushing about how well the economy is doing in threads where the discussion didn't begin with an article couching the debate in terms of praising Obama for "his" awesome economy.

You're right, I wasn't gushing about how well the economy is doing in other threads.  You can even expand that to say that I'm not gushing about how well the economy is doing in this thread either.  I'm just responding to invalid counter-arguments here of the type "well, if you add up all the discouraged workers, part-time workers, and workers who have a job but hate their bosses, the unemployment now is higher than it was in Great Depression ".

[DGuller]

A lot of them have given up. They should still count.

There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.

Uh, no.  You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.

man times are tough when even hookers can't get a job


Yes I know I'm the last one to make a spelling joke.

Oh, I just got that. 

[Eddie Teach]

You're right, I wasn't gushing about how well the economy is doing in other threads.  You can even expand that to say that I'm not gushing about how well the economy is doing in this thread either.  I'm just responding to invalid counter-arguments here of the type "well, if you add up all the discouraged workers, part-time workers, and workers who have a job but hate their bosses, the unemployment now is higher than it was in Great Depression ".

Considering the labor participation rate has been going down since 2008, while it was rising in the 1980s, it's disingenuous to simply compare the unemployment rates straight up.

[DGuller]

You're right, I wasn't gushing about how well the economy is doing in other threads.  You can even expand that to say that I'm not gushing about how well the economy is doing in this thread either.  I'm just responding to invalid counter-arguments here of the type "well, if you add up all the discouraged workers, part-time workers, and workers who have a job but hate their bosses, the unemployment now is higher than it was in Great Depression ".

Considering the labor participation rate has been going down since 2008, while it was rising in the 1980s, it's disingenuous to simply compare the unemployment rates straight up.

I already addressed that in several posts to Tim.  Besides the official U3 index, there are other more expansive indices, up to U6, that count even people that work part-time for economic reasons.  They don't bear out that criticism.

[Eddie Teach]

And people who don't work part time? Not counted, right?

Besides, the unemployment rate isn't being used here simply as a measure of how easy or difficult it is to get a job, but as a measure of the economy's ability to create jobs. Older people deciding to retire and go on social security(whether voluntarily or because they simply can't find another job that pays what they're used to) make the unemployment rate look better.

[DGuller]

And people who don't work part time? Not counted, right?

If they're looking for work, they are counted.  If they're not looking for work because they're discouraged, they're still counted in U6.

Besides, the unemployment rate isn't being used here simply as a measure of how easy or difficult it is to get a job, but as a measure of the economy's ability to create jobs. Older people deciding to retire and go on social security(whether voluntarily or because they simply can't find another job that pays what they're used to) make the unemployment rate look better.

Yes, every statistic can be misleading.  The burden is on you to show how it's misleading, and how the situation is different now compared to Reagan's time.  Otherwise, any number can be selectively dismissed without any debunking.

[CountDeMoney]

Speaking from ignorance is more convenient?

Yes, every statistic can be misleading.