ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd May 2019, 09:32 AM   #1
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,292
Unemployment hits 49-year low

https://apnews.com/8a603c0717d44e9a9edca5f342129685

The unemployment rate fell to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%, though that drop reflected a rise in the number of people who stopped looking for work. Average hourly pay rose 3.2% from 12 months earlier, a healthy increase that matched the increase in March.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 09:41 AM   #2
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
https://apnews.com/8a603c0717d44e9a9edca5f342129685

The unemployment rate fell to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%, though that drop reflected a rise in the number of people who stopped looking for work. Average hourly pay rose 3.2% from 12 months earlier, a healthy increase that matched the increase in March.
Is that a figure that has been calculated and readily available?
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 09:56 AM   #3
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,899
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
https://apnews.com/8a603c0717d44e9a9edca5f342129685

The unemployment rate fell to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%
And all it took was an increase in the U.S. national debt of billions of dollars!

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Quote:
though that drop reflected a rise in the number of people who stopped looking for work.
Remember the good old days during the 2016 election, when Trump claimed that the "real" jobless rate was in the 40% range? I wonder what that Trump would think of the current jobless rate? "They claim its 3.6%, but I hear its much higher.. 30 or 40%!"
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 10:07 AM   #4
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,285
Commentary from an expert on these numbers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...him-look-good/
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 10:16 AM   #5
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,889
This is good news. Hiring and keeping people is becoming tougher for sure, which will definitely drive up entry-level wages.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 10:17 AM   #6
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
No question the unemployment numbers are also a result of people dropping out of work due to opioide addiction.

A this point, Macroeconomics strongly recommends to expand work visa programs dramatically.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 05:48 PM   #7
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,342
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
No question the unemployment numbers are also a result of people dropping out of work due to opioide addiction.

A this point, Macroeconomics strongly recommends to expand work visa programs dramatically.
Sounds too dangerous to work in this country with all those drugs!!! You'd think people wouldn't want to come here, yet they still do.

The unemployment numbers have always, at least in recent times, allowed for those who "drop out of the work force", so nothing new there. Opioid addiction has been pretty bad for awhile now as well.

Quote:
Dr. Keith
Commentary from an expert on these numbers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...him-look-good/
What Trump thinks is irrelevant - either the numbers are lower or they are not.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 05:54 PM   #8
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,949
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...icipation-rate

the labor participation rate is dropping. Not good.
__________________
Doubt world tour locations:

Detroit, Mexico, Detroit, Mexico....
Repeat for all of 2017 except when on vacation.
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 07:09 PM   #9
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,617
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Sounds too dangerous to work in this country with all those drugs!!! You'd think people wouldn't want to come here, yet they still do.

The unemployment numbers have always, at least in recent times, allowed for those who "drop out of the work force", so nothing new there. Opioid addiction has been pretty bad for awhile now as well.


What Trump thinks is irrelevant - either the numbers are lower or they are not.
U6 does not appear to be diverging from U3. I would expect your theory would cause stagnation in U6 lowering. It is not

https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 09:02 PM   #10
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And all it took was an increase in the U.S. national debt of billions of dollars!

You mean trillions, don't you?


I've been a deficit "hawk" all my life, and I've waited for gloom and doom to descend due to the national debt. It really hasn't, so far. I just hope I was wrong about it all these years, rather than the other possibility, which is that the tipping point will come just as I have built up a genuinely significant sum of money in a retirement fund, to the point where my age and amount of money might actually allow me to, you know, retire.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 09:17 PM   #11
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
The numbers are good news for Trump now, but that just means that voters will take it for granted in 2020.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 09:30 PM   #12
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,251
thanks Obama.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 10:51 PM   #13
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Sounds too dangerous to work in this country with all those drugs!!! You'd think people wouldn't want to come here, yet they still do.
Drugs?!? What about the endemic systemic racism these imported workers will face once they are here? The microaggressions alone can drive anybody stark raving mad.

Quote:
The unemployment numbers have always, at least in recent times, allowed for those who "drop out of the work force", so nothing new there. Opioid addiction has been pretty bad for awhile now as well.
Those who "drop out of the work force" along with those who are underemployed in low paying part time jobs. Unemployment might be lower but the standard of living is also lower. But since this disproportionately hurts African Americans, the Left doesn't care.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 12:23 AM   #14
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,175
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
https://apnews.com/8a603c0717d44e9a9edca5f342129685

The unemployment rate fell to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%, though that drop reflected a rise in the number of people who stopped looking for work. Average hourly pay rose 3.2% from 12 months earlier, a healthy increase that matched the increase in March.
All the official data on employment and unemployment shows an ongoing continuation of the trends started by Obama. There appears to be no wavering from those trends lines during the Trump period.

Conclusion: Nothing the Trump administration has done has affected the employment situation, one way or the other, for the last two years. They are completely ineffectual. They are now a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 06:52 AM   #15
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
All the official data on employment and unemployment shows an ongoing continuation of the trends started by Obama. There appears to be no wavering from those trends lines during the Trump period.

Conclusion: Nothing the Trump administration has done has affected the employment situation, one way or the other, for the last two years. They are completely ineffectual. They are now a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
I think presidents generally get too much credit or too much blame for the state of the economy. I think factors beyond their control have more influence than most governmental policies, at least as long as there is nothing drastic, way outside of anything that is done in America. In other words, extreme socialist policies could really damage the economy, but a 5% tax increase or a 5% cut isn't going to drive the economy very far one way or another.

I've looked for data to confirm that, and it seems that tax cuts or tax hikes within the range that America has had have had little effect. We've had prosperous times with high taxes, and with lower taxes. We've had recessions with high taxes, and with low taxes. Crunching the numbers to try and find a correlation, there doesn't seem to be one. (Note: If anyone wishes to prove me wrong by citing some good research proving the case, feel free. I've looked for it. I haven't found it. One word of caution, though, if the research cited uses the word "endogenous", I will laugh at it.)


Nevertheless, government can have some short term effects, and cutting regulations and cutting taxes would both tend to be short term economic stimuli. At the very least, Trump is doing no short term economic harm, and whatever he is doing is working, for now. Will there be long term consequences?

One thing is certain. Economies do have good times and bad. If the good times of today have taken a downturn by next November, Trump critics will say it just took some time for Trump's terrible policies to take effect, and Trump supporters will say it would have worked if the Democrats hadn't screwed it up. (Note the Democrats don't even have to do anything to screw it up. When it comes to politics, the Other Party can cause economic woe even when Our Party controls all three branches of government. Their mere existence can be a drag on the economy. If the Other Party actually gains some power, as it usually does in off term elections, then it's clear that it is Their fault if prosperity doesn't continue.)
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 07:07 AM   #16
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,617
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
All the official data on employment and unemployment shows an ongoing continuation of the trends started by Obama. There appears to be no wavering from those trends lines during the Trump period.

Conclusion: Nothing the Trump administration has done has affected the employment situation, one way or the other, for the last two years. They are completely ineffectual. They are now a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
I don't know if we can conclude that. There are systems such that as it approaches some value, the resources and energy to achieve each additional unit increases. There are systems that work the exact opposite.

I think it would take more data to determine if he has had no effect, made it better, or made it worse.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 08:17 AM   #17
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You mean trillions, don't you?

I've been a deficit "hawk" all my life, and I've waited for gloom and doom to descend due to the national debt. It really hasn't, so far. I just hope I was wrong about it all these years, rather than the other possibility, which is that the tipping point will come just as I have built up a genuinely significant sum of money in a retirement fund, to the point where my age and amount of money might actually allow me to, you know, retire.
I also tend towards the deficit hawk end of the spectrum. The cumulative increase in Nat Debt during the current admin is substantially lower than during the Obama or Clinton admin. The amount of Debt that has been added during the Trump admin most closely resembles the W Bush period. Looks like fiscal conservatives strike again.

Source
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And all it took was an increase in the U.S. national debt of billions of dollars!

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306


...
How is that different than any other president? The nat debt has been increasing for most of the US's history. The more important question is who got the best ROI for that debt?

The lowest unemployment figure in 49 years implies that the debt accumulated during the present term has had the greatest positive impact on populace.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
U6 does not appear to be diverging from U3. I would expect your theory would cause stagnation in U6 lowering. It is not

https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
Doesn't the U6 always resemble U3? That is to say, to get U6 you take U3 times a scalar.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't know if we can conclude that. There are systems such that as it approaches some value, the resources and energy to achieve each additional unit increases. There are systems that work the exact opposite.

I think it would take more data to determine if he has had no effect, made it better, or made it worse.
I agree. I can see how someone could erroneously come to that conclusion if they examined the unemployment figure by itself. However, there are many other factors that contribute to the unemployment figure, and those numbers are very different when taken over the same time period.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 08:22 AM   #18
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
The difference about Trump's debt is that it is caused entirely by tax cuts, not by state interventions to rescue an economy on the brink of collapse.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 10:40 AM   #19
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
The cumulative increase in Nat Debt during the current admin is substantially lower than during the Obama or Clinton admin.


Clinton? The one where we achieved a budget surplus? Did you mean to write that?



Obama was indeed a spender. I'll cut him a lot of slack during the first couple of years of his tenure, because the economy truly was falling off a cliff at the time, but I would have preferred a bit more fiscal responsibility during his second term.


Trump has no excuse.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 12:24 PM   #20
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,617
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The difference about Trump's debt is that it is caused entirely by tax cuts, not by state interventions to rescue an economy on the brink of collapse.
So?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 02:14 PM   #21
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Clinton? The one where we achieved a budget surplus? Did you mean to write that?



Obama was indeed a spender. I'll cut him a lot of slack during the first couple of years of his tenure, because the economy truly was falling off a cliff at the time, but I would have preferred a bit more fiscal responsibility during his second term.


Trump has no excuse.
If the Clinton budget had a surplus, then how is it possible that the national debt increased? And it increased by more than W Bush’s or Trumps?

I cut Obama slack as well.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 02:24 PM   #22
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The difference about Trump's debt is that it is caused entirely by tax cuts, not by state interventions to rescue an economy on the brink of collapse.
Thus far, the amount of debt accumulated by Trump is less than Obama’s (By about half), and if we take the unemployment level as measure of success of that debt, then Trumpian Economics resulted in a higher ROI for that debt.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 02:29 PM   #23
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,175
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I agree. I can see how someone could erroneously come to that conclusion if they examined the unemployment figure by itself. However, there are many other factors that contribute to the unemployment figure, and those numbers are very different when taken over the same time period.
Thing is, looking at all the numbers and ratios provided by official statistics on employment and unemployment, it is difficult if not impossible to tell where the Obama effect ended and the Trump effect began. Even allowing 12 months for the effect of the former policies to "wear off" while the latter "kicked in". There was a dramatic ramp up in 2007-2008 at the end of the Bush era, considered as a recession. Going on a straight calendar - Trump responsible from Jan 2017 - the downward curves just continue smoothly from about 2009 when Obama's response came into effect. The Trump policies have had no noticeable effect. Hence my conclusion - there has either been no change, or no effective change.

I have not looked at the corresponding curves for spending, debt or other fiscal policies over time. I expect these will be much different.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2019, 03:12 PM   #24
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
If the Clinton budget had a surplus, then how is it possible that the national debt increased? And it increased by more than W Bush’s or Trumps?

I cut Obama slack as well.
Where are you getting your numbers?

Clinton ran a surplus at the end of his term. Overall the debt increased slightly during his time in office. The total increase in the debt during his term was less than any president since Jimmy Carter, and was less than Donald Trump's first year in office.

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/the-u-s-d...so-big-3305778
ETA: I'm basing my numbers on the graph, which gives debt based on the beginning of fiscal years. In that reckoning, Barack Obama's fiscal tenure went from 9/30/2009 through 9/30/2017.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 4th May 2019 at 03:16 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 08:13 AM   #25
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Where are you getting your numbers?

Clinton ran a surplus at the end of his term. Overall the debt increased slightly during his time in office. The total increase in the debt during his term was less than any president since Jimmy Carter, and was less than Donald Trump's first year in office.

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/the-u-s-d...so-big-3305778
ETA: I'm basing my numbers on the graph, which gives debt based on the beginning of fiscal years. In that reckoning, Barack Obama's fiscal tenure went from 9/30/2009 through 9/30/2017.
The source of my curiosity was the 'Federal Debt Accumulated by President' graph at this Business Insider Link.

That resulted in me downloading the data from treasurydirect.gov and creating a graph in excel. I've attached a screen shot of that graph.

If the national budget was balanced during Bill Clinton's Presidency, then how could the National Deficit of increased? It increased regardless if the deficit is taken over his entire presidency, or year to year.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg US Deficit During Bill Clinton Presidency.jpg (17.2 KB, 21 views)
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 08:26 AM   #26
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
The source of my curiosity was the 'Federal Debt Accumulated by President' graph at this Business Insider Link.

That resulted in me downloading the data from treasurydirect.gov and creating a graph in excel. I've attached a screen shot of that graph.

If the national budget was balanced during Bill Clinton's Presidency, then how could the National Deficit of increased? It increased regardless if the deficit is taken over his entire presidency, or year to year.
Over his entire presidency, the debt increased, but not every year. Look at the year 2000 on your graph. The slope is negative.

But what really raised my eyebrows was your previous contention that the magnitude of the debt increase under Clinton was comparable to other presidents. It wasn't. The debt increased less under Clinton than it did under Reagan, under GWB, under Obama, or even under a single year of the Donald Trump era. I'm not sure how it compares to GHWB. I think in the four years of that administration, the debt increase might have been slightly lower than the eight years of the Clinton administration. The average increase, i.e the annual deficit, was less under Clinton than under GHWB.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 09:14 AM   #27
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,617
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
The source of my curiosity was the 'Federal Debt Accumulated by President' graph at this Business Insider Link.

That resulted in me downloading the data from treasurydirect.gov and creating a graph in excel. I've attached a screen shot of that graph.

If the national budget was balanced during Bill Clinton's Presidency, then how could the National Deficit of increased? It increased regardless if the deficit is taken over his entire presidency, or year to year.
You are still mixing up deficit and debt.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 09:01 AM   #28
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,899
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Quote:
And all it took was an increase in the U.S. national debt of billions of dollars!
Source
How is that different than any other president?
Usually, in no-wartime situations, the deficit should increase during recessions and economic slowdowns, and decrease when the economy is strong. The fact that the deficit is increasing at a time when the economy is booming is not something to be happy about.
Quote:
The nat debt has been increasing for most of the US's history. The more important question is who got the best ROI for that debt?

The lowest unemployment figure in 49 years implies that the debt accumulated during the present term has had the greatest positive impact on populace.
Not necessarily.

The fact that the economy was growing (and unemployment decreasing... remember more jobs were created in the last year of Obama's tenure than the first year of Trump's) at the same time Obama was reducing the deficit suggests that a huge increase in the deficit under Trump was not necessary to have the same 'positive impact'. The 'Return on Investment' for the huge increase in debt thanks to Trump is minimal.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 09:08 AM   #29
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,489
Republicans: "Look at this! Record unemployment!"
Democrats: "But only if you look at the raw numbers without any contextual data or the broader picture."
Me: *Willy Wonka Meme Face* "Oh well it's a good thing voters don't make decisions based on nothing but over simplified numbers and always look at the contextual data and the broader picture."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 09:35 AM   #30
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
Healthcare and the Opioide crisis are probably bigger issues for voters than the economy.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 10:06 AM   #31
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,489
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Healthcare and the Opioide crisis are probably bigger issues for voters than the economy.
Feet to the fire honest, I don't how much I've ever really agreed with the "It's the economy stupid" theory of politics.

Not that's it's probably not true to a degree, but more so that "the economy" is such a varied topic that two people who are worried about "the economy" are often worried about two entirely separate things.

Dirt poor mom worrying about baby formula going up .02 cents, working class guy worried about the lease on his car going up 2%, rich guy worried about returns on his investment, and super-rich guy worried about the sales tax on his second Yacht are all worried about "the economy" in the abstract, but they aren't some voter block you can appeal to.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 10:22 AM   #32
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Over his entire presidency, the debt increased, but not every year. Look at the year 2000 on your graph. The slope is negative.

But what really raised my eyebrows was your previous contention that the magnitude of the debt increase under Clinton was comparable to other presidents. It wasn't. The debt increased less under Clinton than it did under Reagan, under GWB, under Obama, or even under a single year of the Donald Trump era. I'm not sure how it compares to GHWB. I think in the four years of that administration, the debt increase might have been slightly lower than the eight years of the Clinton administration. The average increase, i.e the annual deficit, was less under Clinton than under GHWB.
The claim up-thread is that Clinton 'balanced the budget' for the 3 years including 1998 through 2000. That is misleading since the national debt increased 2 out of 3 of those years. How is Clinton balanced the budget for 3 years meaningful when the National Debt increased? If the president isn't responsible when the national debt increases whom do we fault?

Please allow me to explain my commentary that raised your eyebrows. I absolutely give Clinton and his Admin credit for the decrease of debt during the 2000 calendar year. With that praise given, it is more meaningful to look over the total debt accumulated over his entire tenure. That raw number should then be controlled by some factor to create a rate that can be fairly compared to other presidents. Business Insider performed this calculation by transforming the raw accumulation of debt by president to a percent. When you do that over each presidents first 752 days in office, Trump has increased the debt less than Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Unless Trump makes an adjustment, he will pass Clinton & Bush; and very closely match Obama in the percent of National Debt added over Trump's theoretical 8 year term. If that happens, we can fault him at that time.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You are still mixing up deficit and debt.
If there is a deficit it is added to the debt. The debt is a macro-indicator. Any analysis should start there.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:51 AM   #33
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,889
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Business Insider performed this calculation by transforming the raw accumulation of debt by president to a percent. When you do that over each presidents first 752 days in office, Trump has increased the debt less than Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Unless Trump makes an adjustment, he will pass Clinton & Bush; and very closely match Obama in the percent of National Debt added over Trump's theoretical 8 year term. If that happens, we can fault him at that time.
  1. Comparing Trump's first 2 years to Obama's is not very illuminating, given the relative strength of the different economies 8 years apart. Trump didn't have to bail out GM or re-build the banking sector.
  2. That chart shows the debt remaining even or decreasing for Trump's first 9 months in office. That is incorrect. It looks like they started the bar for Trump's term in 2015, not 2016. The debt plateau was for 9 months in Obama's last year, not Trump's first year. See where the graph below is a straight line for the first 9 months of 2015, not 2016 - the green area under "holdings."
  3. Of course each successive president should have less impact in terms of a percentage, as they have less time out of the total history of the debt. The debt has been ballooning since the early 90's. Starting with 1990 just as a benchmark, Trump's 8 years would only be 23% of the time from 1990 - 2024. Obama's 8 years represented 30% of the time from 1990-2016.

carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2019, 03:46 PM   #34
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
\Please allow me to explain my commentary that raised your eyebrows. I absolutely give Clinton and his Admin credit for the decrease of debt during the 2000 calendar year. With that praise given, it is more meaningful to look over the total debt accumulated over his entire tenure. That raw number should then be controlled by some factor to create a rate that can be fairly compared to other presidents. Business Insider performed this calculation by transforming the raw accumulation of debt by president to a percent.

I'm still not seeing how they came up with some numbers. Using the numbers from the graph I posted earlier, during eight years of Clinton, the debt grew a total of 28%. During the eight years of GWB, it grew 105%. Obama? 70%. One year of Trump? 6%. In four years of GHWB, it was 57%.


But if you are using it as a growth rate, then it would follow that the correct way to project forward over the next eight years would be to assume 6% per year growth in the debt. That would result in 64% growth during 8 years of Trump.

A more common measure is deficit as a percentage of GDP, and that tells the same tale. i.e lowest during Clinton. Really bad for Bush II and for Obama. Time will tell with Trump. I predict very bad, but my prediction doesn't mean much.


Oh, well. The economy is good right now, and whatever else is true, that cannot be a bad thing. I just hope it can last, or at the very least that when it stops, it doesn't fall off of a cliff, 2008 style. Minor recessions aren't fun, but 2008-2009 totally sucked.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 7th May 2019 at 05:11 PM. Reason: Typed "deficit" when I meant "debt"
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2019, 04:31 PM   #35
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,985
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
The unemployment rate fell to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%
This is good news - good because it means Trump is a shoo-in at the next election. Looking forward to another 7 years (at least) of President Trump!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 10:22 AM   #36
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Comparing Trump's first 2 years to Obama's is not very illuminating, given the relative strength of the different economies 8 years apart. Trump didn't have to bail out GM or re-build the banking sector.
You are correct; Trump didn't bail out GM or re-build the banking sector, which resulted in a few billion dollar windfall (profit) for the federal government that hit the financial books during Obama's presidency.

Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
That chart shows the debt remaining even or decreasing for Trump's first 9 months in office. That is incorrect. It looks like they started the bar for Trump's term in 2015, not 2016. The debt plateau was for 9 months in Obama's last year, not Trump's first year. See where the graph below is a straight line for the first 9 months of 2015, not 2016 - the green area under "holdings."
If you believe Business Insider made an error in their chart you should report it to them. Personally, I'd quite enjoy having been part of invoking a retraction by a multi-million dollar news agency.

There is also a plateau during the Trump Presidency. By visual inspection, if you plotted a trend-line from the beginning of 2012 to the end of 2015, it appears the Trump budget would fall below that line.

Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Of course each successive president should have less impact in terms of a percentage, as they have less time out of the total history of the debt. The debt has been ballooning since the early 90's. Starting with 1990 just as a benchmark, Trump's 8 years would only be 23% of the time from 1990 - 2024. Obama's 8 years represented 30% of the time from 1990-2016.[/list]
You might be on to something here..Wouldn't inflation work against less time out of historical debt? Either way, it's probably more fair to look at total debt as a rate of GDP. I'll work on creating that graph.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 10:30 AM   #37
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,292
If this news was released while Obama was President these threads would have much more pom poms
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 12:32 PM   #38
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
L
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
If this news was released while Obama was President these threads would have much more pom poms
True.
And there would have been a lot less tweets.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 8th May 2019 at 12:34 PM.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 02:35 PM   #39
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Graph uploaded. Trump is adding less National Debt when controlled as a rate by GDP.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Pres Debt to GDP Ratio 2006 - 2019.jpg (16.5 KB, 10 views)
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 05:00 PM   #40
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Graph uploaded. Trump is adding less National Debt when controlled as a rate by GDP.
You started in 2006.

Is Trump's start better than Obama's? Absolutely. Better than Clinton's? No.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.