Has the US economy improved over the past year?

[Skip]

Why is nuclear a stupid option?
#1 reason: the waste products
http://projects.wsj.com/waste-lands/
#2 - the cost of construction and maintenance.
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/co ... nShUOdG3IU
#3- the risk
https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... -list-rank
#4 - distribution - the grid
https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... /power.htm
Expensive, inefficient, inflexible, impractical and dangerous.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Why is nuclear a stupid option?
#1 reason: the waste products
http://projects.wsj.com/waste-lands/
#2 - the cost of construction and maintenance.
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/co ... nShUOdG3IU
#3- the risk
https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... -list-rank
#4 - distribution - the grid
https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... /power.htm
Expensive, inefficient, inflexible, impractical and dangerous.

I've been tracking technology Skip including this one. What you say is currently true. However the future may work out different (if I can believe the articles).

PhilX

[Skip]

I've been tracking technology Skip including this one. What you say is currently true. However the future may work out different (if I can believe the articles).

PhilX

It usually does. That's why it would be a good idea for a nation to formulate an economic policy for long-range prosperity. Support public education, scientific exploration, industrial innovation and the general health of the populace. For example, Jimmy Carter wanted to set the US on the path to energy self-sufficiency, using new, clean technology. Had succeeding presidents informed themselves and proceeded on that path, rather than bowing to vested interest pressure, the US would be a world leader now, instead of a reviled obstructionist.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Economy update:

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/US-em ... 1bf86364d2

PhilX

[Skip]

From that article:

Still, the gains aren't equally spread. A separate measure of hourly wages that doesn't include managers rose 2.4 percent over the past year, more slowly than the broader figure. That suggests that managers and supervisors have received the biggest benefits.

It doesn't include these people:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/rec ... opulation/ and neither do the unemployment figures, since most of these people are in no position to seek employment. Even if they're not actually in prison, they can only get the the lowest-paid menial jobs, and are not allowed to travel someplace where more jobs are available.
It doesn't include these people:
https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/
or them:
http://time.com/money/4758109/unemploym ... find-jobs/
and of course these:
https://www.tuckerdisability.com/blog/v ... diu-claim/
not to mention seniors, minors, the mentally ill and otherwise impaired.

Then, too:
They raise the minimum wage; fire a lot of employees (that won't show up on the graphs till next year) and keep the tax cut.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-walm ... SKBN1F01N8
http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum- ... ses-2017-3

[FlashDangerpants]

It would be useful to talk about two periods of unemployment, the period of lesser unemployment and the period of greater unemployment. A Google search on protectionism brings up those two periods in that order.
But those periods can vary in their length and how big the unemployment rate is and there can be other factors (e.g. the Federal Reserve monetary policy). And choice can be involved (the Chinese may or may not build a factory although, at last report, they will which would lead to jobs).

Now I see FDP is shooting off his mouth again about me being "Super Pissy" and likes to use ad homs on me so I'll give him a chance to redeem himself by contributing to this thread. Some questions are in order which I'm posing to FDP:

1) The first period - how long will it last?
2) What will the first unemployment rate be?

3) How long will the second unemployment rate last?
4) What will the second unemployment rate be?

5) Take the difference between the second and first unemployment rates. Will this difference be more or less than the other differences arising from other periods of protectionism?

This gives you a better idea as to what's involved.

PhilX

None of that makes any sense. There's no value in vaguely suggesting a google search if you aren't going to mention what the search term was. I don't know what periods of high unemployment and low unemployment you reference. And it has zero bearing on the LFPR which is the statistic that is relevant to the question you asked and which I was answering.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It would be useful to talk about two periods of unemployment, the period of lesser unemployment and the period of greater unemployment. A Google search on protectionism brings up those two periods in that order.
But those periods can vary in their length and how big the unemployment rate is and there can be other factors (e.g. the Federal Reserve monetary policy). And choice can be involved (the Chinese may or may not build a factory although, at last report, they will which would lead to jobs).

Now I see FDP is shooting off his mouth again about me being "Super Pissy" and likes to use ad homs on me so I'll give him a chance to redeem himself by contributing to this thread. Some questions are in order which I'm posing to FDP:

1) The first period - how long will it last?
2) What will the first unemployment rate be?

3) How long will the second unemployment rate last?
4) What will the second unemployment rate be?

5) Take the difference between the second and first unemployment rates. Will this difference be more or less than the other differences arising from other periods of protectionism?

This gives you a better idea as to what's involved.

PhilX

None of that makes any sense. There's no value in vaguely suggesting a google search if you aren't going to mention what the search term was. I don't know what periods of high unemployment and low unemployment you reference. And it has zero bearing on the LFPR which is the statistic that is relevant to the question you asked and which I was answering.

You must have missed protectionism for the search term. The periods of high and low unemployment are the ones occurring during protectionism. Come on FDP, this isn't rocket science. Read carefully and think.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

BTW I regard the Labor Force Participation Rate as useless as it doesn't tell me how many are working, only how many are available to work as a % of the population.
It's not relevant to the discussion of this thread (you're not comparing apples with apples).

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

It would be useful to talk about two periods of unemployment, the period of lesser unemployment and the period of greater unemployment. A Google search on protectionism brings up those two periods in that order.
But those periods can vary in their length and how big the unemployment rate is and there can be other factors (e.g. the Federal Reserve monetary policy). And choice can be involved (the Chinese may or may not build a factory although, at last report, they will which would lead to jobs).

Now I see FDP is shooting off his mouth again about me being "Super Pissy" and likes to use ad homs on me so I'll give him a chance to redeem himself by contributing to this thread. Some questions are in order which I'm posing to FDP:

1) The first period - how long will it last?
2) What will the first unemployment rate be?

3) How long will the second unemployment rate last?
4) What will the second unemployment rate be?

5) Take the difference between the second and first unemployment rates. Will this difference be more or less than the other differences arising from other periods of protectionism?

This gives you a better idea as to what's involved.

PhilX

None of that makes any sense. There's no value in vaguely suggesting a google search if you aren't going to mention what the search term was. I don't know what periods of high unemployment and low unemployment you reference. And it has zero bearing on the LFPR which is the statistic that is relevant to the question you asked and which I was answering.

You must have missed protectionism for the search term. The periods of high and low unemployment are the ones occurring during protectionism. Come on FDP, this isn't rocket science. Read carefully and think.

PhilX

That still doesn't help it make any sense. I google that word I don't get the results you sort of vaguely describe.

I'm trying to find a nice way to tell you you are asking a dumb question here. Help me out.

BTW I regard the Labor Force Participation Rate as useless as it doesn't tell me how many are working, only how many are available to work as a % of the population.
It's not relevant to the discussion of this thread (you're not comparing apples with apples).

I don't care whether you understand its relevance or not. It is still the answer to your own question...

The usual argument that unemployment has gone down because people have given up looking for jobs doesn't wash with me. Is it because they have found jobs?

If the LFPR is static while unemployment is down, more people of working age are dropping out of the workforce. It would be nice if some of those were to be found in some other statistic such as increasing rates of college graduation after the age of 25 (so an amazing number of PhD candidates). But a large number have given up work and are staying home while their spouses pay the bills. Others are liable to be found claiming non work benefits for invalidity. Or just sitting in an alley taking opioids.

4% of your working age adults going AWOL is not irrelevant to a discussion about the state of a national economy.

[Philosophy Explorer]

None of that makes any sense. There's no value in vaguely suggesting a google search if you aren't going to mention what the search term was. I don't know what periods of high unemployment and low unemployment you reference. And it has zero bearing on the LFPR which is the statistic that is relevant to the question you asked and which I was answering.

You must have missed protectionism for the search term. The periods of high and low unemployment are the ones occurring during protectionism. Come on FDP, this isn't rocket science. Read carefully and think.

PhilX

That still doesn't help it make any sense. I google that word I don't get the results you sort of vaguely describe.

I'm trying to find a nice way to tell you you are asking a dumb question here. Help me out.

BTW I regard the Labor Force Participation Rate as useless as it doesn't tell me how many are working, only how many are available to work as a % of the population.
It's not relevant to the discussion of this thread (you're not comparing apples with apples).

I don't care whether you understand its relevance or not. It is still the answer to your own question...

The usual argument that unemployment has gone down because people have given up looking for jobs doesn't wash with me. Is it because they have found jobs?

If the LFPR is static while unemployment is down, more people of working age are dropping out of the workforce. It would be nice if some of those were to be found in some other statistic such as increasing rates of college graduation after the age of 25 (so an amazing number of PhD candidates). But a large number have given up work and are staying home while their spouses pay the bills. Others are liable to be found claiming non work benefits for invalidity. Or just sitting in an alley taking opioids.

4% of your working age adults going AWOL is not irrelevant to a discussion about the state of a national economy.

Dumb question to you, not to the other posters.

When unemployment is down, it means more people are working which is my concern.

The 4% figure, how does it break down? Are they all collecting unemployment? What % of those are married?
I understand the Bureau of Labor Statistics works from estimates (and frequently revises their estimates). So Flash, you're painting an overly simplistic picture.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

So Flash, you're painting an overly simplistic picture.

Once more you demonstrate a fine grasp of irony that distinguishes you from the stereotypical American male.

[Philosophy Explorer]

So Flash, you're painting an overly simplistic picture.

Once more you demonstrate a fine grasp of irony that distinguishes you from the stereotypical American male.

That's right. I do find it ironic that instead of addressing the issues raised in this thread, you chose to comment about my grasp of irony.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

What's the point? You asked where the 4% comes from when I had already addressed that as far as it can be in the post you quoted, so that's a complete waste of my time.

The fact remains that labour force participation is 4% down from where it was when Bear Sterns failed and showing no sign of rebounding even though unemployment is down 5% since 2010. Why ask how many are married? That's stupid. There hasn't been a huge increase in marriages since that time, nor a massive decrease in divorce, or a huge spike in births, so that question has no bearing.

And why ask if they are collecting unemployment benefits? That's stupid too. If they were, they'd be in the unemployment numbers.

And you complained that the BLS uses estimates to get the numbers for participation which are subsequently subject to revision. This objection applies also to the unemployment numbers that you are not rejecting, as well as to GDP and inflation and pretty much every statistic in economics.

The simple truth is that unemployment has gone down at least in part because a notable portion of the potential workforce has run out of insurance and not found a job. Many have given up. If you do some of that googling you are so great at you will find the number of Americans claiming disability insurance is up by a couple of million as well.

You complain about me oversimplifying, yet it is impossible to dumb anything down to the level that you can understand without losing the will to carry on. There may be interesting issues raised in this thread, but there's no addressing them with you. You always trust whatever your gut instinct tells you without consideration of any evidence, and when presented with evidence you immediately reject it for inconsistent reasons.

Now I already mentioned in my first post that I am busy and I don't have much time to waste responding to pissiness and aggressive stupidity. So get your shit together, this isn't maintaining my interest.

[Philosophy Explorer]

What's the point? You asked where the 4% comes from when I had already addressed that as far as it can be in the post you quoted, so that's a complete waste of my time.

The fact remains that labour force participation is 4% down from where it was when Bear Sterns failed and showing no sign of rebounding even though unemployment is down 5% since 2010. Why ask how many are married? That's stupid. There hasn't been a huge increase in marriages since that time, nor a massive decrease in divorce, or a huge spike in births, so that question has no bearing.

And why ask if they are collecting unemployment benefits? That's stupid too. If they were, they'd be in the unemployment numbers.

And you complained that the BLS uses estimates to get the numbers for participation which are subsequently subject to revision. This objection applies also to the unemployment numbers that you are not rejecting, as well as to GDP and inflation and pretty much every statistic in economics.

The simple truth is that unemployment has gone down at least in part because a notable portion of the potential workforce has run out of insurance and not found a job. Many have given up. If you do some of that googling you are so great at you will find the number of Americans claiming disability insurance is up by a couple of million as well.

You complain about me oversimplifying, yet it is impossible to dumb anything down to the level that you can understand without losing the will to carry on. There may be interesting issues raised in this thread, but there's no addressing them with you. You always trust whatever your gut instinct tells you without consideration of any evidence, and when presented with evidence you immediately reject it for inconsistent reasons.

Now I already mentioned in my first post that I am busy and I don't have much time to waste responding to pissiness and aggressive stupidity. So get your shit together, this isn't maintaining my interest.

Back to pissiness are we? Too busy (yet keeps posting here). Again I'm not concerned with LFPR, just with unemployment. At least with marriage, the unemployed have a cushion (along with unemployment benefits).

Dumbing down to my level. I was concerned about dumbing down to your level so that you can understand.
As far as evidence goes Greta makes more sense to me than you have. Her post about protectionism was informative. I just pointed out some loose ends that could use some tying up.

PhilX

[-1-]

Others are liable to be found claiming non work benefits for invalidity.

How do you validly claim invalidity so your invalidity claim is not invalid? But you are?

That's A. B. is that the chart is meaningless. It created a smoothish-looking curve by fudging the coordinates. I have seen it all, but I haven't seen this type of lie. The scale on the right goes up in equal distances, as expected, "2", "4", "6", and then surprisingly a "5" chimes in, instead of an "8",then it continues... bah.