Harbaugh goes on record RE: Erik Swenson

[Hungry Jack]

The issue with unemployment stats under Obama is that unemployed workers were dropped from unemployment stats if they had not found a job after one or two years. In many cases, baby boomers decided to retire rather than continue looking for jobs. I know many people in this boat. Therefore, I think unemployment is higher than 4% but is not as high as 9%. The economy is worlds better than it was in 2008-2009, but it has not seen much of a return of manufacturing jobs. Many service jobs have moved overseas.

My understanding is that most jobs created under Obama have been in the retail and service sector, and companies avoid paying benefits by not hiring workers full time. Companies used to hire full-time people but they don't bother anymore in order to cut costs. Companies like Walmart essentially use the US government to provide the health benefits they once provided.

It will be interesting to see how much manufacturing and full-time service jobs will return with lower corporate taxes and fewer regulations.

The ACA created a pretty strong incentive to limit hours to part-time (what was the cutoff? 30?).

The thing about manufacturing is that the loss of jobs does not always mean "decline." Manufacturing output continues to climb while employment declines thanks to that good 'ole capital-for-labor equation. For those that get manufacturing jobs operating high tech equipment, it's great as wages continue to rise. But menial assembly tasks just won't work in the US unless foreign logistics costs, energy costs, tariffs, supply chain concerns, etc. just make it much better to source domestically.

Reforming the tax code will help, especially if companies can repatriate profits and invest that capital here, but I think the effect will be incremental at best. But if a town of 15,000 regains a factory that has 800 jobs, that's a huge deal for them.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Well, I'm a "Medilldo" as you rather quaintly put it, and I'm not really that upset. Do you really think anyone who has spent time in journalism hasn't heard this stuff before? As far as the "subject matter expert" bit goes, it depends upon what you're covering. Unless it's high-grade science or something (and usually you tend to specialize in that type of reporting if that's the area you're covering), most of what the average reporter covers (school boards, city councils, government offices etc.) is not rocket science and is something any intelligent person with a slight quotient of curiosity can figure out. Far from being ill-informed, most reporters I've worked with tend to be better informed about their communities than the average guy because they actually ATTEND those boring night meetings and talk to the dingbat politicians and are aware of what is going on. Do I think the NYT is less biased than Breitbart? Hell, yes. Huffington, less so. But if you really want to believe that there is more misinformation spread by reputable U.S. news sources than Chinese, be my guest. I think that's ridiculous, but it's not going to ruin my day.

Again, I did not say that. The Chinese media is state controlled and extremely propaganda driven. What I did say is that we are subject to more misinformation via the press in the US, because we somehow believe that freedom of the press means anything we see in the press is true, even though it often is far from it (though often it is). With the Chinese press, the people know to roll their eyes and call bullshit because there is no pretense or at least there is a recognition that the press is state controlled and as such can be full of crap (though certainly not always, in fact they are probably fact based almost as much as our own, reporting stuff that isn't at all controversial to the state). This breeds a skepticism that the Chinese have developed for their media that is ironically heathier than the gullibility we have become subject to in the US to our own press. We'd do better if we understood that while most of what is reported by our media is indeed fact based, objective, and well-intended, much of it also is biased and unintentionally misinformed (if the coverage of the 2016 election doesn't persuade you of this, I'm not sure what will), and sometimes even intentionally misleading and extremely agenda driven under the pretenses that it is purely objective. Which it is simply not. This goes for both sides - right and left. But, while most of us recognize the issues on the right wing side, most on this board I would venture to guess still don't recognize the bias on the left (and by definition, the mainstream media).

For instance, if you believe for a second that the employment numbers Obama's administration has been spitting out to the public (without explaining the definition aren't at all misleading -- e.g. failure to explain concepts such as who drops out of the statistics given the "actively looking for work" definitions and not accounting for "underemployed," then you are one of the gullible, misled by a biased and misinformed at best (intentionally misleading at worst) media and you probably to this day still think Donald J. Trump became POTUS because half the country is racist. And that they are living in a different world from the one you are familiar with , which I suppose in a way they really are. One that is different (and more real) than the one the media reports to you. If you have that feeling - congratulations! You're a shining example of media gullibility.

 

[NUCat320]

For instance, if you believe for a second that the employment numbers Obama's administration has been spitting out to the public (without explaining the definition aren't at all misleading -- e.g. failure to explain concepts such as who drops out of the statistics given the "actively looking for work" definitions and not accounting for "underemployed," then you are one of the gullible, misled by a biased and misinformed at best (intentionally misleading at worst) media and you probably to this day still think Donald J. Trump became POTUS because half the country is racist. And that they are living in a different world from the one you are familiar with , which I suppose in a way they really are. One that is different (and more real) than the one the media reports to you. If you have that feeling - congratulations! You're a shining example of media gullibility.

Unemployment rate has *always* been

Unemployed population /Size of Labor Force

Labor force is total people minus those not working or looking for work

Unemployed population has always been number of people who want a job, as demonstrated by looking for work in the past four weeks, and do not have one. Always.

Always. The BLS will report it the same way next month as the previous 96. Always.

There are other numbers - long term unemployment , for instance - whose definition has changed. But the all caps UNEMPLOYMENT RATE has not, for 100+ years.

Isn't this embarrassing? Aren't you embarrassed for him?
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat...bout_the_unemployment_rate.html?client=safari

#fakenews!!

 

[EvanstonCat]

Unemployment rate has *always* been

Unemployed population /Size of Labor Force

Labor force is total people minus those not working or looking for work

Unemployed population has always been number of people who want a job, as demonstrated by looking for work in the past four weeks, and do not have one. Always.

Always. The BLS will report it the same way next month as the previous 96. Always.

There are other numbers - long term unemployment , for instance - whose definition has changed. But the all caps UNEMPLOYMENT RATE has not, for 100+ years.

Isn't this embarrassing? Aren't you embarrassed for him?
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat...bout_the_unemployment_rate.html?client=safari

#fakenews!!

That's fair and not at all something I'm disputing, but the media trumpeting the "great" unemployment numbers under Obama without explaining the reasons why they are completely misleading and utterly fail in representing the pulse of the nation - a pulse that was read to us all in November 2016, much to our surprise - is what I'm talking about.

Again, if you think the employment situation in America is "great" your official and time tested employment statistics notwithstanding, and that Obama has led us into some sort of employment renaissance, then you obviously missed the boat during this last election cycle. And either the media was unintentionally misleading (and hence misinformed and a victim of it's own bias) in it's reporting or it chose not to go there, because it hurt the agenda and story it was trying to promote (e.g. Obama is great).

I'll give you another example of the media bias. All the reporting is about how effed up Trump's moves have been (which frankly, I happen to think the travel ban is effed up as are the moves to build the wall). An alternative set of headlines could be emphasizing instead that Trump is actually doing more (harm vs. good, is another story) in his first two weeks as POTUS than any POTUS we have ever seen - imagine that a politician that actually is getting something done and doing something he actually said he was going to do! Why isn't that the story? It's true. It's newsworthy. But, it's not what the media chooses to report, because they are BIASED. Then there is the latest SCOTUS nominee. He's a Scalia clone. He would keep the Court balanced as it has been. He's a judge that went through in his Appellate Court nomination unopposed. It's actually a very sensible pick. But, we get all this shrillness about the court tipping right, abortion rights becoming subject to being overturned. Gimme a break. Where are the headlines about this pick maintaining the balance of the court? Maintaining the status quo in replacing Scalia with someone who reveres and probably would vote exactly like him?

When Ginsberg bites it or Kennedy steps down, and Trump picks another conservative to replace them, then go have a cow. Replacing Scalia with a Scalia clone is not the end of the world.

 

[catfans5]

Unemployment rate has *always* been

Unemployed population /Size of Labor Force

Labor force is total people minus those not working or looking for work

Unemployed population has always been number of people who want a job, as demonstrated by looking for work in the past four weeks, and do not have one. Always.

Always. The BLS will report it the same way next month as the previous 96. Always.

There are other numbers - long term unemployment , for instance - whose definition has changed. But the all caps UNEMPLOYMENT RATE has not, for 100+ years.

Isn't this embarrassing? Aren't you embarrassed for him?
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat...bout_the_unemployment_rate.html?client=safari

#fakenews!!

There was a change in 2010 or 2012 of how unemployment is measured by BLS and/or what is published. Previously, if you lost you job and were not employed, you were in the total of unemployed. The change was that after a certain period of time and you were not employed, you were no longer considered unemployed. The 4.7 % touted now is not the same as what was touted during Bill Clinton's administration. It is unfair to Bill Clinton to tout Barack Obama's economic recovery both on unemployment and jobs to what occurred during Clinton's administration.

 

[NUCat320]

There was a change in 2010 or 2012 of how unemployment is measured by BLS and/or what is published. Previously, if you lost you job and were not employed, you were in the total of unemployed. The change was that after a certain period of time and you were not employed, you were no longer considered unemployed. The 4.7 % touted now is not the same as what was touted during Bill Clinton's administration. It is unfair to Bill Clinton to tout Barack Obama's economic recovery both on unemployment and jobs to what occurred during Clinton's administration.

You are incorrect:
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

This is what you posted previously. It says "unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story" (it's a Big Lie), but does not say that unemployment rate has changed.

Your perception is wrong.

 

[catfans5]

You are incorrect:
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

This is what you posted previously. It says "unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story" (it's a Big Lie), but does not say that unemployment rate has changed.

Your perception is wrong.

The Gallup article states exactly what I pointed out that there was change. Previously, the long term unemployed were counted as unemployed.

Regardless, it does go to Eurocat's point about data manipulation which occurs with every administration. I will not say that the Repubs do not massage data, but the Dems do it as well.

 

[Gladeskat]

There was a change in 2010 or 2012 of how unemployment is measured by BLS and/or what is published. Previously, if you lost you job and were not employed, you were in the total of unemployed. The change was that after a certain period of time and you were not employed, you were no longer considered unemployed. The 4.7 % touted now is not the same as what was touted during Bill Clinton's administration. It is unfair to Bill Clinton to tout Barack Obama's economic recovery both on unemployment and jobs to what occurred during Clinton's administration.

Unemployment stats have not changed! Long-term unemployment stats have changed, and have changed to include those unemployed for >2 years up to 5 years. It adds further resolution to the depth and extent of a recession...and in doing so, it did NOT whitewash the recession and recovery during the Obama administration! Sheesh! It showed the severity of the recession in the first few years.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm

 

[Gladeskat]

The Gallup article states exactly what I pointed out that there was change. Previously, the long term unemployed were counted as unemployed.

Regardless, it does go to Eurocat's point about data manipulation which occurs with every administration. I will not say that the Repubs do not massage data, but the Dems do it as well.

The dems did NOT massage data!!! They wanted to get a handle on the severity of the recession and subsequent recovery!!!!!

The article makes valid points, but that does not change how stats were compiled and reported. Unemployment stats need additional tweaking to present the full picture as mentioned in the article. You have a point, but you're claiming the changes made in collecting data on long-term unemployment are masking the problems in the recovery. They aren't. The problem rests with how unemployment has always been assessed.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

The Gallup article states exactly what I pointed out that there was change. Previously, the long term unemployed were counted as unemployed.

Regardless, it does go to Eurocat's point about data manipulation which occurs with every administration. I will not say that the Repubs do not massage data, but the Dems do it as well.

If you don't like headline "U3" unemployment, check U5 or U6. Those measures are explicitly designed to control for discouraged workers and those part-time for purely economical reasons, respectively:

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

While rates are still higher than historical results, the progress made since the recession is undeniable.

 

[NJCat]

The dems did NOT massage data!!! They wanted to get a handle on the severity of the recession and subsequent recovery!!!!!

The article makes valid points, but that does not change how stats were compiled and reported. Unemployment stats need additional tweaking to present the full picture as mentioned in the article. You have a point, but you're claiming the changes made in collecting data on long-term unemployment are masking the problems in the recovery. They aren't. The problem rests with how unemployment has always been assessed.

Is this a parallel universe? Did I mistakenly click on the Rant board?

 

[catfans5]

If you don't like headline "U3" unemployment, check U5 or U6. Those measures are explicitly designed to control for discouraged workers and those part-time for purely economical reasons, respectively:

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

While rates are still higher than historical results, the progress made since the recession is undeniable.

I will reply to you and Gladeskat in one post. I am not here to argue economic recovery, but the point was raised about sources of information reported by the media.. There is massaging of data or use of different format of data by both sides. Glades can capitalize words all he wants, but he and I can agree to disagree and I do not care to belabor the point. The reported number which was broadcast by the mainstream media and bragged by the Obama as showing economic recovery is/was not used or relied upon by the Fed since it does not give an accurate assessment of the economy. I am neither an economist nor a scientist, but I would call such data unreliable since experts do not use it. This is why I posted the article which put the unemployment numbers for years in constant numbers so the comparison is apple to apple. Those numbers support your argument of economic recovery. I also posted the article about the type of jobs created because numbers in of themselves without some context mean nothing.

 

[FeralFelidae]

This breeds a skepticism that the Chinese have developed for their media that is ironically heathier than the gullibility we have become subject to in the US to our own press.

I think there's quite a bit of skepticism in the US of the media. We're polarized, though, so we retreat to our echo chambers and are skeptical of the other side but not enough of our own side.

You will now hear the words "lamestream media" in Sarah Palin's voice.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I will reply to you and Gladeskat in one post. I am not here to argue economic recovery, but the point was raised about sources of information reported by the media.. There is massaging of data or use of different format of data by both sides. Glades can capitalize words all he wants, but he and I can agree to disagree and I do not care to belabor the point. The reported number which was broadcast by the mainstream media and bragged by the Obama as showing economic recovery is/was not used or relied upon by the Fed since it does not give an accurate assessment of the economy. I am neither an economist nor a scientist, but I would call such data unreliable since experts do not use it. This is why I posted the article which put the unemployment numbers for years in constant numbers so the comparison is apple to apple. Those numbers support your argument of economic recovery. I also posted the article about the type of jobs created because numbers in of themselves without some context mean nothing.

My point is that U6 unemployment accounts for your "type of jobs created" point.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Talk about scope creep. I was hear to rip on Hardballs.

 

[EvanstonCat]

I think there's quite a bit of skepticism in the US of the media. We're polarized, though, so we retreat to our echo chambers and are skeptical of the other side but not enough of our own side.

You will now hear the words "lamestream media" in Sarah Palin's voice.

That's really my point though. We believe what we want to believe I guess.