Oh, So NOW Liberals Care About the Labor Force Participation Rate!

[pinqy]

With the ongoing flood of good economic news, liberals are desperate to find some excuse, any excuse, to say, "yeah, but. . . ." So now they're desperately clinging to an indicator that they ignored during the Obama years: the labor force participation rate (LFPR). Here are some basic facts that explain why the LFPR is one of the least important indicators of the employment situation:

* During the two worst recessions in the last 40 years--the 1981-82 recession and the 2008-2009 recession--the LFPR changed very little, and never by more than 2 percentage points. Conversely, even during the robust Reagan recovery, the LFPR never changed by more than 2.1 percentage points, and during the even stronger Clinton recovery, it never changed by more 1.3 percentage points.

* In January 1981, the LFPR was 63.9%. In December 1981, during the middle of the 1981-82 recession, the LFPR was 63.6%, a decrease of only 0.3 percentage points (or about 1/3 of a percentage point).

* Here's why liberals did not want to talk about the LFPR during the Obama years: When the "Great Recession" began in August 2008, the LFPR was 66.1%. In December 2009, after Obama's "recovery" had supposedly begun, the LFPR was 64.3%! In October 2013, four years into Obama's "recovery," the LFPR was down to 62.8%, a decrease of 3.8 percentage points from the start of the 2008-2009 recession, and a decrease of 1.5 percentage points during Obama's supposed "recovery"! Two years further into Obama's "recovery, " i.e., September 2015, the LFPR was down to 62.3%!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (change the year range back to 1977)

Truth be told, the LFPR will likely stay comparatively low for some time because we have a much larger population of retirees than we did 20 years ago. Plus, we must keep in mind that when families improve their economic situation, as many have done over the last year, a number of them choose to have mom stay home and take care of the kids (and save themselves a ton of money in daycare costs).

My impression is that the liberals have not actually changed their opinion, but are mocking Trump and conservatives for suddenly changing theirs

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sorry Mac. If the hate, division and especially the distortion ( you didn't build that ) were done in equal parts on either side, you'd have a point.

But they aren't.

For some reason, you feel a need to address the situation as if they are. It's quite interesting. Some of us enjoy the little sociological experiment that you provise for us every day.

 

[rightwinger]

With the ongoing flood of good economic news, liberals are desperate to find some excuse, any excuse, to say, "yeah, but. . . ." So now they're desperately clinging to an indicator that they ignored during the Obama years: the labor force participation rate (LFPR). Here are some basic facts that explain why the LFPR is one of the least important indicators of the employment situation:

* During the two worst recessions in the last 40 years--the 1981-82 recession and the 2008-2009 recession--the LFPR changed very little, and never by more than 2 percentage points. Conversely, even during the robust Reagan recovery, the LFPR never changed by more than 2.1 percentage points, and during the even stronger Clinton recovery, it never changed by more 1.3 percentage points.

* In January 1981, the LFPR was 63.9%. In December 1981, during the middle of the 1981-82 recession, the LFPR was 63.6%, a decrease of only 0.3 percentage points (or about 1/3 of a percentage point).

* Here's why liberals did not want to talk about the LFPR during the Obama years: When the "Great Recession" began in August 2008, the LFPR was 66.1%. In December 2009, after Obama's "recovery" had supposedly begun, the LFPR was 64.3%! In October 2013, four years into Obama's "recovery," the LFPR was down to 62.8%, a decrease of 3.8 percentage points from the start of the 2008-2009 recession, and a decrease of 1.5 percentage points during Obama's supposed "recovery"! Two years further into Obama's "recovery, " i.e., September 2015, the LFPR was down to 62.3%!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (change the year range back to 1977)

Truth be told, the LFPR will likely stay comparatively low for some time because we have a much larger population of retirees than we did 20 years ago. Plus, we must keep in mind that when families improve their economic situation, as many have done over the last year, a number of them choose to have mom stay home and take care of the kids (and save themselves a ton of money in daycare costs).

My impression is that the liberals have not actually changed their opinion, but are mocking Trump and conservatives for suddenly changing theirs

I never understood why conservatives insisted on labor participation rate

But, now that they are running things, let them live with it

 

[LoneLaugher]

With the ongoing flood of good economic news, liberals are desperate to find some excuse, any excuse, to say, "yeah, but. . . ." So now they're desperately clinging to an indicator that they ignored during the Obama years: the labor force participation rate (LFPR). Here are some basic facts that explain why the LFPR is one of the least important indicators of the employment situation:

* During the two worst recessions in the last 40 years--the 1981-82 recession and the 2008-2009 recession--the LFPR changed very little, and never by more than 2 percentage points. Conversely, even during the robust Reagan recovery, the LFPR never changed by more than 2.1 percentage points, and during the even stronger Clinton recovery, it never changed by more 1.3 percentage points.

* In January 1981, the LFPR was 63.9%. In December 1981, during the middle of the 1981-82 recession, the LFPR was 63.6%, a decrease of only 0.3 percentage points (or about 1/3 of a percentage point).

* Here's why liberals did not want to talk about the LFPR during the Obama years: When the "Great Recession" began in August 2008, the LFPR was 66.1%. In December 2009, after Obama's "recovery" had supposedly begun, the LFPR was 64.3%! In October 2013, four years into Obama's "recovery," the LFPR was down to 62.8%, a decrease of 3.8 percentage points from the start of the 2008-2009 recession, and a decrease of 1.5 percentage points during Obama's supposed "recovery"! Two years further into Obama's "recovery, " i.e., September 2015, the LFPR was down to 62.3%!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (change the year range back to 1977)

Truth be told, the LFPR will likely stay comparatively low for some time because we have a much larger population of retirees than we did 20 years ago. Plus, we must keep in mind that when families improve their economic situation, as many have done over the last year, a number of them choose to have mom stay home and take care of the kids (and save themselves a ton of money in daycare costs).

My impression is that the liberals have not actually changed their opinion, but are mocking Trump and conservatives for suddenly changing theirs

Well. Let's all bathe in that dose of honesty for a moment.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The alternative is not an option at the moment

Yeah, I get that one from both sides.

And here we are.
.

Yeah, let’s fight the cruel, vindictive troll in the White House with sugar and spice

You still don't understand. Had Hillary been the winner, the other side would have said the same thing to Mac here. They feel like she is Satan in a pants suit and would have fundamentally transformed America into a gay socialist Utopia where MS13 is given your house and daughters.

Of course, that sort of rhetoric is equally valid to and in no way different from the rhetoric of those who oppose Trump. Both sides do it and both are wrong.

And that fact must be stated daily in several threads. It's the only way out!

Indeed. Both parties are the same don’t ya know. So we really should never engage in political discussion.

This is a beautiful example of why trying to communicate with wingers is pointless, at least online.

In your mind, either it's hate, attacks, hyperbole, distortion, division and hypocrisy, OR it's, in your words, "sugar and spice". That's it. No in between.

Wingers are afflicted with binary thought processes. Either/or, win or lose, us vs. them, all or nothing. You see no other options. Your mind is closed and paralyzed.

Nothing of substance is accomplished until the wingers are somehow marginalized.
.

Trump slapped our allies with tariffs that will harm Americans and our allies alike, as he sidles up to monsters and dictators; but Hillary wouldn’t release her speech for Goldman Sachs, so just nvm

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama was a loser they had to prop him up.

 

[Mac1958]

At some point here, the two tribes will be reduced to grunting and throwing poo at each other.

 

[LoneLaugher]

At some point here, the two tribes will be reduced to grunting and throwing poo at each other.

And you will be grinning and throwing poo at both. Meanwhile, since people like me throw facts and not poo, I'll be watching the whole show.

 

[TheOldSchool]

At some point here, the two tribes will be reduced to grunting and throwing poo at each other.

And you will be grinning and throwing poo at both. Meanwhile, since people like me throw facts and not poo, I'll be watching the whole show.

I’ll do your poop throwing

 

[mikegriffith1]

Kind of like how Republicans only cared about the national debt when Obama was president

Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . In case you missed the news, in the last two budget deals, SENATE DEMOCRATS forced the Republicans to agree to far more spending than they wanted, in order to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. DEMOCRATS took advantage of the fact that the Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. So if you really care about the debt, be sure to vote for Republicans in the midterms.

 

[rightwinger]

Kind of like how Republicans only cared about the national debt when Obama was president

Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . In case you missed the news, in the last two budget deals, SENATE DEMOCRATS forced the Republicans to agree to far more spending than they wanted, in order to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. DEMOCRATS took advantage of the fact that the Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. So if you really care about the debt, be sure to vote for Republicans in the midterms.

Who insisted on increased military funding?

 

[jc456]

Partisan politics, par for the course.

Unemployment Rate, Participation Rate, GDP, deficits, the debt, the stock market - it all gets spun around by wingers to their benefit, when needed, as needed. It's all a big fucking joke. A game.

We all know this, right?
.

It’s the only way to win. Feel free to sit out.

Win what?
.

Some say in the direction of the country

We all have that. We've just forgotten that you win some, you lose some.

But I have no idea how lies, attacks, hate, division and hypocrisy is supposed to improve anything.
.

You just yell Russia Russia and everything is okay

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here's how the game is played: When it comes time for a new funding bill, Senate Democrats insist on vastly higher spending than the Republicans want. If the Republicans object, Senate Democrats threaten to filibuster the spending bill, knowing that the Republicans do not have a big enough majority in the Senate to break a filibuster. To avoid a shutdown, Republicans agree to the Democrats' spending demands. Then, Democrats go out and say, "You see, the Republicans don't care about the deficit and the debt!"

If you truly, truly care about the deficit and the debt, then you'd better help elect more Republicans to Congress, especially to the Senate.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's how the game is played: When it comes time for a new funding bill, Senate Democrats insist on vastly higher spending than the Republicans want. If the Republicans object, Senate Democrats threaten to filibuster the spending bill, knowing that the Republicans do not have a big enough majority in the Senate to break a filibuster. To avoid a shutdown, Republicans agree to the Democrats' spending demands. Then, Democrats go out and say, "You see, the Republicans don't care about the deficit and the debt!"

If you truly, truly care about the deficit and the debt, then you'd better help elect more Republicans to Congress, especially to the Senate.

Both have their spending priorities. Dems want social programs, Republicans want more military. To get the bill passed, compromises have to be made. Nobody cares about the deficit