Democrats bragging about economic recovery

[smileyeagle1021]

And yes, I am going to bag especially on Democrats. I'm sure most of you know that there is little love lost between me and the Republicans, but anymore it is seeming like it will be a lot easier to make Republicans see the light on social issues than get Democrats to recognize this thing I call reality when it comes to the economy.
Every month the Democrats brag about how many new jobs have been created. The problem is that number is meaningless. It does not tell you how many people have gained full time employment, quite a few of the jobs are part time with no benefits. It doesn't tell you how many people should be working in higher paying positions that are settling for lesser positions (like the vast majority of recent graduates who are taking entry level retail/hospitality/customer service positions at or barely above minimum wage and counting themselves as the lucky ones). And most importantly, it is lying with the truth, yes there are new jobs being created, but not as quickly as people are entering the work force.
I have few kind things to say about the Republicans, but at least they'll look me in the eye and say, "hey, we're fucked" rather than try to blow smoke in my eyes and make me believe that reality isn't real.

[TheHuckster]

The fact is, there is no perfectly accurate or foolproof way to measure "good" employment numbers.

If the unemployment rate is lower than it was before because a skilled engineer is working in a minimum wage job instead of doing what he/she was trained for, that isn't something to brag about.

If the number of jobs increased by ten thousand people because 3,333 people were able to find 3 part time jobs just to get by, that isn't something to brag about either.

There are a lot of other factors that go into the unemployment rate, including people who "gave up" looking for a job (usually they have become homeless, have some rich parents who are giving them room and board, or have taken "under the table" work for someone). These people don't get counted. 25% of the population could be in this situation, and the unemployment rate still wouldn't reflect this.

Obviously there are some other numbers that can better reflect the individual problems, such as checking numbers on minimum wage jobs, looking into homeless shelter numbers, and so on, but those studies are expensive and still can leave holes in the big picture.

Politicians and spokespeople will skew the numbers any which way they can to make them look good, though, and without independent research into the story behind these numbers, we won't know for sure whether their analysis is truly accurate.

[BlaqueKatt]

There are a lot of other factors that go into the unemployment rate, including people who "gave up" looking for a job (usually they have become homeless, have some rich parents who are giving them room and board, or have taken "under the table" work for someone). These people don't get counted. 25% of the population could be in this situation, and the unemployment rate still wouldn't reflect this.

Why does everyone continue to perpetuate this myth? Please stop, just because something sounds like it might be true, do not pass it on unless you personally verify it's true, bad information is bad, and when we have the ability to verify information from numerous credible sources within seconds, it becomes a matter of sheer laziness, or willful ignorance.

How unemployment figures are calculated(both sources are from the department of labor)
brief overview
More in depth explanation.

[TheHuckster]

Why does everyone continue to perpetuate this myth? Please stop, just because something sounds like it might be true, do not pass it on unless you personally verify it's true, bad information is bad, and when we have the ability to verify information from numerous credible sources within seconds, it becomes a matter of sheer laziness, or willful ignorance.

How unemployment figures are calculated(both sources are from the department of labor)
brief overview
More in depth explanation.

I don't see how getting 60,000 households who have jobs account for those who don't have houses to begin with, nor possibly with those who are being provided accommodations by someone else. It is, at best, an statistically good measurement of how many typical households are employed, without accounting for the many atypical households who may or may not have employment.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

nor possibly with those who are being provided accommodations by someone else.

Uhm. I'm being giving room and board by my parents right now, that means I'm part of their household and would be accounted for should this household be picked as part of the survey.

We have a guest room, if one of my friends came to live with us for a time, they would become part of the household in terms of the survey.

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't see how getting 60,000 households who have jobs account for those who don't have houses to begin with, nor possibly with those who are being provided accommodations by someone else. It is, at best, an statistically good measurement of how many typical households are employed, without accounting for the many atypical households who may or may not have employment.

Considering it's not being calculated by the out and out myth of "only people on unemployment are counted, and when that runs out they aren't counted anymore" which you seem to be suggesting, and quite obviously only read the short version, in depth version goes into exactly how the number was determined, how it's broken down per state, and how the breakdowns are done(also what exactly is being asked).

[TheHuckster]

Considering it's not being calculated by the out and out myth of "only people on unemployment are counted, and when that runs out they aren't counted anymore" which you seem to be suggesting, and quite obviously only read the short version, in depth version goes into exactly how the number was determined, how it's broken down per state, and how the breakdowns are done(also what exactly is being asked).

The first people who should stop perpetuating this myth are the actual econ professors in college who taught this in school. Perhaps it's something that's based on outdated knowledge.

[guywithashovel]

The economy certainly is booming right now, but there have been some improvements since the recession first hit. The DOW is now in the 14,000 range. A fair number of jobs have been created. Consumer confidence is inching up.

Now once again, we're certainly not back in an economic lala land, before someone tries to shoot me down with a story about how they're living paycheck to paycheck or their friend or relative who can't find a job. Nevertheless, I don't see what's so wrong with highlighting the good things that have taken place in spite of the bad news.

[smileyeagle1021]

There are a lot of other factors that go into the unemployment rate, including people who "gave up" looking for a job (usually they have become homeless, have some rich parents who are giving them room and board, or have taken "under the table" work for someone).

Considering it's not being calculated by the out and out myth of "only people on unemployment are counted, and when that runs out they aren't counted anymore" which you seem to be suggesting

I can't speak for what TheHuckster meant to suggest, but my reading of what he said right there is completely accurate, no matter what fancy measurements are used. It's true that it is more complicated than "you're no longer receiving unemployment, you are no longer counted", but it is a condition of being counted as part of the unemployed that you have to be actively looking for work. The people who come up with the unemployment numbers don't care why you aren't looking for work, they just care that if you aren't looking, then you aren't part of the labor force, and thus aren't unemployed. And even if we throw out the argument over unemployment numbers, we take that at face value that it is accurate that we are at just below 10% of the work force unemployed and pretend that no one has left the workforce to not be counted, it does nothing to tell of how many people are underemployed.

I have come up with a simple, biased, self-serving, but 100% accurate way of gauging economic recovery. Go to craigslist.com, click on accounting jobs, are there full time entry level positions that aren't scams, if yes, then there is recovery, if no then everything that says that there is recovery is absolute and utter bullshit and must be disregarded. My last check of craigslist shows that for the entire week there has been no postings that aren't either part time, require 5 years experience, a scam, or are miscategorized and should be in food/bev/hospitality, therefore, the Democrats claims of economic recovery is bullshit and must be disregarded.

[Aethian]

The economy certainly is booming right now, but there have been some improvements since the recession first hit. The DOW is now in the 14,000 range.

It's actually back to where it was before everything started to fall.

[TheHuckster]

It's actually back to where it was before everything started to fall.

In what terms? Assuming you are comparing today to 2007ish numbers, it certainly isn't in terms of the overall unemployment rate, no matter what data you use. Housing prices are still very low compared to 2007, and while it appears as though the worst of this downturn is over, I can't think of any number that is truly back to what it was in 2007, besides maybe certain indexes such as Dow Jones.

I don't think the average American citizen is feeling the effects of those indices rising just yet. This year might see improvements, but I highly doubt we'll see unemployment rates back down to 2007 levels, and many homeowners who bought houses during the housing bubble are going to remain underwater.

[Aethian]

All I was commenting on was the DOW number...NOTHING else.

[smileyeagle1021]

The DOW number is pretty meaningless... all that means is that a group of randomly selected companies that are supposed to be a representative sample are able to convince investors to invest in them. Nothing to do with employment or even profitability, just the sales ability of companies that are trying to sell themselves to investors.

[Aethian]

It may be meaningless to you but it means something to those who didn't pull out their retirement funds or to those who kept investing in the funds. From the time it was at this level before to the lowest level I lost 50%. Now that its back from that other time I've gained 14%.

That was my only comment, that it was back to the number it was at the start of the whole downturn.

I didn't jump in to get yelled at about jobs or housing prices.

[TheHuckster]

It may be meaningless to you but it means something to those who didn't pull out their retirement funds or to those who kept investing in the funds. From the time it was at this level before to the lowest level I lost 50%. Now that its back from that other time I've gained 14%.

That was my only comment, that it was back to the number it was at the start of the whole downturn.

I didn't jump in to get yelled at about jobs or housing prices.

I wasn't yelling at you, I was just asking for clarification. You responded to a quote that included "economy" and "DOW" and I wasn't sure if you were saying the economy was back to pre-recession levels or the DOW was.