Blue Waves and Red Waves

[Leonhard]

Nope - it's a liberal attack to pretend not to be a hypocrite. It's ... um.... puckywhistle. Yeah, that's what it is!

So if you guys complain about a liberal doing something, all we have to do is bring up a conservative doing something, and then ...? What exactly?

[Cow Poke]

So if you guys complain about a liberal doing something, all we have to do is bring up a conservative doing something, and then ...? What exactly?

Hush Leon! I'm just giving Carpe a hard time!

[Sparko]

So if you guys complain about a liberal doing something, all we have to do is bring up a conservative doing something, and then ...? What exactly?

The point is that the same people who are whining about Trump did NOT whine when Obama (or Clinton) did the same thing. It is not excusing the action but pointing out the hypocrisy in only complaining when "the other guy" does it but not your own guy. On many items the liberals can do the same in reverse, complain why are the republicans are defending Trump doing something when they complained about Obama/Clinton doing it.

[rogue06]

That's true Rogue06, looking up I can find that over the past two decades (more than Obama's presidency) there seems to be a very slight tendency for people to stay on the work force longer. But its only grown by a year or so. I don't think this can discount the effects of what I was talking about.

http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploa.../05/retire.jpg

What I was pointing out is that most pundits on both sides thought one result of Obamacare would be to increase early retirement but it did not have that effect. There are many likely reasons for it. One is as you noted earlier that folks are living longer and therefore don't feel a rush to retire (people tend to be in better shape at age 65 than they were at that age in say the 1970s). Another reason is that it appears there is a wider gap now between what most people earn while working and what sort of income they can expect in retirement. That would be an incentive to stick it out a few more years -- kinda like the star athlete well past his prime tries to stick it out one or two more years despite injuries just because they're loathe to abandon that big check.

[Sparko]

That's true Rogue06, looking up I can find that over the past two decades (more than Obama's presidency) there seems to be a very slight tendency for people to stay on the work force longer. But its only grown by a year or so. I don't think this can discount the effects of what I was talking about.

http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploa.../05/retire.jpg

I would beware of averages. Median would be better. For most US workers, 64 is the minimum retirement age to get social security. And 67 is becoming more popular as the age that maximizes social security income. Unless you are in the military or police which usually have 20 year terms and pay an actual pension, you can't afford to retire before 64. And even guys who retire from the military or police will usually end up taking a second job.

[carpedm9587]

Sure...

When Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.

If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.

Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama. If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.

Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be. One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%. Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#39d5a3467818

---

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chai...mployment.aspx

---
The big lie about jobshttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-by-not-coun/

Your problem, Sparko, is that folks who have "dropped out of the workforce" have always been excluded from the numbers, as far as I can tell. They are STILL excluded from the numbers. Some drop out because they've given up. Some drop out because of illness. Some drop out because of a return to school or training. Some drop out to deal with a family issue. Some drop out to do home care. So it has always been the practice to remove from consideration those who are not actively looking to find work. Unemployment has always been the percentage of those wishing to be employed who cannot be.

I realize all of this was blown up under Obama - because it just sounded bad and the GOP could make hay with it. But as far as I can tell, it is still being done under Trump, was being done under both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and as far back as I can find records. If you know otherwise, I'd need to know the evidence.

[carpedm9587]

I remember posting somewhere recently that in spite of everyone thinking that Obamacare would lead to earlier retirements (primarily because folks didn't need to worry about pre-existing conditions and needing stay employed until Medicare kicked in) that to everyone's surprise retirement rates have actually slowed and the average retirement age has increased.

I don't know who "everyone" is, but I know of not a single person who thought Obamacare would result in "early retirement." I certainly never thought it. I poked around and found that it was about 17% of workers who thought they would be able to retire early because of Obamacare. That is hardly "everyone."

You tend to do this, Rogue. You use cherry-picked data or superlatives like "everyone" and "always" when there is little no evidence to back it up. You recently did it with regards to voter fraud, quoting a study that showed 35K+ people who had double voted. You claimed it was first name, last name, DOB, and last four of the Soc. I ran the math, made a math mistake, was called on it by someone, and went back to your article, only to find the article clearly stated that about 750 people met that criteria, and the 35K figure was name and DOB only - which is perfectly in line with statistical predictions for duplication. Your response? Crickets. Not a single acknowledgement that you had misquoted the numbers.

[carpedm9587]

So quit derailing the derail with the silly "whataboutism".

[carpedm9587]

The point is that the same people who are whining about Trump did NOT whine when Obama (or Clinton) did the same thing. It is not excusing the action but pointing out the hypocrisy in only complaining when "the other guy" does it but not your own guy. On many items the liberals can do the same in reverse, complain why are the republicans are defending Trump doing something when they complained about Obama/Clinton doing it.

The point is - whataboutism is used even in 1-on-1 discussions, when the person engaging in the practice cannot possibly know the position their opponent in the discussion had on the other person.

I'm not "liberals." I'm not "Democrats." I am not responsible for what every other human being has said. I am responsible for my positions and my statements. If you catch me saying different things about two candidates for the same offense - by all means call me on it. If you respond to something I said about Trump with "what about Obama" and you have no evidence that I ever took a hypocritical position about Obama - then you are engaging in "whataboutism" as a distraction and debate tactic. "Hypocrisy" is a none issue.

[Sparko]

The point is - whataboutism is used even in 1-on-1 discussions, when the person engaging in the practice cannot possibly know the position their opponent in the discussion had on the other person.

I'm not "liberals." I'm not "Democrats." I am not responsible for what every other human being has said. I am responsible for my positions and my statements. If you catch me saying different things about two candidates for the same offense - by all means call me on it. If you respond to something I said about Trump with "what about Obama" and you have no evidence that I ever took a hypocritical position about Obama - then you are engaging in "whataboutism" as a distraction and debate tactic. "Hypocrisy" is a none issue.

Generally when we use what you are referring to "whataboutism" we are talking about the media and the democrats and liberals who are making the accusations against Trump, not you.

[carpedm9587]

Generally when we use what you are referring to "whataboutism" we are talking about the media and the democrats and liberals who are making the accusations against Trump, not you.

Then why, when I post a comment about Trump, do I get "what about Obama?" I am not responsible for what the media, democrats, or liberals say. I am not all that interested in what they say. My argument is MY argument. Respond to it - or don't. But responding to arguments I made with "whataboutisms" related to what other people have said is simply pointless.

[Cow Poke]

Then why, when I post a comment about Trump, do I get "what about Obama?" I am not responsible for what the media, democrats, or liberals say. I am not all that interested in what they say. My argument is MY argument. Respond to it - or don't. But responding to arguments I made with "whataboutisms" related to what other people have said is simply pointless.

And this complaint is pointless as well, because peoples is gonna do what peoples does.

[Cow Poke]

Your problem, Sparko, is that folks who have "dropped out of the workforce" have always been excluded from the numbers, as far as I can tell. They are STILL excluded from the numbers. Some drop out because they've given up. Some drop out because of illness. Some drop out because of a return to school or training. Some drop out to deal with a family issue. Some drop out to do home care. So it has always been the practice to remove from consideration those who are not actively looking to find work. Unemployment has always been the percentage of those wishing to be employed who cannot be.

I realize all of this was blown up under Obama - because it just sounded bad and the GOP could make hay with it. But as far as I can tell, it is still being done under Trump, was being done under both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and as far back as I can find records. If you know otherwise, I'd need to know the evidence.

There was the big fuss about the "labor participation rate" which was horribly high under Obama, and I was gonna post data to prove that, but the data isn't (aren't?) showing what I want it to show, so I'm not gonna post it.

[carpedm9587]

And this complaint is pointless as well, because peoples is gonna do what peoples does.

Yes - they will. So I just point out the pointlessness of the response - and the dodge it represents.

Which I have more than adequately done at this point. Moving on...


And I note the original observation about compartmentalizing and Trump has STILL not been responded to. So the dodge worked...

[Cow Poke]

Yes - they will. So I just point out the pointlessness of the response - and the dodge it represents.

Which I have more than adequately done at this point. Moving on...


And I note the original observation about compartmentalizing and Trump has STILL not been responded to. So the dodge worked...

So, why are you dodging? Get to it!!!!