barbos
Contributor
Unemployment rate can go down because people stop looking for a job, and it is in fact how they are able to post rosy numbers.
-
Features
Mueller investigation
- Thread starter Artemus
- Start date
Yup. At one point we were about the unemployment capital of America. The rate has plunged since--but for a period of years the local employment numbers were flat. Thus the improvement was people stopping looking or moving away (or, a few like me, finding remote work, but that's going to be a small part of it.)
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,756
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Generally speaking, though, the Russia fanboy is just repeating the Trump/GOP talking point that the "real" unemployment numbers at the end of Obama's term were much worse than reported despite the fact that the BLS hadn't changed their methodology at all. Trump bellowed that the official number was "fake news" and that "real" unemployment was much higher...at one point claiming it was 42 percent.
Then - once he was sworn in - the official rate was suddenly accurate again.
barbos
Contributor
No, I am repeating something which was said long before Trump even thought about running for POTUS. And it was said by economists and statisticians themselves. Unemployment rate counts people who are registered at unemployment offices. I understand unemployment benefits last certain amount of time after that there is no point at going to the office. People who know better are welcome to correct.
Generally speaking, though, the Russia fanboy is just repeating the Trump/GOP talking point that the "real" unemployment numbers at the end of Obama's term were much worse than reported despite the fact that the BLS hadn't changed their methodology at all. Trump bellowed that the official number was "fake news" and that "real" unemployment was much higher...at one point claiming it was 42 percent.
Then - once he was sworn in - the official rate was suddenly accurate again.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
There are all sorts of variables that affect the real unemployment rate, so it is very easy to mislead others and oneself in trying to figure it all out. How many people stopped looking for work because they retired? Baby boomers? Oh yeah, there was that. And mortality rates? Is that a significant factor? How many folks who gave up looking for work actually went back and decided to start looking again? What about the growth in employment opportunities for women? What about people who stopped looking while they went back to school? In the end, the fact of the matter is that the methodology for gathering the statistic has remained constant for a long time, and it isn't at all clear that all of those other factors affected it in a way that just made Obama look good. The economy did improve gradually under Obama, but he also had an obstructionist Republican Congress to contend with for the last three quarters of his term in office. And he managed to do well in spite of their efforts to sabotage everything he did. As for Trump, it is still too early to tell what his impact on the economy will be, because 2017 was a year in which the Obama budget was still in play.
It takes a while for the damage from Republican mismanagement of the economy to show up and have a significant impact. They just added well over a trillion dollars to the national deficit, but that will not happen all at once. It is spread out over the next several years, beginning in 2019. And there is hopefully still time for a Democratic Congress to repair some of the damage, if angry voters can show up in significant enough numbers to flip Congress even in the face of the Republican gerrymander and voter suppression tactics.
It takes a while for the damage from Republican mismanagement of the economy to show up and have a significant impact. They just added well over a trillion dollars to the national deficit, but that will not happen all at once. It is spread out over the next several years, beginning in 2019. And there is hopefully still time for a Democratic Congress to repair some of the damage, if angry voters can show up in significant enough numbers to flip Congress even in the face of the Republican gerrymander and voter suppression tactics.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
Who just stops looking for a job? Those who can live off the income of another I would suppose; spouses, adult children. I think a poll asking such a question would have a high margin of error as a person's pride comes into play. People may say they've stopped looking, even tell themselves they've stopped looking, but they still look, just not as much. It is said looking for a job is a full time job. After maybe 18 months of dejection, they go into part time job hunting mode and since they cannot say they've found employment, "I've stopped looking." maintains one's sense of dignity.
If people who can give up looking for a job did give up looking for a job, there would be less family income. This household belt tightening would reflect in retail sales. If people gave up looking, there should be a sharp drop and subsequent flattening of retail sales after 2008. There is the sharp drop but no flattening. Is there something other than polls to support the "I've stopped looking." claim?
FRED Retail Sales
FRED Family Income
If people who can give up looking for a job did give up looking for a job, there would be less family income. This household belt tightening would reflect in retail sales. If people gave up looking, there should be a sharp drop and subsequent flattening of retail sales after 2008. There is the sharp drop but no flattening. Is there something other than polls to support the "I've stopped looking." claim?
FRED Retail Sales
FRED Family Income
Generally speaking, though, the Russia fanboy is just repeating the Trump/GOP talking point that the "real" unemployment numbers at the end of Obama's term were much worse than reported despite the fact that the BLS hadn't changed their methodology at all. Trump bellowed that the official number was "fake news" and that "real" unemployment was much higher...at one point claiming it was 42 percent.
Then - once he was sworn in - the official rate was suddenly accurate again.
While His Flatulence was nuts (that 42% is the total number not working--including students, housewives, the disabled and the retired) there has been a problem with the unemployment rate for a long time now. I forget which president changed what was reported as the official rate. U6 is a far truer picture of unemployment than U3.
Some go back to school to learn a new field--not by choice but because their old jobs are gone.
Some become stay-at-home wives--they rebuild their lives around the new model, finding a job would mean rebuilding them again.
Some do early retirement. Again, rebuilding their lives, probably irreversibly.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Manafort suing Mueller/DOJ:
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/manafort-lawsuit-robert-mueller-authority/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/manafort-lawsuit-robert-mueller-authority/index.html
TV and credit cards
Contributor
More manure for the Fox News spreader.
Rosenstein has complete authority over all aspects of the investigation including its scope.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,751
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Next up, Manafort sues DOJ saying Constitution is unconstitutional.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,756
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
I may have mentioned this before, but what was Pauly indicted for? Money laundering. How did he wash the Russian cash? Real estate.
Who else in the Trump camp is into real estate?
Hmmm....
Malintent
Veteran Member
My understanding is that this was a standard legal practice... as empty a threat as it is... it is the expected action... and only action besides inaction one could do. It was the wrong action, in this case. Inaction would have harmed him less. But inaction is not in the Trump TV Guide.
Artemus
Veteran Member
Michael Wolff claims to have recorded the conversations he used when writing the "Fire and Fury" book. Does anyone know if Mueller is able to subpoena those recordings? It seems that they could be very helpful in making the obstruction case. My I-don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-talking-about guess is that they would be admissible in court since they were made legally by a third party and not part of an investigation. But then the first-amendment rights of the press may make them immune to a subpoena if Wolff doesn't want to release them. Both informed and uninformed opinions solicited here! 
Michael Wolff claims to have recorded the conversations he used when writing the "Fire and Fury" book. Does anyone know if Mueller is able to subpoena those recordings? It seems that they could be very helpful in making the obstruction case. My I-don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-talking-about guess is that they would be admissible in court since they were made legally by a third party and not part of an investigation. But then the first-amendment rights of the press may make them immune to a subpoena if Wolff doesn't want to release them. Both informed and uninformed opinions solicited here!
I would think it would depend on the laws where they were made. One-party state, fine. Two-party, not acceptable.
Artemus
Veteran Member
Michael Wolff claims to have recorded the conversations he used when writing the "Fire and Fury" book. Does anyone know if Mueller is able to subpoena those recordings? It seems that they could be very helpful in making the obstruction case. My I-don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-talking-about guess is that they would be admissible in court since they were made legally by a third party and not part of an investigation. But then the first-amendment rights of the press may make them immune to a subpoena if Wolff doesn't want to release them. Both informed and uninformed opinions solicited here!
I would think it would depend on the laws where they were made. One-party state, fine. Two-party, not acceptable.
It was in the White House (D.C.) so federal law applies, which allows one-person recordings so Wolff could legally record any conversation for his own use. But can Mueller obtain them for his investigation by subpoena?
Elixir
Made in America
Michael Wolff claims to have recorded the conversations he used when writing the "Fire and Fury" book. Does anyone know if Mueller is able to subpoena those recordings? It seems that they could be very helpful in making the obstruction case. My I-don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-talking-about guess is that they would be admissible in court since they were made legally by a third party and not part of an investigation. But then the first-amendment rights of the press may make them immune to a subpoena if Wolff doesn't want to release them. Both informed and uninformed opinions solicited here!
I would think it would depend on the laws where they were made. One-party state, fine. Two-party, not acceptable.
It was in the White House (D.C.) so federal law applies, which allows one-person recordings so Wolff could legally record any conversation for his own use. But can Mueller obtain them for his investigation by subpoena?
IANAL, so - of course he can, if it's evidence in a criminal case.
If I was a lawyer I'm sure the answer would be a lot more nuanced.
Artemus
Veteran Member
A lot of press outlets are reporting that Mueller wants to interview Trump directly. Hopefully it means that the investigation is getting near the end. And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify. Time to get out more popcorn!
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,751
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
He is used to depositions, but I can't imagine his lawyers allowing this... not without questions in advance.
Of course, Trump could just claim lawyer-client privilege, because his lawyers are in the same room with him during the questioning.
Malintent
Veteran Member
IANAL, so - of course he can, if it's evidence in a criminal case.
If I was a lawyer I'm sure the answer would be a lot more nuanced.
I'm sure the owner of the recordings would be happy to help by providing copies to Federal Investigators... They don't even have to ask for them, Wolfe could just send them over with his compliments.