Obama's destruction of the economy continues!

[coloradoatheist]

It is interesting that the labor force participation rate is at it's lowest in 40 years.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/16/unemployment-is-low-but-more-workers-are-leaving-the-workforce

 

[Ford]

It is interesting that the labor force participation rate is at it's lowest in 40 years.

It is interesting that for the first time in the last 40 years, the labor force participation rate has suddenly become very important.

For the last 4 decades, the unemployment rate was a benchmark for how well the economy was performing.

Yet now that said benchmark is back to where it was in 2008, we're supposed to ignore it as a harbinger of good news. In fact the unemployment rate - which was held up as a measure of success during times when a President belonged to a certain party - is now a filthy lie.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It is interesting that the labor force participation rate is at it's lowest in 40 years.

It is interesting that for the first time in the last 40 years, the labor force participation rate has suddenly become very important.

For the last 4 decades, the unemployment rate was a benchmark for how well the economy was performing.

Yet now that said benchmark is back to where it was in 2008, we're supposed to ignore it as a harbinger of good news. In fact the unemployment rate - which was held up as a measure of success during times when a President belonged to a certain party - is now a filthy lie.

During Bush's recovery it was the same criticism, that we were having a jobless recovery and it was improving because people were leaving the workforce. It's been the criticism of how you actually measure an economy. Do you just count the official unemployment, the underemployed, or the labor force participation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is interesting that for the first time in the last 40 years, the labor force participation rate has suddenly become very important.

For the last 4 decades, the unemployment rate was a benchmark for how well the economy was performing.

Yet now that said benchmark is back to where it was in 2008, we're supposed to ignore it as a harbinger of good news. In fact the unemployment rate - which was held up as a measure of success during times when a President belonged to a certain party - is now a filthy lie.

During Bush's recovery it was the same criticism, that we were having a jobless recovery and it was improving because people were leaving the workforce. It's been the criticism of how you actually measure an economy. Do you just count the official unemployment, the underemployed, or the labor force participation.

The argument during the W Admin was that the economy wasn't as robust as the unemployment numbers indicated. The underemployment numbers were notably higher. The economic indicators were also contradictory. We found out why in 2008.

A lot has been made by the Right-Wing of the total number of jobs in the US decreasing, while ignoring the large number of people retiring. Yes, our economy is transitioning here, but the bar was set by the right-wing as the current economy being absolutely disastrous. The stats indicate otherwise, in fact, a notable improvement since he took office when the economy was going to crap.

Also, I'd like to add another note, "The Bush Recovery"?! Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. W inherited a bump on the road.

 

[untermensche]

That is hysterical.

Your definition of "economy" is amusing.

You have cause and effect backwards. The economy crashed because the housing bubble collapsed. People were losing their homes because they had bought too much house.

Some were allowed by bankers to get "too much house", too much of a loan.

The bankers have a societal duty to see to it that they are not making one bad loan after another which will inevitably lead to collapse of the system.

But here they deliberately did this. They sought out bad loans to make with vigor.

Most of them deserve to be in jail, but in the upside down Wonderland called capitalism they have been rewarded.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You have cause and effect backwards. The economy crashed because the housing bubble collapsed. People were losing their homes because they had bought too much house.

Some were allowed by bankers to get "too much house", too much of a loan.

The bankers have a societal duty to see to it that they are not making one bad loan after another which will inevitably lead to collapse of the system.

But here they deliberately did this. They sought out bad loans to make with vigor.

Most of them deserve to be in jail, but in the upside down Wonderland called capitalism they have been rewarded.

LP just wants us to feel for the poor banks.

We can ignore the real reason why the economy collapsed. People bought too much house and the banks had to lie about the worthiness of the loans of people that bought too much house in order to off load the loan risk onto someone else. IE, committed fraud. The ratings agencies then didn't bother looking at anything they were rating, at best negligence, at worst 'in on the fraud'. But LP wants to keep pointing to the poor banks that were swindled by those greedy people buying "too much house".

 

[dismal]

Can we get back on topic?

The point of this thread is to cheerlead about how great the economy is.

 

[untermensche]

I thought this thread was about how badly Republican ideas and actions destroyed the economy, that can't seem to get back on track.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Can we get back on topic?

The point of this thread is to cheerlead about how great the economy is.

Exactly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwLWNXFH2rg[YOUTUBE]EwLWNXFH2rg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought this thread was about how badly Republican ideas and actions destroyed the economy, that can't seem to get back on track.

Actually it was to deal with yet another ridiculous anti-Obama argument from those in the right-wing that think the economy has not improved since 2008.

 

[dismal]

I thought this thread was about how badly Republican ideas and actions destroyed the economy, that can't seem to get back on track.

Actually it was to deal with yet another ridiculous anti-Obama argument from those in the right-wing that think the economy has not improved since 2008.

Die, strawman, die!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have cause and effect backwards. The economy crashed because the housing bubble collapsed. People were losing their homes because they had bought too much house.

That was what George Dubbiya said. Have you ever heard of sub prime loans. Many of these home losers found themselves wrapped in the octopussoid arms of ARM's. Yes, it was inadvisable to buy these homes from the rats who were pushing them on the market. Many of these sub prime home buyers couldn't afford enough of an education to protect themselves from this swindle. You think there is some always right Economy that manages to go forth in purity in the face of housing bubbles, dot com bubbles, student loan bubbles, soap bubbles? The bottom line is that there was a lot of crookedness going on in the higher echelons of the financial industry with cheats even cheating each other. This system lets the little guy, the victim work his heart out for something and then snatch his home out from under him and say something catchy like "bubble." Better to call it what it is...sheer crookedness, albeit a crookedness that Loren admires with all his heart.

Subprime loans are strongly suggestive of buying too much house.

You're basically blaming the bankers for writing the loans the borrowers should have known they couldn't afford. The usual leftist world: Comprised of a population of morons being exploited by the few intelligent people around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I specifically remember economic advisors advising home buyers to take ARMs because, they said, the interest rates are generally lower more than they are higher. I also remember them advising people to buy homes three times the value of their annual household income. I rejected both those stupid ideas. Be that as it may, that's what "experts" were advising people at the time so you cannot place all the blame on the buyers.

If you can afford what the payments could rise to an ARM is the better deal as you will on average pay less interest. This is the usual pattern, by assuming more risk you cut what you pay.

And three years income is my memory of what was considered prudent. Many of the crap mortgages involved ratios a lot higher than that, coupled with creative financing to make it work for a while before they flipped the house.

- - - Updated - - -

I specifically remember economic advisors advising home buyers to take ARMs because, they said, the interest rates are generally lower more than they are higher. I also remember them advising people to buy homes three times the value of their annual household income. I rejected both those stupid ideas. Be that as it may, that's what "experts" were advising people at the time so you cannot place all the blame on the buyers.

For certain people, ARMs are a great deal. If you have low leverage, can afford an increase in D/S if it happens, and are a short term borrower, they are a great deal. I had an ARM at 2.30% that I just rolled over at 1.97%.

I don't think it matters if you are a short term borrower or not. If you can afford the maximum payment then go ARM.

- - - Updated - - -

It is interesting that the labor force participation rate is at it's lowest in 40 years.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/16/unemployment-is-low-but-more-workers-are-leaving-the-workforce

This needs to be taken with a shaker of salt.

The problem is retiring boomers. The labor force participation rate would have dropped without any economic problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is interesting that the labor force participation rate is at it's lowest in 40 years.

It is interesting that for the first time in the last 40 years, the labor force participation rate has suddenly become very important.

For the last 4 decades, the unemployment rate was a benchmark for how well the economy was performing.

Yet now that said benchmark is back to where it was in 2008, we're supposed to ignore it as a harbinger of good news. In fact the unemployment rate - which was held up as a measure of success during times when a President belonged to a certain party - is now a filthy lie.

It's somewhat relevant--the problem is this recession was bad enough that a lot of people were driven out of the labor market entirely. (For example, switching to being a stay-at-home mother.) The unemployment rate does not tell the whole story--locally I have watched the unemployment rate drop nearly 50% with basically zero increase in the number of people working. From 2009 through 2014 I don't recall seeing any help wanted signs anywhere. This year they have returned.

The problem is while the unemployment rate understates the problem the labor force participation rate overstates it due to an excess of boomers retiring.

The U6 rate (which can be hard to find and almost never shows up in the news) is a better yardstick but even it doesn't count those who were driven out and reacted with lifestyle changes that at least at present take them out of the labor market entirely.

One thing that I think would help would be to report fractional employment rather than employed/unemployed. A full time worker who now is working 20 hr/wk is .5 unemployed. A skilled guy who was making $40/hr but now is working in an unskilled job at $10/hr is .75 underemployed. Someone could be both partially unemployed and underemployed at the same time.

Of course this isn't going to happen because the politicians don't like bad data.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That was what George Dubbiya said. Have you ever heard of sub prime loans. Many of these home losers found themselves wrapped in the octopussoid arms of ARM's. Yes, it was inadvisable to buy these homes from the rats who were pushing them on the market. Many of these sub prime home buyers couldn't afford enough of an education to protect themselves from this swindle. You think there is some always right Economy that manages to go forth in purity in the face of housing bubbles, dot com bubbles, student loan bubbles, soap bubbles? The bottom line is that there was a lot of crookedness going on in the higher echelons of the financial industry with cheats even cheating each other. This system lets the little guy, the victim work his heart out for something and then snatch his home out from under him and say something catchy like "bubble." Better to call it what it is...sheer crookedness, albeit a crookedness that Loren admires with all his heart.

Subprime loans are strongly suggestive of buying too much house.

You're basically blaming the bankers for writing the loans the borrowers should have known they couldn't afford. The usual leftist world: Comprised of a population of morons being exploited by the few intelligent people around.

Um, excuse me, the banks didn't care who they wrote the loans to because they were selling these mortgages to stupid investors and lying about how safe they were. Also many of these people could afford their loans until they fucking lost their jobs or savings because of the crooked mortgage derivative scam. So no this is not some usual "Lefsa" world, but what really happened.

 

[maxparrish]

Actually it was to deal with yet another ridiculous anti-Obama argument from those in the right-wing that think the economy has not improved since 2008.

Die, strawman, die!

Yes. Some folk have a very difficult time seeing the conceptual difference between "has not fully recovered since..." and "not improved since...". It shouldn't be a brain teaser, but apparently it is.

- - - Updated - - -

It is interesting that for the first time in the last 40 years, the labor force participation rate has suddenly become very important.

For the last 4 decades, the unemployment rate was a benchmark for how well the economy was performing.

Yet now that said benchmark is back to where it was in 2008, we're supposed to ignore it as a harbinger of good news. In fact the unemployment rate - which was held up as a measure of success during times when a President belonged to a certain party - is now a filthy lie.

It's somewhat relevant--the problem is this recession was bad enough that a lot of people were driven out of the labor market entirely. (For example, switching to being a stay-at-home mother.) The unemployment rate does not tell the whole story--locally I have watched the unemployment rate drop nearly 50% with basically zero increase in the number of people working. From 2009 through 2014 I don't recall seeing any help wanted signs anywhere. This year they have returned.

The problem is while the unemployment rate understates the problem the labor force participation rate overstates it due to an excess of boomers retiring.

The U6 rate (which can be hard to find and almost never shows up in the news) is a better yardstick but even it doesn't count those who were driven out and reacted with lifestyle changes that at least at present take them out of the labor market entirely.

One thing that I think would help would be to report fractional employment rather than employed/unemployed. A full time worker who now is working 20 hr/wk is .5 unemployed. A skilled guy who was making $40/hr but now is working in an unskilled job at $10/hr is .75 underemployed. Someone could be both partially unemployed and underemployed at the same time.

Of course this isn't going to happen because the politicians don't like bad data.

Oh Loren, why must you confuse us with analysis and facts. Shame on you.

 

[Axulus]

You have cause and effect backwards. The economy crashed because the housing bubble collapsed. People were losing their homes because they had bought too much house.

Some were allowed by bankers to get "too much house", too much of a loan.

The bankers have a societal duty to see to it that they are not making one bad loan after another which will inevitably lead to collapse of the system.

But here they deliberately did this. They sought out bad loans to make with vigor.

Most of them deserve to be in jail, but in the upside down Wonderland called capitalism they have been rewarded.

The feds wanted to make sure more people got more house, middle class entitlement and all. The bankers were happy to comply with their government backed guarantees. Who wouldn't?

 

[untermensche]

Some were allowed by bankers to get "too much house", too much of a loan.

The bankers have a societal duty to see to it that they are not making one bad loan after another which will inevitably lead to collapse of the system.

But here they deliberately did this. They sought out bad loans to make with vigor.

Most of them deserve to be in jail, but in the upside down Wonderland called capitalism they have been rewarded.

The feds wanted to make sure more people got more house, middle class entitlement and all. The bankers were happy to comply with their government backed guarantees. Who wouldn't?

Show me where the "feds" ever once told bankers to stop checking information on mortgage applications.

They told the banks to reach out and try to bring in people who have historically been denied mortgages based on racial hatreds and prejudice.

It is only the banks and their scheme to pass bad loans on to others that decided to stop checking loan information.

And this was a massive scheme that involved the banks, the insurers, the appraisers, the ratings agencies.

It demonstrated how an under-regulated capitalist market behaves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some were allowed by bankers to get "too much house", too much of a loan.

The bankers have a societal duty to see to it that they are not making one bad loan after another which will inevitably lead to collapse of the system.

But here they deliberately did this. They sought out bad loans to make with vigor.

Most of them deserve to be in jail, but in the upside down Wonderland called capitalism they have been rewarded.

The feds wanted to make sure more people got more house, middle class entitlement and all. The bankers were happy to comply with their government backed guarantees. Who wouldn't?

What government back guarantees? The mortgage companies outrightly sold the high risk mortgages to free up principal to make another high risk mortgage, the rating agencies pretended they were low risk and banks all over the world bought the investments.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Die, strawman, die!

Yes. Some folk have a very difficult time seeing the conceptual difference between "has not fully recovered since..." and "not improved since...". It shouldn't be a brain teaser, but apparently it is.

Interesting, so the claim is "has not fully recovered"? That sounds like goalpost shifting. I mean this guy says it has barely recovered.

Worse off than seven years ago?
An very weak recovery compared to prior deep recessions?

And this guy... never even had a recovery. Inflation is killing us right now!

However, we've actually never been in a recovery.

But hey, who am I to argue with you? You folk apparently only believe we haven't "fully" recovered and all those other posts are just poorly worded.