There's been a lot of year end columns written discussing how the two halves of the country see "different facts". People like Chuck Todd of NBC actually said that religious people believe the nonsense they hear from President Trump because they have been raised to believe fairy tales like the stories in the Bible. Other mainstream media "pundits" are lamenting that Trump supporters just don't see the real facts. We're back, in essence, to the "irredeemable basket of deplorables" that Hillary Clinton used in 2016 to describe the sub-human cretins who are Trump supporters.
It is in this context that I read a column about the utter disaster that is the US economy. According to Jeff Spross in The Week, the 2010's were an economic disaster. This claim, however, is a good way to understand why the left and right see different "facts". Here's how Spross discusses the record low unemployment we currently have:
Furthermore, our current good times look a less good under the surface. The government's definition of unemployment can leave out a lot of people. This year, the portion of people who got jobs each month who wouldn't even have been counted among the unemployed the month before reached 75 percent. That's by far the highest it's been in the last three decades. The percentage of working-age Americans who have jobs only returned to its pre-Great Recession peak in the last few months. (It still has a ways to go before it returns to its previous peak, just before the 2001 recession.)
But what does this actually mean? Is the government cooking the books to get good numbers as Spross seems to say? Is the Trump administration lying to us? Here are a few points to remember:
1. The definition used to define who is unemployed hasn't been changed for decades. The unemployed under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama were defined the same way.
2. Spross is pointing out that people who have given up looking for work are not counted as unemployed. That's why the government always announces the "labor participation rate." That's the percentage of people of working age who are employed or seeking employment. The government also releases a second broader measure of unemployment (called U6) that measures not only people without a job, but also people who are forced to work only part time since they cannot find full time employment and those who are marginally connected to the work force but unemployed. It is those people who were working part time or who had given up looking for work that make up that 75 percent of new workers to whom Spross refers.
3. During the Obama years, U6 declined but rather slowly. Those who had left the work force basically stayed out of work. Under Trump, U6 has plummeted. The U6 number has fallen faster in the last three years under Trump than it has at any time for many decades.
Think about this. The statistics say that people who had just given up looking for work are finding jobs again in record numbers. People who were only working part time due to lack of full time work are finding full time jobs in record numbers. Spross looks at this and says it proves that the 2010's were an economic disaster. A rational person would look at this and celebrate that Americans who had given up or who had marginal part-time jobs are now able to get full time jobs from which they can support themselves and their families. Remember, Spross claims to be an expert on this stuff. So how can he lament the return to the dignity of employment by millions as proof that things are bad?
Ultimately, it is up to the American people to make the decision. Is it a good thing or a bad thing if literally millions of people are able to join the ranks of those with full time jobs? That's what has been happening under Trump. Is it better for individuals and their families to get the security of a steady pay check from a decent job (under Trump) or was it better (under Obama) when these same people could, at best, get a part time job from which they couldn't support their family.
For me, this is a no-brainer of a decision. Indeed, if there is half of the country that won't recognize the facts regarding the economy, it seems clear that the misled masses are on the Democrat/left wing side.
It is in this context that I read a column about the utter disaster that is the US economy. According to Jeff Spross in The Week, the 2010's were an economic disaster. This claim, however, is a good way to understand why the left and right see different "facts". Here's how Spross discusses the record low unemployment we currently have:
Furthermore, our current good times look a less good under the surface. The government's definition of unemployment can leave out a lot of people. This year, the portion of people who got jobs each month who wouldn't even have been counted among the unemployed the month before reached 75 percent. That's by far the highest it's been in the last three decades. The percentage of working-age Americans who have jobs only returned to its pre-Great Recession peak in the last few months. (It still has a ways to go before it returns to its previous peak, just before the 2001 recession.)
But what does this actually mean? Is the government cooking the books to get good numbers as Spross seems to say? Is the Trump administration lying to us? Here are a few points to remember:
1. The definition used to define who is unemployed hasn't been changed for decades. The unemployed under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama were defined the same way.
2. Spross is pointing out that people who have given up looking for work are not counted as unemployed. That's why the government always announces the "labor participation rate." That's the percentage of people of working age who are employed or seeking employment. The government also releases a second broader measure of unemployment (called U6) that measures not only people without a job, but also people who are forced to work only part time since they cannot find full time employment and those who are marginally connected to the work force but unemployed. It is those people who were working part time or who had given up looking for work that make up that 75 percent of new workers to whom Spross refers.
3. During the Obama years, U6 declined but rather slowly. Those who had left the work force basically stayed out of work. Under Trump, U6 has plummeted. The U6 number has fallen faster in the last three years under Trump than it has at any time for many decades.
Think about this. The statistics say that people who had just given up looking for work are finding jobs again in record numbers. People who were only working part time due to lack of full time work are finding full time jobs in record numbers. Spross looks at this and says it proves that the 2010's were an economic disaster. A rational person would look at this and celebrate that Americans who had given up or who had marginal part-time jobs are now able to get full time jobs from which they can support themselves and their families. Remember, Spross claims to be an expert on this stuff. So how can he lament the return to the dignity of employment by millions as proof that things are bad?
Ultimately, it is up to the American people to make the decision. Is it a good thing or a bad thing if literally millions of people are able to join the ranks of those with full time jobs? That's what has been happening under Trump. Is it better for individuals and their families to get the security of a steady pay check from a decent job (under Trump) or was it better (under Obama) when these same people could, at best, get a part time job from which they couldn't support their family.
For me, this is a no-brainer of a decision. Indeed, if there is half of the country that won't recognize the facts regarding the economy, it seems clear that the misled masses are on the Democrat/left wing side.
No comments:
Post a Comment