re: When a lib says Trump inherited a hot economy.

quote:

---

The huge reserve NILF pool mitigates wage pressure as well.

---

the participation rate has gone sideways since 2015, and jobs continue to be added at a rate around 200k per month, and the headline unemployment rate is low. and, inflation itself has been below target until the last couple of months. if the recent rise in nominal wage rates is matched (or more than matched) by inflation measures, it's not really an economic thing to be touted

quote:

---

there is a very noticeable improvement in the unemployment rate among much lower age groups. People tend to earn lower wages in their youth.

---

now this is something worth looking into, although its effect doesn't seem likely to be large. this only breaks the age buckets into 2 categories but year-over-year weekly wages have dropped for all categories except young women

LINK

a better breakdown is probably available on another page for a comparison over time, i might look into it later

ETA after looking at employment/population ratio for 55+: it's increasing steadily just as it is for under 55. so lower-paid younger workers can't explain flat real wages

quote:

---

certain people want to get bogged down in semantics, be misleading and miss the forest for the trees

---

crying about getting called on multiple bullshite underlying assertions, mograyback-style

quote:

---

it doesn't matter how much data or evidence is presented. they are going to be obtuse

---

posted by the same guy, in the very same post, who cries about getting "bogged down" by data and "missing the forest for the trees" unironically

lol, just lol

the showman at his best.

Melt

quote:

---

You can't honestly say that Obama was handed a better economy than Trump

---

Of course that’s not what the OP said, and I hope that you realize that.

This is the new rallying cry and expect to hear it a lot from Barry as he has decided to grace the country with his presence again.

quote:

---

i cited articles for precisely the point i made

---

lmao, it's a guilty pleasure of mine to enjoy when bigmouth idiots self-own as hard as you do.

for the second time, not a single one of your articles addressed real wages, which is what you were responding to. they were all about nominal wages. i enjoyed that you had to make oh it so painfully obvious that you don't know the difference though, so there's that.

quote:

---

i also noticed you didn't even engage the points i made

---

make some points you can support, and support them with something other than a blind link that doesn't actually support the specific thing you say.

(maybe after learning the definition of real wages, we can start with that one!)

if you can successfully do this for once in your life, we can move on to your other claims, like the one about the labor force participation rate's "dynamic turnaround under trump" as well!

quote:

---

hey care to comment on the thread that you have been ducking?

---

in general i'll come and go as i please, just like everyone else. i certainly get left hanging in threads in the middle of back & forths all the damn time, and don't know the supposed thread you're talking about. something tells me you don't know what thread you're talking about, either.

quote:

---

the participation rate has gone sideways since 2015

---

2016.
It has gone sideways since 2016, despite an increased pool of >65y/os remaining in the workforce during the Obama term. Eventually, one would expect an inflow of that pool into the NILF category which would counter outflow of younger workers.

quote:

---

bigmouth idiots

---

coming from you, more evidence of your idiocy

quote:

---

not a single one of your articles addressed real wages

---

i typed an entire paragraph responding to this stupid point already. good job addressing it

quote:

---

i'll come and go as i please

---

scared. that's all you had to say

have you ever been checked for asperger's?

quote:

---

blind link

---

so that you can't complain about this anymore

quote:
do you actually think this proves that there are systematic revisions made to make obama look good?
yes

quote:
i guess since i have provided two anecdotes to your one
interesting how you went from denial to admission. thank you. you can drop the smug bullcrap attitude. you were wrong

up to this point, i have provided 5 articles. i have also pulled out the direct quotes because you're too lazy to do your own work which is probably the reason why you have this irrational denial

quote:
here's not one but two (!) examples of upward revisions in 2015
i wonder if you ever get tired of being wrong. july 2015 was initially revised upward but then revised again. SAD FACE

"Caveat on the use of BLS Jobs Data

The monthly headline data ends up being significantly revised for months after the initial release - and is subject also to annual revisions. The question remains how seriously can you take the data when first released."

regarding july 2015

---------------------------------------------------------

obama misled the public on how "good" the economy was doing? I DON'T BELIEVE IT.

most of the jobs were part time jobs anyway

---------------------------------------------------------

from the bls oct 2015 report

"The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from +245,000 to +223,000, and the change for August was revised from +173,000 to +136,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 59,000 less than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 167,000 per month."

oops, 2015 wasn't so great after all. that dang bls!

---------------------------------------------------------

it seems that obama's 2015 legacy was quite controversial

controversial birth/death model

as usual, the numbers don't add up

obama's hilarious farewell address

i fully realize that you are going to fight the effort to actually look at this info, much less respond to it but, there it is anyway. the amount of corroboration i have provided should be more than enough for you to understand the facile point - there was a pattern of cooking the numbers. this brings up the larger point, obama's economic legacy was anemic and he tried repeatedly to mislead the public about it.