Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Sep '15 11:00
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/05/unemployment-rate-under-obama-is-now-lower-than-ronald-reagan-ever-achieved-imagevideo/

    Presidents generally get too much credit/blame for the economy IMO but this is an interesting stat nonetheless.
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    06 Sep '15 11:10
    The Obama administration did something better than one of the worst administrations in the 20th Century? Amazing!
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Sep '15 11:22
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The Obama administration did something better than one of the worst administrations in the 20th Century? Amazing!
    I don't think it is accurate to say the Reagan administration's economic record was one of the worst in the 20th Century and that is what the article is discussing.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Sep '15 11:52
    As a country, if all we care about are jobs and making money, then Trump is your man!

    Meanwhile, in Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry is making an a killing (pun intended) in selling dead fetal organs.

    Do these count as shovel ready jobs?
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Sep '15 11:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    As a country, if all we care about are jobs and making money, then Trump is your man!

    Meanwhile, in Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry is making an a killing (pun intended) in selling dead fetal organs.

    Do these count as shovel ready jobs?
    you're so cute when you don't know how to spin something against obama. then you start going off the reservation.


    unemployment low - good. you have something to add on that?
  6. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    06 Sep '15 12:54
    This is all partisan hog wash. Smoke and mirrors.
    The official rate ( U-3) for august 2015 is 5.1%
    The real unemployment rate (U-6) is 10.3 %
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    06 Sep '15 13:07
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    This is all partisan hog wash. Smoke and mirrors.
    The official rate ( U-3) for august 2015 is 5.1%
    [b]The real unemployment rate
    (U-6) is 10.3 %[/b]
    Those are both "official" rates as published by the US Dept. of Labor.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Sep '15 13:071 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    This is all partisan hog wash. Smoke and mirrors.
    The official rate ( U-3) for august 2015 is 5.1%
    [b]The real unemployment rate
    (U-6) is 10.3 %[/b]
    your real unemployment rate has been declining too

    http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
  9. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    06 Sep '15 13:14
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    your real unemployment rate has been declining too

    http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
    Im not saying its not.
    Im just pointing out that the U-3 paints a picture that is inaccurate.
    The real unemployment rate is the U-6
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Sep '15 13:211 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Im not saying its not.
    Im just pointing out that the U-3 paints a picture that is inaccurate.
    The real unemployment rate is the U-6
    One is no more "real" than the other. But U-3 is what has always been cited since it is the "official unemployment rate". http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

    The article in the OP compared apples to apples but you don't like the result so you want to compare apples to oranges.

    So who is practicing "partisan hogwash"?

    EDIT: In looking at the numbers, the great majority of the difference between U-3 and U-6 are actually people who are employed albeit at part-time jobs. Check the difference between U-5 and U-6.

    So calling U-6 the "real unemployment rate" is inaccurate.
  11. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    06 Sep '15 13:331 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    One is no more "real" than the other. But U-3 is what has always been cited since it is the "official unemployment rate". http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

    The article in the OP compared apples to apples but you don't like the result so you want to compare apples to oranges.

    So who is practicing "partisan hogwash"?

    EDIT: In looking ...[text shortened]... he difference between U-5 and U-6.

    So calling U-6 the "real unemployment rate" is inaccurate.
    One is more real than the other . The U-6 is real. The U-3 is smoke and mirrors.
    I find it very insulting for the White House and the drive by media to constantly quote these skewed numbers.
    The unemployment rate is more than double than what they claim.

    Step 1. Calculate the official unemployment rate:

    U-3 = 8.029 million unemployed workers / 157.065 million in the labor force = 5.1%.

    Step 2. Add in marginally attached workers: There were 1.812 million people who were marginally attached to the labor force. Add this to both the number of unemployed and the labor force.

    U-5 = 9.841 million / 158.877 million = 6.2%.

    Step 3. Add in part-time workers: There were 6.483 million people who were working part-time because they couldn't get full-time work, although they'd prefer it. Add them to the unemployed, they're already in the labor force.

    U-6 = 16.324 million / 158.877 million = 10.3%. (Source: BLS, Table A-15)
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Sep '15 13:421 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    One is more real than the other . The U-6 is real. The U-3 is smoke and mirrors.
    I find it very insulting for the White House and the drive by media to constantly quote these skewed numbers.
    The unemployment rate is more than double than what they claim.
    Speaking of smoke and mirrors, how about the way the CBO projects Obamacare costs?

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/07/30/cbo-playing-obamacares-numbers-again

    One of the ongoing debates about policy formation in Washington that has become far more prominent since the passage of Obamacare is the role of the Congressional Budget Office and the weight given its estimates and predictions for the ramifications of legislation. CBO always has been at the center of a debate about how much we should trust these estimates and how much legislators should rely on them in crafting policy. The larger the legislation, the more moving parts it has, the more difficult it is to calculate the fiscal and economy-wide impacts.

    In the case of Obamacare, the sheer largeness of the measure and its many factors contributed to a higher degree of distrust for CBO’s assumptions about what would come of Obamacare’s passage. In certain key areas, such as the impact of the long-term care provision known as the CLASS Act, CBO’s position was laughable – and scores of other steps since then also have attracted pushback. The level of distrust for the validity of CBO’s estimates is growing. Its latest effort to game the accounting on Obamacare’s ramifications, which has attracted little notice thus far but represents another step to make the law harder to repeal, is likely only to increase calls for changes and reforms of the office.

    In its final cost estimate of Obamacare (released on March 20, 2010), under a section labeled “Key Considerations,” CBO cautioned the legislation would “maintain and put into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.” Thus, CBO asserted: “the long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if key provisions … were ultimately changed or not fully implemented” (emphasis added). Specifically, CBO mentioned the sustainable growth rate formula for paying doctors in Medicare, which was not addressed in the bill, but more importantly, here’s what CBO said about Medicare payment rates for other health care providers:


    ... the legislation includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care). The projected longer-term savings for the legislation also reflect an assumption that the Independent Payment Advisory Board … would be fairly effective in reducing costs beyond the reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the legislation.

    Under the legislation, CBO expects that Medicare spending would increase significantly more slowly during the next two decades than it has increased during the past two decades (per beneficiary, after adjusting for inflation). It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of spending could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care. The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if key provisions of the legislation were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.

    Just the day before, CBO had released a sensitivity analysis (at Paul Ryan’s request) that illustrated a similar point. Ryan asked what the budget impact of Obamacare would be in its second decade if several provisions were altered. Two of the four provisions he inquired about were IPAB and the additional indexing for exchange subsidies. In that analysis, CBO found (emphasis added):


    If the changes described above were made to the legislation, CBO would expect that federal budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019 would increase relative to those projected under current law--with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.

    After Obamacare passed, starting with its first long-term budget outlook report (released in June 2010), CBO included an important section titled “Questions about Sustainability.” In it CBO again stated “the recent legislation either left in place or put into effect a number of procedures that may be difficult to sustain over a long period.” See page 37 here, where CBO openly questioned whether the Medicare cuts in Obamacare and the cap on the new exchange subsidies, in particular, could be sustained over time.


    … the legislation includes provisions that will constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare’s services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers will be held below the rate of increase in the average cost of providers’ inputs.

    Another provision that may be difficult to sustain will slow the growth of federal subsidies for health insurance purchased through the insurance exchanges. For enrollees who receive subsidies, the amount they will have to pay depends primarily on a formula that determines what share of their income they have to contribute to enroll in a relatively low-cost plan (with the subsidy covering the difference between that contribution and the total premium for that plan). Initially, the percentages of income that enrollees must pay are indexed so that the subsidies will cover roughly the same share of the total premium over time. After 2018, however, an additional indexing factor will probably apply; if so, the shares of income that enrollees have to pay will increase more rapidly, and the shares of the premium that the subsidies cover will decline.

    As most observers of the budget process know, CBO produces long-term budget projections under two scenarios: there’s the extended-baseline scenario (current law) and one or more alternative fiscal scenarios (often viewed as a more realistic fiscal trajectory, since they take other factors into account). As a result of questions about their sustainability, CBO assumed these policies were not effective after the 10-year budget window for purposes of their alternative scenario projections. The 2010 long term outlook report notes:


    Under the extended-baseline scenario, projected federal spending is assumed to be constrained by a number of policies specified in the recent health care legislation--the continuing reductions in updates for Medicare’s payment rates, the constraints on Medicare imposed by the IPAB, and the additional indexing provision that will slow the growth of exchange subsidies after 2018. Because those policies may be difficult to maintain over the long term, in the alternative fiscal scenario it is assumed that they will not continue after 2020.

    Here’s where it gets interesting: Every CBO long-term outlook report since Obamacare was enacted included these same assumptions in the alternative scenario--until this year.

    Under its extended alternative fiscal scenario last year, CBO assumed that lawmakers would not allow various restraints on the growth of Medicare costs and health insurance subsidies to exert their full effect after the first 10 years of the projection period. However, this year, after reassessing the uncertainties involved, CBO no longer projects whether or when those restraints might wane. Instead, for those elements of the alternative fiscal scenario, there are now no differences from the extended baseline. For both, CBO projects that growth rates for Medicare costs will move linearly over 15 years (from 2024 to 2039) to the underlying rate that the agency has projected and that the exchange subsidies will do the same. (One exception to that new approach, though, concerns Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services. This year, as in previous years, projected spending under the alternative fiscal scenario reflects the assumption that those payment rates would be held constant at current levels rather than being cut by about a quarter at the beginning of 2015, as scheduled under current law.)

    Beyond that brief mention of the change in its assumptions, there is no other discussion of the rationale behind the exchange subsidy provision. How significant was this unnoticed change in CBO’s assumptions? According to a health care aide on Capitol Hill who has closely followed the scorekeeping of the law, analysis of the CBO data suggests that over the 75-year period, this change in assumptions lowers projected spending by about $6.2 trillion.

    That is a pretty big change, to say the least, particularly one for which the CBO hasn’t given any justification at all. Its latest update on health care spending doesn’t even mention it.

    So the question is: Is CBO outside the mainstream on their new assumptions? Well, in every Medicare Trustees’ reports since the president’s health care law was enacted, the administration’s own non-partisan chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) used his statement of actuarial opinion at end of the report to warn these cuts aren’t sustainable:


    …the financial projections shown in this report for Medicare do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range (as a result of the unsustainable reductions in physician payment rates) or in the long range (because of the strong likelihood that the statutory reductions in price updates for most categories of Medicare provider services will not be viable).

    The chief actuary encourages readers to view his ”illustrative alternative” based on “more sustainable assumptions” than the Trustees’ official current law estimates. The actuary’s alternative scenario assumes the Medicare provider cuts are phased out after the 10-year window:


    it assumes that the productivity adjustments would be applied fully through 2019 but then phased out over the 15 years beginning in 2020. In 2034 and later, Medicare Part A and Part B per capita cost growth rates are assumed to equal the pre...
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Sep '15 13:431 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    One is more real than the other . The U-6 is real. The U-3 is smoke and mirrors.
    I find it very insulting for the White House and the drive by media to constantly quote these skewed numbers.
    The unemployment rate is more than double than what they claim.
    "The U-6 is real"
    the u-6 adds part time workers to u-5. does being a part time-worker mean you are unemployed?
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Sep '15 14:15
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    One is more real than the other . The U-6 is real. The U-3 is smoke and mirrors.
    I find it very insulting for the White House and the drive by media to constantly quote these skewed numbers.
    The unemployment rate is more than double than what they claim.

    Step 1. Calculate the official unemployment rate:

    U-3 = 8.029 million unemployed workers ...[text shortened]... n the labor force.

    U-6 = 16.324 million / 158.877 million = 10.3%. (Source: BLS, Table A-15)
    As Z points out, it would be inaccurate to call part time workers (even those that would prefer to work full time) "unemployed". That accounts for about 80% of the difference.

    What's more the definition that the BLS uses for "unemployed" has remained constant for long before Reagan. You have to not have a job and be actively seeking employment by doing something to get a job i.e. going to an interview, sending out a resume, etc. etc. That just makes sense.

    Your bitchiness aside, there's no real logical reason to use U-6 as the "unemployment rate".
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Sep '15 14:16
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "The U-6 is real"
    the u-6 adds part time workers to u-5. does being a part time-worker mean you are unemployed?
    To be precise, it adds part time workers who state that they would prefer a full time job, not all part time workers (some people are content with having a part time job).
Back to Top