Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
Thanks Tree23Thanks

Thread: Consumer Confidence Rose SHARPLY After Obama's Election In 2009

  1. #41
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21608

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by GoaTlOver View Post
    Again, black and white. The recession hit bottom well before the election. It may not have looked pretty, and the world was definitely in turmoil, but the bottom had been reached and everyone was working on climbing out. President Obama did not offer anything that helped at this point. He provided hope and change because he headed a new administration, but his policies and his "shovel ready jobs" were not what pulled the world back from the brink.
    We disagree on your claim that "President Obama did not offer anything that helped at this point." His stimulus package, ARRA, which was passed in March of 2009, had the following IMMEDIATE effect: almost a million public employees----police officers, firefighters, teachers, drivers' license bureau employees, what have you----suddenly found out that they were NOT going to lose their jobs. Imagine the relief in that environment of early 2009! Those people had really been 'pulling in the horns' on spending, as had MOST Americans, in that October 2008 to March 2009 period. Suddenly, they could more or less resume their NORMAL spending patterns. March 2009 was when consumer confidence suddenly started RISING again, and at a rapid clip. That was what was pointed out in the OP here.

    It is not entirely clear when you think the recession 'hit bottom'. Well before the election? No, NO, NO! As Ben Bernanke has written about in his memoirs, the six-month period from October 2008 to March 2009 saw a more rapid collapse in American Real GDP than during ANY six-month period of the Great Depression. THOSE were the WORST months of the Great Recession. In fact, they were the most terrifying six months of my entire life, and most informed economic observers felt the same way during that stretch of time. We were all scared shitless.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    8,053
    Thanks
    1363

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Sigh. Here we go again. You are not even using the correct data-set if you are trying to ask the question how many new jobs were created in the year 2016. This alone reveals your status as a rank amateur, trying to dabble in issues that you don't have a fucking CLUE about. You are NOT taking into account the constant flows into and out of the labor force. There is incredible CHURN in the American labor market, from month to month, as some people enter the labor force, while others leave, some permanently, some temporarily. So simply taking the difference between the December 2016 number of employed persons and the January 2016 number of employed persons, which is what you are doing here, will NOT give you the number of new jobs.

    How DO you get the number of new jobs created in a year? Why, from the MONTHLY jobs reports, of course. Like the one that came out a week ago from yesterday, and that you were likely crowing about, because it WAS a good and robust jobs report, with 235,000 new jobs created in February 2017. Here is a link which takes you a table of BLS data for the past several years, a summary of the monthly jobs reports, and using the final revision for each month (quite helpful!):

    https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0...utput_view=net...

    Now, go down to the last row of the data, the data for the year 2016, and simply ADD up the number of new jobs created in each month. What number do you get? You SHOULD get 2.24 million new jobs created in 2016. Which happens to be what both I and The Atlantic claimed: that more than two million new jobs were created last year. Contrary to your FALSE claim that only 1.6 million new jobs were created. Your ERROR is 'only' about 33%.

    If this is not enough to expose your stupidity in how you are doing your 'calculations', I can also quote from the Saturday/Sunday edition of The Wall Street Journal which came out after that last jobs report, the issue dated March 11-12, 2017. The front page main story was titled "Job Growth Clears the Way for Fed" [to raise interest rates, which they did the following Wednesday]. The article continues onto page A2, and one finds this interesting paragraph:

    "The overall pace of hiring has picked up a bit in early 2017, with payroll growth averaging 237,000 over the first two months of the year, compared with a monthly average of 187,000 for all of 2016." [Emphasis added by LeRoy.]

    A monthly average of 187,000 new jobs for all of 2016. Now, how would you go about getting the TOTAL for the year from that monthly average? Would you, uh, just multiply by 12? To account for the fact that there are 12 months in the year? Yes. Yes, that is what you would do. And here it is:

    12 months/year x 187,000 new jobs/month = 2,244,000 new jobs for the entire year of 2016.

    You see, what the WSJ reports is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with what BOTH I AND The Atlantic have been TRYING to tell you.

    I think I will let other people decide if they want to agree with me, The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.......or if they would rather agree with you, rank amateur who doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.

    I would ask for an apology, but I know, of course, that none would be forthcoming. One might as well ask for an apology from Donald Trump!
    Why use data that isn't inclusive of all jobs and that includes job losses? If you look at the total data you will see that only 63,0000 net jobs were created, not 155,000.

    I can see why you would want to cherry pick the data to make misleading claims.

  3. #43
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21608

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Why use data that isn't inclusive of all jobs and that includes job losses? If you look at the total data you will see that only 63,0000 net jobs were created, not 155,000.

    I can see why you would want to cherry pick the data to make misleading claims.
    YOU are the one making misleading claims, buster. NO ONE ELSE tries to measure the number of new jobs created the way you do. NO ONE. And now that your President Trump is in office, you will naturally adjust your 'methodology' to the appropriate method, as it WILL make Trump's job numbers look better.

    I invite you to send an angry and irrational letter to the editors of both The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal. Would you like the addresses to do so?

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    8,053
    Thanks
    1363

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    YOU are the one making misleading claims, buster. NO ONE ELSE tries to measure the number of new jobs created the way you do. NO ONE. And now that your President Trump is in office, you will naturally adjust your 'methodology' to the appropriate method, as it WILL make Trump's job numbers look better.

    I invite you to send an angry and irrational letter to the editors of both The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal. Would you like the addresses to do so?
    What other way is there to count the number of new jobs created during the year than by comparing the number of jobs at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year?

    Taking incomplete data, averaging to monthly then multiplying by 12 only produces misleading results.

    The beginning and ending numbers of jobs are right them in my post, and it is much less than the 2,244,000 derived by your convoluted mathematical gymnastics.

  5. #45
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21608

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    What other way is there to count the number of new jobs created during the year than by comparing the number of jobs at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year?

    Taking incomplete data, averaging to monthly then multiplying by 12 only produces misleading results.

    The beginning and ending numbers of jobs are right them in my post, and it is much less than the 2,244,000 derived by your convoluted mathematical gymnastics.
    Sheesh, dude. We have been OVER this and OVER it and OVER it, time and time again. NO ONE ELSE measures the number of new jobs created with YOUR method, because you are IGNORING flows into and out of the labor force. Dumb, dumb, DUMB. Here is how you get the number of new jobs created in a year (and I have ALREADY explained this to you): you simply ADD UP the number of new jobs created each month in that year, from the monthly jobs reports that EVERYONE follows. At the END of the year, you will have many many people who have RETIRED and left the labor force. Try, TRY, TRY to get this statistic through your head:

    TEN THOUSAND Baby Boomers are hitting retirement age EACH AND EVERY DAY, and this is a trend that will continue for almost the next TWENTY YEARS.

    At the end of THIS year, I GUARANTEE that Libertine will be using the CORRECT method to compute the number of new jobs created during Trump's first year in office. If he doesn't, it will make Trump's job creation numbers look much WORSE than they really are. We can't have that happen, eh?

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    8,053
    Thanks
    1363

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Sheesh, dude. We have been OVER this and OVER it and OVER it, time and time again. NO ONE ELSE measures the number of new jobs created with YOUR method, because you are IGNORING flows into and out of the labor force. Dumb, dumb, DUMB. Here is how you get the number of new jobs created in a year (and I have ALREADY explained this to you): you simply ADD UP the number of new jobs created each month in that year, from the monthly jobs reports that EVERYONE follows. At the END of the year, you will have many many people who have RETIRED and left the labor force. Try, TRY, TRY to get this statistic through your head:

    TEN THOUSAND Baby Boomers are hitting retirement age EACH AND EVERY DAY, and this is a trend that will continue for almost the next TWENTY YEARS.

    At the end of THIS year, I GUARANTEE that Libertine will be using the CORRECT method to compute the number of new jobs created during Trump's first year in office. If he doesn't, it will make Trump's job creation numbers look much WORSE than they really are. We can't have that happen, eh?
    You should be embarrassed that you don't even know why your number isn't correct.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Consumer Confidence ‘plunges’ to ’10-month low'
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28th July 2015, 08:23 AM
  2. Consumer Confidence at 4 1/2 year high!!!!
    By Oscar99 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 27th November 2012, 12:06 PM
  3. U.S. consumer confidence at more than 4-year high
    By bluesman in forum Economics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2nd November 2012, 05:26 PM
  4. Consumer Confidence Plunges
    By Blackbeard in forum Current Events
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 2nd September 2011, 05:47 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th August 2011, 10:21 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed