Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
In the past month, more than 360,000 left the work force, which follows a total of 284,000 who did so the previous month. To some degree this is to be expected because people get seasonal jobs around the holidays. But remember, these are people who want jobs but have hit a dead end in their search. The fact that they had seasonal jobs and left them doesn’t mean they’re happy about it.
:
The current labor force participation rate is just 62.7 percent. It actually just went up one-tenth of a percent, but the ballpark we’re talking about here is the lowest we’ve seen since – not surprisingly – the Carter Administration.And this is not an unforeseen consequence of Obama policies. It’s the idea. Obama policies have always aimed to make it easier for people not to work. You can stay on unemployment longer. You can stay on your parents’ health insurance until well past the time you should be gainfully employed. Recently he proposed to have the taxpayers reimburse you if you take a pay cut.
Every incentive of the Obama economic program is against work, against productivity and against profit. So why should anyone be surprised that more than 94 million people who should be in the workforce are not?
And when you’re only producing 151,000 new jobs per month, how do you expect to bring 94 million people back into the workforce? You can’t. You need real growth policies that are friendly to productivity and corporate profits, which we’ll never get from Obama — and which we’ll obviously not get from Hillary or Bernie. [emphasis mine]
BLS website shows Cain is correct. Provably, in the snapshot of the current participation rate. And as far as the goal of Obama policies, well…the trend line on this particular metric certainly doesn’t cast any doubts. The thing about President Obama requesting taxpayer-provided compensation for reduced pay is true too, and this is evidence of an administration that is either unaware of this long-term trend, doesn’t care about it, or — the worst, and most likely scenario — is counting on it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Freeberg points to some inconvenient truth. […]
- DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Fewer People Working | 02/09/2016 @ 07:26Yes, but when you “normalize” the data using the latest statistical models, Cain is wrong. Also, the satellites are lying. Why do you hate science, Morgan?
- Severian | 02/09/2016 @ 18:59mkfreeberg (quoting): And this is not an unforeseen consequence of Obama policies.
The problem with that analysis is that labor force participation has been declining for more than a decade. It was actually lower during the period known as the Affluent Society.
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2016_all_period_M01_data.gif
The growth in labor participation since the 1970s was largely due to demographic changes, as more women entered the workforce. Since then, the Federal Reserve has determined that most of the decline is structural, due to aging population reaching retirement. See Federal Reserve, Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs 2014.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2016 @ 08:43See, Morgan? If you look at the data the right way, it’s wrong. Because science. Obama is always better, because science, and Republicans are always wrong, because science.
Science.
- Severian | 02/10/2016 @ 09:50Yes, I see one has to do this a certain way; all readee no thinkee…we’ve been here before.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2016 @ 07:44mkfreeberg: Yes, I see one has to do this a certain way; all readee no thinkee
Ignoring the data and the points raised doesn’t suggest you have thought about the issue. Let’s review. The downward trend in labor participation predates the Obama Administration. Furthermore, analysis indicates that the main causes of the decline are structural.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2016 @ 04:40Actually, Herman Cain addressed this.
If you look at either one of the graphs, it’s is clear y’all have made a classic Zachriel error with this observation of “The downward trend in labor participation predates the Obama Administration”: The statement is technically correct, and at the same time factually wrong. Obama takes office and there is a measurable change in rate of labor participation shrinkage, which doesn’t slow until lately — everyone who can afford to leave has already left, all the businesses that can afford to put off hiring have already put off hiring.
As always, if we’re going to argue then let’s do it honestly: With Barack Obama, and a whole generation of people just like Him, it’s always going to be like this. Something good happens, He must have done it; even though, to suppose this is the case, makes not a lick of sense. Something bad happens, it must have been an external factor; even though, this person campaigned on “change” and presented Himself as a transformational, even spiritual figure, so how is it that transformational figures have to hide behind excuses of “it was like that when I got here” and “it was gonna be like that anyway?”
But y’all are being pretty darn tough on Obama, one can see when one thinks on it a bit. We had this artificially puffed up labor participation thing going on, a leftover of the womens’ movement. It must be so, because the Federal Reserve has said so. Two possibilities: The Obama administration saw the “structural” issue with an “aging population reaching retirement” and could see this mass retirement exodus coming. Or, they couldn’t. If the first possibility holds, then the administration does NOT have America’s well-being in mind as a goal, according to y’all; If the second possibility holds, then they’re just incompetent and stupid, according to y’all.
Either way, this structural issue would be like a Corvette built out of fiberglass, and the Obama administration’s long-term strategy of increasing the incentives to leave or stay out of the work force — Cain qualifies this with examples, if y’all bothered to read his article — is like your pudgy stepkid sitting on the hood. Fact is, the structure couldn’t handle it without consequences, and expense. The timing was bad (although the idea would’ve been highly questionable at any time). Do we really care about whether the fat stepkid understood the ramifications of fiberglass?
Either way, he’s not getting anywhere near the next car.
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2016 @ 04:56Something bad happens, it must have been an external factor
A wizard did it!
[Lucy Lawless, explaining continuity errors in Xena, Warrior Princess to comic book dorks in a Simpsons episode: “Uh, yeah… whenever you see something like that…. a wizard did it!”
- Severian | 02/12/2016 @ 07:55Comic book dork: “But in episode 100…”
Lucy: “WIZARD!”]
mkfreeberg (quoting): To some degree this is to be expected because people get seasonal jobs around the holidays.
Yes, though the charts are seasonally adjusted.
mkfreeberg: The downward trend in labor participation predates the Obama Administration”: The statement is technically correct, and at the same time factually wrong.
It’s factually correct.
mkfreeberg: Obama takes office and there is a measurable change in rate of labor participation shrinkage, which doesn’t slow until lately — everyone who can afford to leave has already left, all the businesses that can afford to put off hiring have already put off hiring.
According to the study by the Federal Reserve about a third of the decline is due to the Great Recession. Most of the rest is due to structural changes.
mkfreeberg: Two possibilities: The Obama administration saw the “structural” issue with an “aging population reaching retirement” and could see this mass retirement exodus coming. Or, they couldn’t. If the first possibility holds, then the administration does NOT have America’s well-being in mind as a goal
Huh? Why would knowing that the U.S. population is aging mean that the Obama Administration “does NOT have America’s well-being in mind as a goal”?
- Zachriel | 02/13/2016 @ 07:30I have noticed y’all’s collective instantly lunges to “haven’t got the slightest idea what’s going on” whenever it gets painted into a corner like this. “Huh?”
But as it happens, y’all are the ones who need to clarify y’all’s position; y’all are the ones being incoherent and imprecise. This isn’t a place where you can just throw some obfuscating buzz into the mix and have the other side go “Oh my, yes you have proven your point! Obama’s policies are bad for labor participation, and at the same time, they are good for it too!” You have to actually state a position here. As I understand the possibilities:
a. Herman Cain, and the BLS, are wrong. The labor participation rate has not gone down under Obama. See how we can make the statistics say anything we want by changing the date range?
b. Yeah sure the labor participation rate has gone down, but it isn’t Obama’s fault. See between forty and fifty years ago a bunch of airhead women bought into the feminist claptrap that they’d be happier getting jobs, and they’re only just now starting to figure out it was a lot of baloney. Yeah sure that’s awhile, but you know…women. If it isn’t crying or shopping, it takes ’em awhile to figure out what to do about it…
c. Not so much the airhead girls, but the aging baby-boomers who were ready to retire when Obama began His “rule.” It would’ve happened with Obama or with anybody else. Lots of baby boomers, you know.
d. Some combination of b & c.
e. Don’t know, we just think whatever the “Federal Reserve” says; after all, it’s a board of esteemed people who aren’t named, and we always go for that kinda stuff. Named people, you know, they’re so unreliable. We like anonymous boards, panels, commissions…that’s where people become godlike, when we don’t know their names.
f. Don’t know, just — don’t blame Obama for ANYTHING. Ever. Meanwhile, we still think Bush went into Iraq for the oil.
So the most respectable one of those would be c. But it looks like what y’all are trying to say is more like d…with some smatterings of e and f thrown into the mix. And maybe some of a too, since that is part of The Zachriel Weltanschauung: Show how statistics can be manipulated by nefarious, determined and agenda-driven individuals, and then a moment later, believe them uncritically.
Now unless y’all are resting it entirely on e and/or f — and y’all have specifically called out “structural changes,” so I think we can discard that — the argument is that this is something outside of the administration’s control. But, probably not outside of their ability to see what’s coming. Sure, irritable women can be unpredictable at times, especially if they’re figuring out feminists sold them a false bill of goods, only after half a century of toiling away in jobs they don’t really like…but, an oldster reaching retirement age is entirely predictable. Nothing can be more predictable, right? It’s math.
This leaves us with two possibilities:
Obama didn’t see it coming, because He’s an idiot;
Obama did see it coming, and put into place a collection of perverse incentives that would motivate businesses toward smaller workplace populations, motivate people out of the work force to stay out of the work force, and people already in it, to leave — anyway. The equivalent of a man with a recently healed broken leg, setting out to hike the Appalachian.
I think I understand y’all’s position well enough to ask which one of those two things it is, unless y’all haven’t expressed it in a way I can understand correctly?
It’s factually correct.
The statement is “the downward trend in labor participation predates the Obama Administration.” The fact is that there is a noticeable acceleration in the drop-off in the LFPR at the time Obama took office, whereas during the administration of His predecessor, the rate was roughly plateaued. In fact you can see 2008 was slightly better for this metric than 2007. The topic of discussion is the labor force participation rate during Obama’s presidency, so this is relevant. What it was doing back in the 1970’s? Not so much.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2016 @ 08:13Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung: Part I had just nine chapters up until now. I’ve added a tenth:
“Statistics can be molded into anything in the hands of the motivated and unscrupulous. Believe them uncritically.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2016 @ 08:21mkfreeberg: I have noticed y’all’s collective instantly lunges to “haven’t got the slightest idea what’s going on” whenever it gets painted into a corner like this. “Huh?”
We followed that with a specific question. Why would knowing that the U.S. population is aging mean that the Obama Administration “does NOT have America’s well-being in mind as a goal”? Let’s see if we can untangle the answer from your turgid prose.
mkfreeberg: Obama’s policies are bad for labor participation, and at the same time, they are good for it too!”
We were quite clear. The evidence indicates that the primary cause of the decline in worker participation is due to the aging of the population, and lingering effects of the Great Recession.
mkfreeberg: The labor participation rate has not gone down under Obama.
Labor participation has gone down, continuing a previous trend.
mkfreeberg: Don’t know, we just think whatever the “Federal Reserve” says; after all, it’s a board of esteemed people who aren’t named
Just because you wave your hands doesn’t mean the study goes away. See Aaronson et al., Labor Force Participation: Recent Developments and Future
Prospects, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs 2014. Perhaps you disagree with the report, but to substantiate you disagreement requires addressing the arguments and data in the study .
mkfreeberg: the argument is that this is something outside of the administration’s control. But, probably not outside of their ability to see what’s coming.
Anyone who is involved in economic planning is aware of the aging U.S. population.
mkfreeberg: Obama did see it coming, and put into place a collection of perverse incentives that would motivate businesses toward smaller workplace populations, motivate people out of the work force to stay out of the work force, and people already in it, to leave — anyway.
The data indicates otherwise, that the decline is largely due to structural changes in the U.S. population, and lingering effects of the Great Recession.
mkfreeberg: The fact is that there is a noticeable acceleration in the drop-off in the LFPR at the time Obama took office, whereas during the administration of His predecessor, the rate was roughly plateaued.
Which was clearly due to the market bubble in the U.S. economy — hardly a healthy economic practice for sustainable growth.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2016 @ 09:11Morgan,
don’t forget the companion volume, The Zachriel Political History of the United States. I think we were up to 1972 before. But as we’re rewriting history up to the present now, I think we can add:
1974: The Watergate scandal forces Richard Nixon to resign halfway through his second term. This is the greatest thing in the history of ever, as Richard Nixon is the third worst person in the history of the human race.
1975: Boring. Nobody cares about Gerald Ford, even Mrs. Ford.
1976-1980: Malaise and stagflation at home; humiliation abroad. All of this somehow the Republicans’ fault. Yes, even the giant aquatic rabbit that attacked Jimmy Carter.
1980-1992: The Fourth Reich. Hell on Earth. Poor union guys making $50,000 a year for 24 weeks work are forced to find honest jobs. Which is bad. The Berlin Wall falls and Communism ends, exposing untold millions to the horrors of a free market, as well as freedom of speech, religion, and association… which is worse . Did you know that the Soviet Union had 100% literacy and free health care, just like Cuba? Reagan didn’t, which is why he is the second worst human being of all time, just behind George W. Bush.
1992-94: The dawn of a new age. Bill Clinton runs as a Rockefeller Republican and wins. Liberals smugly remind everyone that Richard Nixon, formerly the 3rd worst person in the world, was actually pretty liberal, what with the EPA and price controls and such.
1994-2000: The Gingrich Revolution forces Bill Clinton to govern like a late-70s
Republican, including things like signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Whatever good Clinton does is because of Clinton; anything bad that happens is Gingrich’s fault.
2000-2008: George W. Bush, the worst person in the world, steals the election. His policies are indistinguishable from those of Bill Clinton, but whatever. America becomes a Fascist police state again. Bush lays the groundwork for every bad thing that will ever happen until the end of time.
2008-Present: Utopia! Everything bad that happens is Bush’s fault, except… nothing bad actually happens. Life in Obama’s America is perfect in every way. Everything you might think is bad — unemployment, debt, a few additional undeclared wars — is actually good, since Obama didn’t actually do any of those things. But if he did — which he didn’t! — that would be Bush’s fault. Or a wizard did it. Wizard… George W. Bush…. coincidence? I think not!!
- Severian | 02/13/2016 @ 11:15Anyone who is involved in economic planning is aware of the aging U.S. population.
Quite an indictment against Obama. It doesn’t seem like there’s any disagreement at all involved in the observation that Obama’s policies provide the perverse incentives Herman Cain has identified. I’m detecting no point of dispute within that. Therefore we can eliminate some of these possibilities with regard to what it is y’all are trying to say. What’s left is, well…what else is one to think?
The Obama administration knew that the labor force was losing bodies, and it knew that the labor force was due to lose a great deal more. And yet they placed these burdens on the economy anyway. This is y’all’s interpretation of the events. Quite the indictment. Quite the bag of crap you’re handing Him. I almost feel sorry for Him; could He really be guilty of all this?
M: The fact is that there is a noticeable acceleration in the drop-off in the LFPR at the time Obama took office, whereas during the administration of His predecessor, the rate was roughly plateaued.
Z: Which was clearly due to the market bubble in the U.S. economy — hardly a healthy economic practice for sustainable growth.
1. Obama’s policies had no effect on this.
2. Obama’s policies reversed the trend.
3. Obama’s policies exacerbated the problem.
According to y’all’s previous comments, along with y’all’s most recent ones, we can eliminate the first of those two. Correct?
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2016 @ 18:06…the companion volume, The Zachriel Political History of the United States…
I think we’re up to a three-volume set when you throw in the glossary. “Waving your hands,” I’ve noticed, has a lot to do with continuing to think for yourself, continuing to remember your troublesome observations about inconvenient truths, after the esteemed and anonymous experts & bored-members have spoken and SettledTheSciencetm.
This all seems to be a disagreement about something unspoken: Are named individuals good enough to have original thoughts? Or are such dangerous devices best kept in hands of the un-people, like commission on this, board of that, the Mount Vernon Basket Weaving Association, and the Editorial Board of the New York Times? Such hallowed institutions say things, there’s no problem; a person with a name says something someone else hasn’t yet said — there’s a problem.
The more we discuss it, the more it looks like a phobia, to me. But there I go, noticing things…
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2016 @ 19:17mkfreeberg: It doesn’t seem like there’s any disagreement at all involved in the observation that Obama’s policies provide the perverse incentives Herman Cain has identified.
We cited a study which indicates that the cause of the decline in worker participation is due to structural changes, and lingering effects of the Great Recession, and that specific policies of the Obama Administration are a minority effect. Furthermore, that the trend will likely continue over the next decade, regardless of who become president.
mkfreeberg: The Obama administration knew that the labor force was losing bodies, and it knew that the labor force was due to lose a great deal more.
That’s right. You can’t stop people from getting old.
mkfreeberg: And yet they placed these burdens on the economy anyway.
The evidence indicates that the supposed burdens are not the primary cause of the decline in worker participation, contrary to the claim above.
mkfreeberg: Obama’s policies had no effect on this.
Market stabilization during both the Bush and Obama administrations are credited by most economists with avoiding an economic depression.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2016 @ 07:43Market stabilization during both the Bush and Obama administrations are credited by most economists with avoiding an economic depression.
Yes, that settles the matter entirely. No need for any of the rest of us to get involved, notice anything out of place, comment on any glaring inconsistencies…it’s not like we have any sort of stake in this! We’re ordinary, mortal, named-not-anonymous people after all.
It is the contrast between liberal thinking and conservative thinking. The former is backwards: “Here is the conclusion we want to reach, now what premises must we uncritically accept, and what sort of skewed definitions must we embrace, to get there?” Ah, here is a study. That helps! Naturally, we add “those who did the study have no vested interest in reaching any particular conclusion, even though they chose to put out the study” to the pile of necessary premises.
It’s up to the conservatives to practice the scientific method: Here’s a theory, now is there anything about it that might seem out of place, inspiring some inconsistencies, suggest a need for critical thinking, experimentation, testing? I’ve already advanced a question that definitively pegs Obama as either a moron or a malicious sonofabitch, and that’s according to y’all’s backwards conclusion-first thinking: He could see the mass labor participation drop-out in advance and advocated for these working-economy-unfriendly policies anyway, in which case He is malicious, or He could not in which case He is stupid. One or the other.
Seems like y’all are leaning hard toward malicious. Obama could see it coming that our national economy’s ability to deal with His artificially created stresses, was going to be in decline and for quite awhile, therefore His policies would cause suffering. But He pressed onward with them anyway.
Quite the blame y’all are putting on Him. Quite the bag of crap y’all are handing Him.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2016 @ 08:48To “hand waving,” be sure to add “most.” As in, “Market stabilization during both the Bush and Obama administrations are credited by most economists with avoiding an economic depression.” As pretty much everyone but NPR and the New York Times realizes we’ve been in a depression since 2008, “most,” in this case, means “the ones who say things we desperately wish were true.” Most economists, most scientists, most political scientists, most lexicographers, most studies, most experts in general.
The interesting thing about Obama in this scenario — and for the record, I’m going with “stupid” over “malicious” — is that He’s created the conditions which are tearing His party apart. Bernie Sanders’ “free college” scam is, in his inimitable harebrained style, an attempt at dealing with this very question. Bernie knows that the manufacturing sector is gone. He also knows that amnesty is high on both parties’ to-do list. Thus free college — the few remaining American workers all move up into management, while Diego and Pancho do the entry level stuff, along with the few remaining “unskilled” jobs (construction, meat packing, and the like). Meanwhile, Hillary, of all people, has to play the adult in the room, telling all the community college dropout suckers that they can’t have their woobie. Good times.
The Republicans’ solution is much simpler. They’ve gone full Merkel — the workforce is shrinking faster than the total number of jobs is shrinking, so let’s import a new workforce. It’s supply side economics for retards — supply enough workers, and the supply will create its own demand.
Alas, the real problem is beyond technocratic tinkering. It’s culture. Three whole generations have been taught that lotus-eating hedonism is the only fulfilling way to live. Raising babies is hard — it takes time out of your yoga and tv schedule, and you have to think about stuff and make tough decisions and even delay your own gratification every now and again. Pro-natalist tax policies won’t help, because again, that’s thinking about the future, and that’s boring (and math is hard). Only a culture shift will do it, which is why Trump is wiping the floor with everyone and pulling in scads of ex-Democrat support.
- Severian | 02/14/2016 @ 09:52mkfreeberg: Yes, that settles the matter entirely.
No, but it is a valid argument.
mkfreeberg: No need for any of the rest of us to get involved, notice anything out of place, comment on any glaring inconsistencies
Feel free to appeal to the evidence, but simply repeating your position is not a valid argument.
mkfreeberg: He could see the mass labor participation drop-out in advance and advocated for these working-economy-unfriendly policies anyway
We cited a study which found those policies had little effect on worker participation — which you have consistently ignored.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2016 @ 13:21but it is a valid argument…We cited a study which found those policies had little effect on worker participation — which you have consistently ignored.
And I will continue to ignore it because y’all aren’t explaining anything.
Adding another chapter to The Zachriel Weltanschauung: “It’s this way, because those guys over there say so” is a “valid argument” — but, actually explaining something is not.
This one wrinkle has caused y’all to taking losing positions very often, and also to stretch them into endless circle-the-drain exchanges here & elsewhere. So it would have to be explored early.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2016 @ 07:02mkfreeberg: And I will continue to ignore it because y’all aren’t explaining anything.
Sure we have.
The claim is that Obama’s policies are the cause of the decline in labor participation.
As we *explained*, the claim is not correct because …
1) The trend predates the Obama Administration
- Zachriel | 02/15/2016 @ 09:092) The trend is expected to continue for roughly the next decade regardless of the next administration.
3) Aaronson et al. found that the majority of the decline is due to structural changes (e.g. the aging population), and the lingering effects of the Great Recession.
Morgan,
add “majority” to the Zachriel glossary. It means “there’s a fact we don’t have a canned rebuttal for, so we’ll just keep cutting and pasting, and hope nobody notices that ‘majority’ means >50.1%”
As in, “Aaronson et al. found that the majority of the decline is due to structural changes.” Soooo….what about the minority of the decline? According to y’all –oh, excuse me, according to Aaronson (whoever that is) — there is some nonzero amount of the decline that is NOT due to structural changes. Where did that come from?
- Severian | 02/15/2016 @ 09:20Also…
The trend is expected to continue for roughly the next decade regardless of the next administration.
That’s passive-voice. Expected…by whom? Based on what?
The study is 1) real science, in which researchers start out without a narrative (or perhaps with a narrative contrary to what they later learned) and had the balls to form the final conclusion based on what they actually learned; or, 2) it’s phony science, in which the final conclusion was determined before any data were collected, and anything contradicting this was jettisoned. Or, some combination of 1) and 2). Now, why are we to presume it was the first of those?
Did they expunge any & all liberals from the research staff before conducting the study? Because we know liberals don’t modify what they “know” based on fact. They do it the other way ’round.
Additionally, I’m waiting to see how y’all answer severian‘s question. Seems y’all’s talking point is fabricated for consumption by people who’ve forgotten what “the majority of” means. Or, it was fabricated by people who never knew what it means…which brings us back to the concern about blocking liberals from participating in the research.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2016 @ 18:07mkfreeberg: Expected…by whom? Based on what?
Gee whiz, mkfreeberg. We keep citing a Fed study. That you won’t read it is no one’s fault but your own.
- Zachriel | 02/16/2016 @ 07:16For the dictionary: “cited a study” means “we, Zachriel, have pronounced ex cathedra.”
Of course, in the real world it would be quite simple to answer that question… if one were actually attempting to make an argument. Like so:
X: The study says “The trend is expected to continue for roughly the next decade regardless of the next administration.”
Y: Fascinating. But I’d like some more information. Expected by whom? Based on what?
At that point — in a normal human interaction, where information is being conveyed, when one wants to advance a viewpoint — X just…. wait for it… wait for it… answers the questions. Like so: “Aaronson expects it, based on blah blah blah.” Or “the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects it, based on blah blah blah.” (Of course, in a normal human interaction, one provides links for what one cites. It says so right here in the fourth book on the third row of my living room bookshelf, page 102, paragraph 2. Why oh why won’t you read it?).
Which means, of course, that y’all are lying. Again.
- Severian | 02/16/2016 @ 09:16I’m feeling bad for Obama. His critics won’t read the studies; and His defenders, inexplicably, just keep sending the critics over to read the studies the critics won’t read, rather than just telling those critics what the studies say. Poor guy just can’t catch a break. Gee whiz.
- mkfreeberg | 02/17/2016 @ 05:47mkfreeberg: His critics won’t read the studies;
That’s on you.
mkfreeberg: and His defenders,
We’re not defending Obama, but pointing out an error in the original post.
mkfreeberg: inexplicably, just keep sending the critics over to read the studies the critics won’t read, rather than just telling those critics what the studies say.
The study found that the primary cause of the decline in labor participation is structural, and that most of the rest is due to the lingering effects of the Great Recession. They determined this by examining the demographic changes in U.S. society, which is characterized by an aging population.
- Zachriel | 02/17/2016 @ 08:05Huh. There’s that “most” word again.
Free pro tip children: Repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it relevant; it just confirms that y’all are redlining the autism spectrum. The train is fine, right? The train is fine. The train is fine.
At this point y’all have two options:
1) You can make some claim about what portion of “the rest” isn’t structural, or due to the effects of the Great Recession, or
2) Declare victory and run away.
But since we all know how 1) plays out — y’all wear out another keyboard cutting and pasting irrelevant verbiage “proving” none of this could possibly be Obama’s fault (the train is fine, dammit!) — I recommend y’all just declare victory and run away. Like always.
- Severian | 02/17/2016 @ 09:01That’s on you.
Debatable, at best. What are we to think of a man who claims to know his astronomy but, approached by a child who asks “How do we KNOW the Earth goes around the Sun instead of the other way around?”, lists some of the studies that found this to be the case rather than simply answering the question?
After all, the answer is not complicated. Anyone who has repeated the experiments, if only for his own edification, should be able to answer. But anyone who lacks understanding of the concepts, only pretends to know them by memorizing names of studies, would have to just keep faking it. So, no. There’s nothing at all unreasonable about saying, if we’re going to have a discussion…discuss. If y’all are going to explain something…explain. Just like everyone else.
- mkfreeberg | 02/18/2016 @ 06:38Problem is, though, “most” is not “all,” so at some point they’ll have to acknowledge that the administration’s polices must have affected the labor participation rate. How could they not? That was the entire rationale behind “shovel ready jobs,” extending unemployment benefits, and so forth. At which point all they’re left with is “but Boooosh!” — which means that all Obama’s efforts failed because of an idiot who hasn’t been in politics for most of a decade — or “but it would’ve been much worse if not for Obama.” And then everyone can go home, because we’re back to clicking our ruby-heeled slippers together.
For the adults in the room, though, I have a question: What viable policy options are there to pump the labor participation rate back up? If you accept that there are only so many desk jobs, and that a large number of people simply won’t be qualified to fill them no matter what, how — short of outright protectionism — do you get the rate back up? Cain is right, but in making his argument he’s highlighting a fundamental perceptual error of the entire political class.
- Severian | 02/18/2016 @ 07:48mkfreeberg: Debatable, at best.
We provided evidence and argument. You have waved your hands.
mkfreeberg: What are we to think of a man who claims to know his astronomy but, approached by a child who asks “How do we KNOW the Earth goes around the Sun instead of the other way around?”, lists some of the studies that found this to be the case rather than simply answering the question?
We’ve answered the question repeatedly. The decline in labor participation is primarily due to structure changes in the labor market, in particular, the aging of the U.S. workforce. Not sure why that is so hard for you to comprehend.
The number of people in the U.S. over 55 years of age was increasing by only about half a million per year as recently as the early 1990s, but is today increasing by over two million per year. This is because baby-boomers are now entering retirement.
Of those over 55 years of age who are not working, 93% do not currently want a job. This chart shows the effect on participation if those over 55 who don’t want a job decided to reenter the workforce.
http://www.ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-13-at-1.34.48-PM.png
It’s because of these structural changes that the BLS has predicted that labor force participation will continue to decline for another decade, as the balance of the baby-boomers retire.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2016 @ 05:02http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/images/toossifigure1.png
We provided evidence and argument. You have waved your hands.
We’re making progress. “Waving hands” is obviously a foul being called against something, and from the exchange here we can see it is against noticing the wrong things. Like:
To which severian said…
The three options are:
1. Obama’s policies had no effect on this.
2. Obama’s policies reversed the trend.
3. Obama’s policies exacerbated the problem.
I’ve listed these before. Y’all’s response was:
So I guess it is “hand waving” to go back to the article linked originally, above, which says…
These are probably not the “market stabilization during both the Bush and Obama administrations” to which y’all refer. Or, maybe they are! But see, the point is that is how learning is done.
What y’all have proven with this business of “Shame on you for your ‘hand waving,’ you’re not sticking to the script” is: Committee thinking leads to committee-results. Every bit of opportunity for learning is met with a renewed determination to achieve consensus, to marginalize dissent, and in this case, to champion whatever economic policies lead to the few practicing dictatorial influence over the bounty of resources produced by the many. But not to actually learn anything.
We shouldn’t be surprised that it’s a band of anonymous Internet denizens, of unknown size, sharing a single blogger comment account, demonstrating to the rest of us how this all works.
Hand waving == thinking critically, noticing contradictions. What the liberals used to call “questioning authority.” DoublePlusUngood.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2016 @ 21:26Here is an analogy that helps with this “more” and “most” and “majority of the decline” stuff. Conventional wisdom is that Star Wars Episode III was worse than any one of the movies from the older trilogy, and that I and II were even worse than III. Conventional wisdom then goes on to say that most of the blame for this goes to Jar Jar Binks. I maintain, however, that the newer films commit the crime of having conference room scenes — lots of them — without anyone getting threatened or killed in the conference room.
This does not mean that Jar Jar is off the hook. With both of these factors working to the detriment of the newer movies, along with many others, it is pointless to have debates about which single one is the cause of “the majority of the” suckage. They are movie-making mistakes. Hard to argue the point; much easier to distract from it. And if there were any fans of conference room scenes — super-lazy script-writers, for example — no doubt, that is what they would do. “The majority of the suckage comes from Jar Jar Binks. Here is a study, don’t go waving your hands at it.”
And I’m sure there would be studies. It does not logically follow that the right thing to do is to put 40 people around a table wearing an assortment of rubber masks, give speaking lines to 1 or 2 of them, and s-t-r-e-t-c-h the scene out further and further…until it looks like the producers of the movie are just trying to burn off the allocated 120 minutes without putting more into the story. Suffering, in real life, is very often caused by a variety of factors. Some are within our control and some are not.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2016 @ 05:16mkfreeberg: “Waving hands” is …
Handwaving means to dismiss arguments or facts without addressing them.
mkfreeberg: To which severian said…
Sorry, Severian is on our ignore list.
mkfreeberg: what about the minority of the decline?
Most of the remaining decline is due to cyclical causes, in particular, the lingering effects of the Great Recession.
mkfreeberg: The three options are:
1. Obama’s policies had no effect on this.
2. Obama’s policies reversed the trend.
3. Obama’s policies exacerbated the problem.
The study we cited found that most of the decline in labor participation is due to structural changes in U.S. society, contrary to what was stated in the original post. This was explained in detail in our previous post, but you have yet to either acknowledge the results, or provide a substantive rebuttal. That’s why it’s called handwaving.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2016 @ 08:14Far be it from me to critique how a man runs his blog, but… have you given any more thought to just banning these idiots? That’s what they’re angling for, so that they can tell themselves how the big meanies can’t handle their realness while they spank it to My Little Pony.
There’s no more chapters to be added to The Zachriel Weltanschauung. Their playbook only has a couple of plays. Here it is, in flowchart form:
1) Cut and paste some .gif. Say “look at the evidence.”
2) When it’s pointed out that the entire discussion is about the assumptions that go into the .gif, cut and paste an unlinked bibliography. Say “look at the studies.”
3) When it’s pointed out that citing stuff without links has been known as “lying” on the internet ever since there was an internet, post some weasel verbiage about “most [fill in the blank: studies, experts, lexicographers, etc.]”
4) When it’s pointed out that the studies don’t say what Zachriel claims they say, cut and paste some of the previous verbiage. Say “hand waving.”
5) When the obvious weasel wording is pointed out [e.g. “most” is not “all;”] cut and paste more verbiage; make up some nonsense about “ignore lists.” Cut and paste unlinked bibliography or original .gif again, say “hand waving.”
6) When steps 1-5 have been comprehensively smacked down, such that even a teenager can see that the Zachriel have drooled all over themselves yet again, declare victory and run away. Say “when you choose to engage with the topic, let us know.”
Seriously. That’s it. 1000+ comments from these retards, and there has never been anything else.
- Severian | 02/20/2016 @ 11:31It’s really even simpler than that when it comes to “hand waving.” It’s pretty silly to say something like
…when my rebuttal (they themselves excerpted) was…
…and they have yet to choose which of those three it is, so anyone with beginning reading comprehension can see they are doing what they claim the other side is doing.
The unavoidable conclusion is that “hand waving” means, “we have a script in our fishy heads about how this exchange is supposed to go, and we’re giving you a ding for wandering outside of it.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2016 @ 03:30Crazy Uncle Joe forgot to read the study.
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2016 @ 03:31Right. Everyone here knows exactly how an interaction with them is going to go. Their dodges are pathetically obvious. I guess we haven’t gotten the classic “paste a .gif of Al Jolson in blackface” yet, but they’ve run the other three plays in their playbook.
Why continue to tolerate it?
I know that I get a lot of things to mull over every time I come here — that’s why HoE is always one of the first few clicks of my day. And I’ve come to know some good e-migos in the regular commenters here. But adult conversations always seem to get derailed by these autistic trolls and their pathetic, spergy, utterly predictable nonsense.
I used to be a pretty strong libertarian on free speech. But then I got on the internet, and saw that principled people always lose out to the unscrupulous. We need to do to leftists what they do to us, such that their tactics become too painful for them to use. Then we can have free speech again — when everyone acts like grownups.
- Severian | 02/21/2016 @ 07:08mkfreeberg: …when my rebuttal (they themselves excerpted) was…
And the answer to that the decline in labor force participation is primarily due to structural changes (outside Obama’s control) and effects from the Great Recession (which predated Obama’s administration).
mkfreeberg: 1. Obama’s policies had no effect on [structural changes].
Really? You think Obama could stop people from getting old? Or what? Force old people to work whether they don’t want to or even if they can’t?
- Zachriel | 02/21/2016 @ 07:13Yep, they’re still pretending that you’re talking about “structural changes,” when it’s clear to anyone with third-grade reading comprehension that you’re talking about the stuff that is NOT “structural changes.” As it’s clear to that same third grader that they know it, too, since they keep insisting on using words like “most” and “primarily.”
If you want more of this kind of thing, Morgan, for pete’s sake watch any Hilary Clinton campaign event. “It is not untrue that I didn’t always not attempt to tell a version of the truth.”
- Severian | 02/21/2016 @ 07:37Well, you know. If the point I was making was that it’s somehow good for an economy to provide all these perverse incentives for people to get out of the work force, or to delay & defer going into it in the first place, I’d probably be coming up with all sorts of ways to derail the conversation too.
Really? You think Obama could stop people from getting old? Or what? Force old people to work whether they don’t want to or even if they can’t?
Okay so then…looks like they’re in favor of eliminating #1 as a possibility. It must be either #2 or #3.
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2016 @ 14:01mkfreeberg: If the point I was making was that it’s somehow good for an economy to provide all these perverse incentives for people to get out of the work force, or to delay & defer going into it in the first place
The point we addressed was the decline in the labor force participation rate, which the *original post* claimed was due to Obama policies, when the evidence clearly shows that it is due to structural demographic changes, primarily the aging of the population.
mkfreeberg: Okay so then…looks like they’re in favor of eliminating #1 as a possibility. It must be either #2 or #3.
#1. Obama can’t stop people from getting old.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2016 @ 14:40Ah. So now they’re claiming that ALL the decline is due to “structural changes.” Not “most” or “primarily.” Which means one of two things: Either their most recent statement is a lie, or all their previous statements were lies.
And it only took, what, 42 comments? To get where everyone knew we were going from their very first comment.
- Severian | 02/21/2016 @ 19:40