• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OK, statisticians and number crunchers, what do you make of these figures?

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,133
Reaction score
33,280
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Warning: This post includes numbers and stats, which may blow the minds of mathophobes. Be aware!

Take a look at this and tell us: Is the recession coming to an end? Is unemployment currently (a) terrible, (b) not too bad or (c) great?

A blog site cited on another forum claimed, based on the figures given, that only 47% of adults had part time jobs. Do you come to the same conclusion?

What say ye?
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Warning: This post includes numbers and stats, which may blow the minds of mathophobes. Be aware!

Take a look at this and tell us: Is the recession coming to an end? Is unemployment currently (a) terrible, (b) not too bad or (c) great?

A blog site cited on another forum claimed, based on the figures given, that only 47% of adults had part time jobs. Do you come to the same conclusion?

What say ye?
Do you mean 47% have full-time jobs?

July 2013 Jobs Report: Only 47% Of Adults Have a Full-Time Job in Obama "Recovery"
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Warning: This post includes numbers and stats, which may blow the minds of mathophobes. Be aware!

Take a look at this and tell us: Is the recession coming to an end? Is unemployment currently (a) terrible, (b) not too bad or (c) great?

A blog site cited on another forum claimed, based on the figures given, that only 47% of adults had part time jobs. Do you come to the same conclusion?

What say ye?
I don't see that much of a change over a year ago, but overall what little change there was looks good to me. And I have no idea how anyone came up with that 47% part time jobs for adults - looks to me like only about 1 out of every 6 workers works part time, and two thirds of those who do work part time do so because they want to work part time. So that what, maybe 16% of our total workers?
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The stats linked show that the more education you have the lower rate of unemployment is, which could suggest that college degree is good or it could suggest that the less educated you are the more likely you are to milk unemployment for every cent you can. IDK.

Recession is generally related to GDP not unemployment, so the BLS numbers are not that relevant to that particular issue.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
34,937
Reaction score
7,106
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Warning: This post includes numbers and stats, which may blow the minds of mathophobes. Be aware!

Take a look at this and tell us: Is the recession coming to an end? Is unemployment currently (a) terrible, (b) not too bad or (c) great?

A blog site cited on another forum claimed, based on the figures given, that only 47% of adults had part time jobs. Do you come to the same conclusion?

What say ye?



Household income is down vs the rest of the century.

Unemployment is improved over the worst levels, but still bad vs the rest of the century.

Duration of unemployment is improved over the worst, but still bad vs the rest of the entry.

The economy is still treading water, but not as likely to sink as it was two years ago. This does not mean that we couldn't use some intelligence in the leadership. Like the economy's performance, our leadership is better than nothing, but not by much.

Check the tables at the end of this paper.

http://www.sentierresearch.com/repo...ncome_Trends_Report_February2013_03_25_13.pdf
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The stats linked show that the more education you have the lower rate of unemployment is, which could suggest that college degree is good or it could suggest that the less educated you are the more likely you are to milk unemployment for every cent you can. IDK.
I assume that you do realize that our unemployment figures are not computed from those drawing unemployment. Families are polled, and you can be counted as unemployed, even if you are not drawing unemployment benefits. All you have to be to be unemployed is 16 years old or older, not have a job but have looked for a job within the past 30 days.

Anywho, it is totally possible that people with less education tend not to really look for jobs as hard. It's a reasonable assumption that those who get higher levels of education are more interested in working, because why else would they make the effort to get an education? If one can somehow get by with welfare and handouts, then why the heck not?

Last week my kid was telling me about some of the morons who shop in the store that he works in. These are mostly "inner city dwellers". They will often come in and present an amount of money to the cashier, and ask "what can I buy with this this much money?"

One customer came in and slapped some money on the counter and said "what can I get with this", and my son told him "anything that is equal to or less than that amount". The guy then said "like what?"

Just the other day he told me that someone asked him "how much is the 19¢ candy?"

My son claims that it is these morons who may actually be the smart people. They have learned that you don't actually have to think to get by, you just ask someone else to do the thinking for you, and thus they are able to exist without utilizing any substantial effort.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The economy is still treading water, but not as likely to sink as it was two years ago. This does not mean that we couldn't use some intelligence in the leadership. Like the economy's performance, our leadership is better than nothing, but not by much.
The problem with our leadership is that we don't seem to agree on what type of leadership activity can result in a good economy. Or whether we want a government that promotes a "fairness" in our economy or a government that just pursues a good economy without any regard to fairness. Heck, we can't even agree on the meaning of the terms that we use. No two people seem to define "fair" the same in every situation, especially when the situation may personally involve themselves.

Some seem to believe that we should reduce taxes on those with the most ability to pay, and increase taxes on those with the least ability to pay taxes, justifying this policy by using terms like "fair" and "don't penalize the successful", and "skin in the game". Exactly how this is going to improve our economy, I have no idea.

Others apparently desire to knock down those at the top while providing freebies to those at the bottom. Again, they use terms like "fair" to justify such, and again, I have no clue how this promotes a good economy.

And we are all constantly redefining the word "fair" to make it utile for our particular political agenda. So say mom as a plate with 9 cookies of differing sizes, and has to distribute them to a group of 10 kids who are all unique in some aspect. I bet you would end up with 11 (including mom's) different definitions of "fair". The tall kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the tallest, the fast kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the one who is accustomed to eating the most, the jock kid is going to say that he burns the most calories, the skinny kid is going to say that he he has the most need for the biggest cookie, the shortest kid is going to claim that he needs the big cookie the most, the rich kid and the poor kid and the minority kids are all going to claim that they are entitled to the biggest cookie because of their socio/economic/racial standing, and mom is going to want to give the big cookie to her own kid simply because he is her kid. Naturally the ugly kid will probably be the one who ends up with no cookie because everyone is going to agree that he/she is the least deserving - just because.

Typically, the best result isn't at either extreme, it's somewhere in the middle, but we need to find this middle ground not just for the sake of compromise, but for the sake of finding the best solution that will yield the best results for for the most people. It's complicated. Probably way to complicated for any publicly elected official.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,133
Reaction score
33,280
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's the blogger who cited the stats I posted. You can see the link in his article.
Now, given the rest of the responses, it appears that unemployment has improved, but still has a long way to go.
But, how can anyone get 47% part time workers from those numbers? It looks like some creative math to me.
It's kind of odd that "47%" seems to be a reoccuring theme among those who wish to critisize the current POTUS. Coincidence, or or the babblings of someone who is just making shiit up?

"47% don't pay taxes"
"47% live on welfare"
"47% vote for democrats"
"47% wish to terrorize the majority"
"47% are slackers"
"47% only work part time"
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,133
Reaction score
33,280
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's kind of odd that "47% seems to be a reoccuring theme among those who wish to critisize the current POTUS. Coincidence, or or the babblings of someone who is just making shiit up?
good question. Could be a little of both.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
34,937
Reaction score
7,106
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The problem with our leadership is that we don't seem to agree on what type of leadership activity can result in a good economy. Or whether we want a government that promotes a "fairness" in our economy or a government that just pursues a good economy without any regard to fairness. Heck, we can't even agree on the meaning of the terms that we use. No two people seem to define "fair" the same in every situation, especially when the situation may personally involve themselves.

Some seem to believe that we should reduce taxes on those with the most ability to pay, and increase taxes on those with the least ability to pay taxes, justifying this policy by using terms like "fair" and "don't penalize the successful", and "skin in the game". Exactly how this is going to improve our economy, I have no idea.

Others apparently desire to knock down those at the top while providing freebies to those at the bottom. Again, they use terms like "fair" to justify such, and again, I have no clue how this promotes a good economy.

And we are all constantly redefining the word "fair" to make it utile for our particular political agenda. So say mom as a plate with 9 cookies of differing sizes, and has to distribute them to a group of 10 kids who are all unique in some aspect. I bet you would end up with 11 (including mom's) different definitions of "fair". The tall kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the tallest, the fast kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the one who is accustomed to eating the most, the jock kid is going to say that he burns the most calories, the skinny kid is going to say that he he has the most need for the biggest cookie, the shortest kid is going to claim that he needs the big cookie the most, the rich kid and the poor kid and the minority kids are all going to claim that they are entitled to the biggest cookie because of their socio/economic/racial standing, and mom is going to want to give the big cookie to her own kid simply because he is her kid. Naturally the ugly kid will probably be the one who ends up with no cookie because everyone is going to agree that he/she is the least deserving - just because.

Typically, the best result isn't at either extreme, it's somewhere in the middle, but we need to find this middle ground not just for the sake of compromise, but for the sake of finding the best solution that will yield the best results for for the most people. It's complicated. Probably way to complicated for any publicly elected official.

You seem to be talking only about tax policy as having an effect on the economy. What I'm talking about the constant meddling of the administration in the activities of businesses. Taxation is one of these things, but the lawless and capricious, bull in a china shop meddling to favor those the administration favors and punish those it opposes is the real problem.

This administration can leave everything else alone if it just takes a step back and lets the people who know how to do get it done.

Right now they are punishing the non union employers, blocking the energy companies, imposing illogical regulations in terms of Obamacare now up to 20,000 pages of regulations ands still tinkering with electioneering when the economy is still suffering as they post pone the implementation of the worst government program in the history of the republic.

It's interesting to me in a suicide watch kind of a way that while we have some of the smartest people in the world trying to do business, we have some of the most destructive people working in government both stopping them from succeeding and blaming them saying they just aren't trying hard enough.

Get out of the way and let the adults do what they want to do and the situation will right itself. Government will not increase the average household income.

The simple truth is that these folks in government are not just not helping, they are actually working against the success of the rest of us. The vampires in the government are sucking the rest of us dry and they wake up every day looking for new and better ways to destroy us.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
34,937
Reaction score
7,106
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's the blogger who cited the stats I posted. You can see the link in his article.
Now, given the rest of the responses, it appears that unemployment has improved, but still has a long way to go.
But, how can anyone get 47% part time workers from those numbers? It looks like some creative math to me.


Where did you get the figure that 47% have part time jobs? The links that I've read in this thread say that 47% have full time jobs.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
...What I'm talking about the constant meddling of the administration in the activities of businesses. Taxation is one of these things, but the lawless and capricious, bull in a china shop meddling to favor those the administration favors and punish those it opposes is the real problem.

This administration can leave everything else alone if it just takes a step back and lets the people who know how to do get it done.

Right now they are punishing the non union employers, blocking the energy companies, imposing illogical regulations in terms of Obamacare now up to 20,000 pages of regulations ands still tinkering with electioneering when the economy is still suffering as they post pone the implementation of the worst government program in the history of the republic.

It's interesting to me in a suicide watch kind of a way that while we have some of the smartest people in the world trying to do business, we have some of the most destructive people working in government both stopping them from succeeding and blaming them saying they just aren't trying hard enough.

Get out of the way and let the adults do what they want to do and the situation will right itself. Government will not increase the average household income.

The simple truth is that these folks in government are not just not helping, they are actually working against the success of the rest of us. The vampires in the government are sucking the rest of us dry and they wake up every day looking for new and better ways to destroy us.
Obviously not everyone feels that way, or else we wouldn't keep electing these folks. It's not the government verses everyone else - we are the government.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,133
Reaction score
33,280
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Where did you get the figure that 47% have part time jobs? The links that I've read in this thread say that 47% have full time jobs.
I misspoke. It is 47% that do have full time work, according to the blogger's interpretation of the stats.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's the blogger who cited the stats I posted. You can see the link in his article.
Now, given the rest of the responses, it appears that unemployment has improved, but still has a long way to go.
But, how can anyone get 47% part time workers from those numbers? It looks like some creative math to me.
He's not. If you read it correctly you'll find they are saying only 47% of the workforce has full time jobs. Let me show you how he got there.

US total workforce size (working age): 245 million
Workforce actually working: 144 million
Workforce working full time: 116 million

144 million - 116 million is 28 million at part time.

28/245 is 11%. So 11% are part time.
116/245 is 47%. So 47% is full time.
11% (part time) + 47%(full time) is 58%.

144/245 is 58% of an employed workforce.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I misspoke. It is 47% that do have full time work, according to the blogger's interpretation of the stats.
Which I have just pointed out to you earlier... and read above on how he got there.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's kind of odd that "47%" seems to be a reoccuring theme among those who wish to critisize the current POTUS. Coincidence, or or the babblings of someone who is just making shiit up?

"47% don't pay taxes"
"47% live on welfare"
"47% vote for democrats"
"47% wish to terrorize the majority"
"47% are slackers"
"47% only work part time"
Aww.. imagep now you are one of the 47%. :2razz:

But Tax Policy Center ran the numbers. That 47% is an actual fact when it comes to INCOME taxes. Income is key and always gets lost in the sauce. The rest don't know what you are talking about as these are part of your 47% made up numbers. :2wave:
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Aww.. imagep now you are one of the 47%. :2razz:

But Tax Policy Center ran the numbers. That 47% is an actual fact when it comes to INCOME taxes. Income is key and always gets lost in the sauce. The rest don't know what you are talking about as these are part of your 47% made up numbers. :2wave:
Romney came up with some of the rediculous statements on my list when he was somehow trying to link that 47% who "don't pay taxes" (as you pointed out, the word "income" always seems to get lost) to the democrat voting base. Surely you remember that video, it was likely the last nail in his presidential hopes coffin.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
1,339
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Romney came up with some of the rediculous statements on my list when he was somehow trying to link that 47% who "don't pay taxes" (as you pointed out, the word "income" always seems to get lost) to the democrat voting base. Surely you remember that video, it was likely the last nail in his presidential hopes coffin.
Romney was quoting the Tax Policy Center's report which was factual. So Democrats were doing a hit job on Romney? Imagine that, it goes both ways.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Romney was quoting the Tax Policy Center's report which was factual. So Democrats were doing a hit job on Romney? Imagine that, it goes both ways.
Romney was trying to form a link between the 47% that always vote for democrats, and the 47% who don't pay income taxes, as if they were the same group of people. Quite naturally there is a lot of overlap, between those groups, but there was a lot of overlap with swing voters and republicans also.

Democrats tend to actually be less likely to vote, because democrats tend to be the "low information" voters, or at least thats what many republicans tell me. People who are "low information voters", and people who are apathethic to politics, and people who are poor, tend not to vote at all. I mean really, why would someone who is apathetic even bother to vote? Thus, statistically, there must be a heck of a lot of republicans who are 47%ers.

"Trailer park republicans" is what I have heard them referred to. People who get their EBT card, or disability check, then complain that we need to get government out of their lives, and complain about the high taxes that they pay. There are a heck of a lot of these people. Romney offended a lot of these people, and instead of going out and voting for him, they sat their arse at home, and allowed Obama to win.
 

pinqy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
6,371
Reaction score
2,596
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
He's not. If you read it correctly you'll find they are saying only 47% of the workforce has full time jobs. Let me show you how he got there.

US total workforce size (working age): 245 million
Workforce actually working: 144 million
Workforce working full time: 116 million

144 million - 116 million is 28 million at part time.

28/245 is 11%. So 11% are part time.
116/245 is 47%. So 47% is full time.
11% (part time) + 47%(full time) is 58%.

144/245 is 58% of an employed workforce.
I'm going to nitpick on terms....245 million is the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population, not "the work force" (not a term formally used). It's everyone 16 and older not in prison, the military, or an institution. Basically, those who face no legal barriers to entry or exit from employment.

The Labor Force are those who are Employed or Unemployed.....those who are participating in the labor market.
Everyone else in the population (those neither working nor trying to work) are Not in the Labor Force.

But yes, the 47% is the number of full time workers as a percent of the population.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,696
Reaction score
8,134
Location
Venice Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Right now they are punishing the non union employers
How?

blocking the energy companies
How?

Get out of the way and let the adults do what they want to do and the situation will right itself.
Regardless of your thoughts on health care reform, this administration has been about as pro-business as one could expect. Because we cannot drill off the coast of LA county, or because oil companies do not want to pay more to ensure environmental externalities are kept to a minimum??? Come on.

Government will not increase the average household income.
When will the private sector? I am being serious.

The simple truth is that these folks in government are not just not helping, they are actually working against the success of the rest of us. The vampires in the government are sucking the rest of us dry and they wake up every day looking for new and better ways to destroy us.
Ye who has such little faith in the private sector does himself a disservice when resorting to the blame game. The private sector is now more profitable than ever. The bottom line is, profits do not always equal jobs!
 
Top Bottom