OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 White House press secretary Josh Earnest admitted to Fox News’ Kevin Corke Thursday that he “[overshot] the mark” when he claimed Tuesday the Obama administration created 900,000 manufacturing jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. has actually lost 301,000 manufacturing jobs since Obama took office in 2009. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/oops-white-house-caught-fudgin-the-numbers-on-new-manufacturing-jobs-by-100000-video/#ixzz4Uztan2HX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Post Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 OH BAM MA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Soooooooo this is looking at the time series which best I can tell shows the number of manufacturing jobs (it doesn't actually say), in thousands, and claims there are 300k fewer jobs (now 12.275m) than when Obama took charge in Jan 2009 (12.56m). That's technically correct. The misleading part comes from where they omit the fact that it's part of a small trend starting in mid 2008 (gee I wonder what happened). That basically levelled out in about July 2009 (11.67m), and hit absolute bottom in March 2010 (11.45m) Since that point, there are now about 825k more manufacturing jobs. Previous administrations, for comparison: GW Bush: 17.1m -> 12.56m (-4.5m) Clinton: 16.79m -> 17.1m (+300k) G Bush: 18.06m -> 16.79m (-1.27m) Reagan: 18.64m -> 18.06 (-580k) Carter: 17.80m -> 18.64m (+840k) Ford: 18.57m -> 17.80m (-770k) Nixon: 18.43 -> 18.57m (+140k) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 That's not a typo btw, the US apparently lost 4.5m manufacturing jobs under Bush Jr. Even if you only go up to Jun 2008, before it starts to seriously drop off, it's a loss of 3.6m jobs. Oh look at me pointing out facts blaming Bush again. Let's put a thumb tack in this one and come back to it in a year to see how Trump is doing? It was basically his big campaign pledge, at least one of the few that hasn't already fallen by the wayside, to bring manufacturing jobs back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 the point, cloudy one, is that obamao, and his witless press secretary weiner lied. as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Post Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 That's not a typo btw, the US apparently lost 4.5m manufacturing jobs under Bush Jr. Even if you only go up to Jun 2008, before it starts to seriously drop off, it's a loss of 3.6m jobs. Oh look at me pointing out facts blaming Bush again. Let's put a thumb tack in this one and come back to it in a year to see how Trump is doing? It was basically his big campaign pledge, at least one of the few that hasn't already fallen by the wayside, to bring manufacturing jobs back. What statistics do you have for Obammy being a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 How Good Is Job Growth? The Chart Obama Doesn't Want You To See http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-good-is-job-growth-the-chart-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-see/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 It's amazing how posting statistics can get some people so bent out of shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 It's amazing how posting statistics can get some people so bent out of shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Yep. What's misleading about the ones I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Yep. What's misleading about the ones I posted? Or the one I posted.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Or the one I posted.... I explained what was misleading about the 300k net loss. So, what was misleading about the ones I posted? There were other recessions, smaller, that can explain some of it, but objectively, the last time there was manufacturing job growth under a republican president was Nixon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 I explained what was misleading about the 300k net loss. So, what was misleading about the ones I posted? There were other recessions, smaller, that can explain some of it, but objectively, the last time there was manufacturing job growth under a republican president was Nixon. It leaves out that under Obama job creation has not even kept up with population growth...and that is the problem with statistics in general. Under your set of stats it looks like Obama is a great success and Reagan was a failure and that is not the truth. And then there is the labor participation rate which is at it's lowest in decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 That's fair, I can see that job growth not matching population growth isn't necessarily a good thing, though the more pertinent comparison is to population eligible to vote (so excluding kids and retirees). Either way, I was wondering what was misleading about the previous administrations? The bush family knocked nearly 6m manufacturing jobs out of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 For example the population grew by a positive number under Bush, but jobs went up by a lot less - 1.35m more jobs (1% growth) under Bush, 21m more people. Obama added 11.25m in his two terms (up to dec 2016; 8.4% growth), with a similar population growth I'm not going to deny that Reagan had good jobs growth, I never have. I'm trying to discuss the obvious double standards when it comes to comparing Obama with his predecessor, when actually Obama has done quite well in comparison. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'm negative on using statistics in general unless everything is factored. Otherwise you can get statistics many times to go along with whatever narrative you are trying to present. I saw this in my prior employment which used statistics as to which County Probation Dept had higher success rates and seemingly complimenting those Depts. In actuality these successful Counties deserved to be condemned. The Counties with the lower success rates were those where probationers were given rules, the rules were enforced and consequences meted out for those who failed to follow the probation rules. The Counties with the high success rates were those where probation rules were lenient and not enforced strictly. One County would have strict drug testing for probationers while another County rarely drug tested and other Counties who drug tested but didn't do much about positive drug screens. On paper though the Counties with the high success rates of probationers looked good. I saw the same thing with our Judge one time talking about the prison rates going down in Ohio while in surrounding Counties the prison rates were rising. I spoke with a State Parole Officer who told me a big reason for that were the changes made in Parole where a Parolee pretty much had to commit a new crime to get sent back to prison. I saw it with a Rehab facility where they ran a tight ship, drug tested and enforced rules and the result for running a tight ship was a mass firing because Judges were complaining about the lack of success rates. Great, punish people for doing a good job and reward others for being slack and lax on enforcement. So I saw misleading stats all the time in my field. Success rates were not real success and hard work to make probationers obey rules, pay back their victims restitution, keep curfew and out of bars, stay drug free and other enforcement only made your Dept look bad on success rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 "you can get statistics many times to go along with whatever narrative you are trying to present." Such as the Obama administration losing 300k manufacturing jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 "you can get statistics many times to go along with whatever narrative you are trying to present." Such as the Obama administration losing 300k manufacturing jobs? One set of stats and Obama looks like a great job creator and another group of stats not so good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 One set of stats and Obama looks like a great job creator and another group of stats not so good... Which is why you need to actually think about these things for yourself, go to the statistics and see what's going on. So, here's US manufacturing jobs from 2001-16: Red line is (roughly) where Obama comes in. What does it look like to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Which is why you need to actually think about these things for yourself, go to the statistics and see what's going on. So, here's US manufacturing jobs from 2001-16: Red line is (roughly) where Obama comes in. What does it look like to you? And I can put out graphs and stats where he doesn't look so good as well. The graph you originally posted was misleading in the favorable portrayal of democrat presidents versus republican presidents, particularly Reagan who inherited an economic mess from Carter (who seems to look pretty good in your first graph). I know better. I lived under Jimmy Carter. It will be even worse when the next president inherits the nearly 20 trillion owed on our national debt. Much of this debt happened under Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 It's amazing how posting statistics can get some people so bent out of shape. Even more amazing the Obama Administration takes the credit for whenever somebody makes up as a positive number while simultaneously blaming Republicans for blocking all his initiatives. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Even more amazing the Obama Administration takes the credit for whenever somebody makes up as a positive number while simultaneously blaming Republicans for blocking all his initiatives. WSS You mean the exact same thing every administration will do/ has done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 "you can get statistics many times to go along with whatever narrative you are trying to present." Such as the Obama administration losing 300k manufacturing jobs? Pretty amazing, right? "All statistics are just lies. They can say anything! Don't trust them" next breathe "Look at these statistics that show Obama is bad!" .... "Uh... you need context to look at stats, uh, yeah..." Whatever graph or table or chart you're looking at, find the raw data, analyze it, and draw a conclusion from that. Understand what sources will massage that data to push one narrative over another. Simple stuff. Also, why are we tying population growth rate in with job creation? If anything, I feel like they'd be offset. If anything I feel like Population Growth would be a leading indicator for Job Growth, and you wouldn't compare the two within the same year or over the same timespan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Also, why are we tying population growth rate in with job creation? If anything, I feel like they'd be offset. If anything I feel like Population Growth would be a leading indicator for Job Growth, and you wouldn't compare the two within the same year or over the same timespan.In broad terms often population is twice the size you don't want to have the same number of jobs. So some vaguely linear correlation is implied. In more specific terms, you build a new town of a million people of statistically proportional demographics you have a million more people requiring services like police, schooling, retail etc. It's not perfect but it's reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 I guess the important thing would be the demographics of the increased population. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 I guess the important thing would be the demographics of the increased population. WSS Indeed, and the US is aging. Baby boomers (1946-64) would have been 45-63 when Obama took over, and now 53-71, so the population bump that was a great thing for a long time is now retiring (or dying, to be blunt) and the *working age* population is shrinking with it. That's why you see things like participation in the labour force being down - guys of your generation who, for example, worked hard in their 20s, bought a house (because you could after not that long back then) and basically then spent the rest of their life paying into their 401k are set, and possibly even retiring early, so while they're technically able to participate in the work force - that is, they're over 16/18 - they're choosing not to through retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Indeed, and the US is aging. Baby boomers (1946-64) would have been 45-63 when Obama took over, and now 53-71, so the population bump that was a great thing for a long time is now retiring (or dying, to be blunt) and the *working age* population is shrinking with it. That's why you see things like participation in the labour force being down - guys of your generation who, for example, worked hard in their 20s, bought a house (because you could after not that long back then) and basically then spent the rest of their life paying into their 401k are set, and possibly even retiring early, so while they're technically able to participate in the work force - that is, they're over 16/18 - they're choosing not to through retirement. That's true. On top of that look at the birth rates. Children born into generational poverty and unemployment are much higher than Suburban college educated citizens. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 In broad terms often population is twice the size you don't want to have the same number of jobs. So some vaguely linear correlation is implied. In more specific terms, you build a new town of a million people of statistically proportional demographics you have a million more people requiring services like police, schooling, retail etc. It's not perfect but it's reasonable. Right, but does population always grow evenly across demographics? With our baby boomers, I imagine the elderly demos are growing quickly, and they wouldn't be working. Or, on the reverse, if a lot of kids were born, increasing population, but not the population eligible to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Right, but does population always grow evenly across demographics? With our baby boomers, I imagine the elderly demos are growing quickly, and they wouldn't be working. Or, on the reverse, if a lot of kids were born, increasing population, but not the population eligible to work. It doesn't, and that's why there are nuances involved, but broadly there is correlation. Even if you dump that imaginary town and fill it with retirees, there is still a need for police, medicine, entertainment, retail etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Well it just seems like that what demographic is having their population increase would make a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.