Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Well, yeah, Trump has that going on, LOL.

We went to a dinner party last night and the conversation turned to our Twitter in Chief. I was a little surprised it went in that direction as these are people who are the epitome of good manners, but then again I was invited so go figure. A version of this was discussed. I read it with interest today and I am wondering if it is a viable strategy for Califoregington.

Ego, I have long supported the localized empowerment you linked to. But, it just doesn't work as well as it should.

Even in blue States, like WA, there are lots of red counties, trying to limit massive budget increases.

I believe federalism is a great solution to our political impasses. As I generally put it, life SHOULD BE different in California from Kentucky.

We gave 50 States, each with differing laws, views, histories, demographics. We don't need to solve all the problems the same way.

Seattle already has the $15 minimum wage (currently 12.50, 13.50 next month, $15 in 2018). But that is in line with the cost of living. Othello, out in farm country is still at 9.47. No need to wait for feds.

I think changing focus to local politics is a move in the right direction, but unlikely. There is less drama, and power at the lower levels, so less attention is paid. Even though this is where decisions that actually have impact on our daily lives are made.

I think the real difference between the shirt colors in Washington & Oregon has a lot to do with the urban/rural divide, where the people who own the most land don't like being outvoted by the people in the cities when it comes to what can be done with the land. Immigrants to Washington & Oregon settle in the cities, so this puts the rural residents on the losing side until these states have an exodus. Where the rural residents get sympathy is a belief that people should be self-sufficient without recourse to government aid (though of course few would refuse what they can rightfully collect and don't see things like leasing government land as aid, rather it's their birthright).

George the original one wrote:4.8% unemployment

that number is basically fraud. labor participation is at the lowest level since the 80s or so. that's not necessarily a perfect number either, but the "unemployment" number doesn't count humans who haven't looked in a month, have worked a day this year, have part-time jobs, and so on.

Well, ask any employer how deep their applicant pool is when they recruit for positions. They will tell you the market is tight, so the jobs are there, but people aren't applying. Certainly that is by choice of the labor pool, which is an indicator that they don't WANT to participate.

There are always problems with any macro number like labor participation rate. I used to think this made these numbers questionable, but not any more. You just need to be aware of the issue(s) with each number so you don't get blindsided. It's not like the numbers in 1980, 1970, etc. were perfect either. Right now the labor participation rate seems to be more right than wrong, and that's about the best you can say for any macro number.

I don't have any idea who this guy is, but he seems to accurately describe the current situation. One that I'm sure at least partially guilty of.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a5 ... ate=120116

Sounds like a good show, until his producers fill in his guest list and live audience with Jerry springer rejects. TV doesn't do reality well, it is just too easy to go to Reality TV.

I just liked the write up.

Yeah, I'm not entirely hopeful on the show. Especially, with Rick Santorum. Though, that is probably why I should watch. I'm not sure I could agree with him on anything.

I don't agree with rachel maddow about anything, but it is always good to listen to people I don't agree with. Sometimes, they have good reasons for being wrong. It's always good for me to review my thoughts, and be certain I'm right. I can't do that in an echo chamber of agreement.

And every once in a while, I find that I am wrong, and that makes it worth listening.

Almost all of my current beliefs were reassoned out, after listening to people who had better beliefs than I.

I started out very liberal, and knew that those who didn't agree with me, disagreed out of stubbornness, ignorance or corruption. Now, I am fairly conservative, and find most people disagree with me out of moderation, and compromise, and a disproportionate amount of empathy...

BRUTE wrote:

George the original one wrote:4.8% unemployment

that number is basically fraud. labor participation is at the lowest level since the 80s or so. that's not necessarily a perfect number either, but the "unemployment" number doesn't count humans who haven't looked in a month, have worked a day this year, have part-time jobs, and so on.

Huh? Have you actually looked at the data? Here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... ation-rate

The labor participation rate has varied (not very much, really) from about 57% to 67% since 1950 and is currently in the middle of that range, as it was in the 1980s. It increased most steeply under President Carter, peaked around 2001 and has been declining ever since. It essentially matches the Baby Boomer generation's entry and exit from the labor force.

On employment itself, if you want to include the other people looking for work, the statistic you are interested in is called U-6, which has only existed since 1994. U-3 or U-4 is actually comparable to historical figures, though, because U-3's data set goes back to 1890. (I don't know why you are labeling it a "fraud" -- its just data.) Here is the graph of recent U-3, U-5 and U-6: http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

U-6 has never been below about 7.5%, which occurred in the late 1990s. It peaked at over 17% in December 2009 and has been declining ever since. It sits at about 9.3% now. It has been lower only from 1996-2001 and 2005-2008.

So where is this "fraud" you allege? Sounds like fake news, I'm afraid.

Dragline wrote:Huh? Have you actually looked at the data? Here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... ation-rate

according to Dragline's link, last time the number was this low was around 1978. 1980s it was a bit higher. so "lowest since 80s or so" is even being generous, it's really "lowest since late 70s".

sounds like fact, brute's afraid.

@riggerjack
I do agree it's good to listen to the other side. I just generally try to find someone on the other side I view as rational with different views. I view Santorum as irrational with different views. Huntsman is more my speed for an opposing voice. I'm really hoping for Huntsman to get Sec State. I would have really liked to have seen him vs Obama in 2012.

I agree with Dragline. After the internet really got started all of sudden everyone realized the "numbers" weren't handed down by god. They have always been squishy. Economists have always known this. The general public is just waking up to this fact. Unfortunately, the reaction is that the numbers are fake. Ritholtz wrote a good article/rant on it recently.

http://ritholtz.com/2016/11/nilf/

still, focusing on 4.8% unemployment as a good thing if, in combination with labor force participation, it only means more humans stopped looking.. basically fraud. especially if one is an economist, or informed by some.

A good article on the $4B Air Force One hullabaloo.

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mr-trump- ... force-one/

Just hardening the plane for EMP would be incredibly expensive without including all the high end communications gear.

Based on one's view of Trump, this tweet is either an ill informed loose cannon reaction or a brilliant negotiating tactic.

blah

@SFH: who are the "opponents" of the white working class who "openly agitated for them to be chained to their desks"? When and where did they advocate for this policy?

Also, I'm curious to know how many people of color you've encountered personally who hate the white working class. Have you found this common in people you've met? You appear to believe this feeling is widespread, but you haven't provided any evidence to support it. Since people of color constitute over 100,000,000 people in the US, what makes you certain that this belief can safely be generalized over such a large population?