It's time for a Ted Cruz thread.

[Ziggurat]

I honestly believe he may be religious enough to try and bring the Apocalypse on during his watch.

 

[Senex]

I don't think it is funny. Check out a comedian/journalist's video of some of his supporters.



He is dangerous.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think it is funny.

That's part of what MAKES it funny. Your paranoia is completely honest. If you were just joking, it wouldn't be nearly as amusing.

Check out a comedian/journalist's video of some of his supporters.



He is dangerous.

FTFY.

So if I found video of a Bernie Sanders supporter saying we should abolish private property, I should start worrying about Bernie going full commie?

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

 

[NoahFence]

I know he lies like a rug though. With a straight face says that employment is down the last 7 years under the iron fist of Obama and Hilliary.

???

 

[Senex]

That's part of what MAKES it funny. Your paranoia is completely honest. If you were just joking, it wouldn't be nearly as amusing.

Crazy religious people have always scared me. Possibly having one of them as president I find deeply disconcerting. Some crazy ass religious people want to help bring on the apocalypse. He is crazy ass religious. I'm not qualified to discern the fine line between Cruz's beliefs and other wackos. I will say it is best to not vote for this guy if you want to minimize the chance of religious wars.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know he lies like a rug though. With a straight face says that employment is down the last 7 years under the iron fist of Obama and Hilliary.

???

There are multiple measures of employment. The labor participation rate, a pretty important measure of employment (which has the advantage over raw job numbers of scaling with increased population), is indeed down.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

This isn't some new obscure statistic, I'm a little surprised that you didn't know about this.

 

[Ziggurat]

Crazy religious people have always scared me.

You poor dear.

 

[The Don]

There are multiple measures of employment. The labor participation rate, a pretty important measure of employment (which has the advantage over raw job numbers of scaling with increased population), is indeed down.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
[qimg]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2006_2016_all_period_M03_data.gif[/qimg]
This isn't some new obscure statistic, I'm a little surprised that you didn't know about this.

The big problem with the labour participation rate is that it isn't a particularly good measure. For example, if you have a larger number of people of working age in education (an educated and more skilled workforce being a good thing) then the participation rate will be lower. If you have more people retiring, or a switch towards stay at home parents then the labour participation rate will drop.

The articles I have read (and linked below) seem to indicate that it's the baby boomers retiring which is the largest single factor driving down this number

http://equitablegrowth.org/declinin...pation-rate-causes-consequences-path-forward/
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...ow-but-more-workers-are-leaving-the-workforce
http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/us-labor-force-participation-drops/
http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

 

[twinstead]

There are multiple measures of employment. The labor participation rate, a pretty important measure of employment (which has the advantage over raw job numbers of scaling with increased population), is indeed down.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
[qimg]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2006_2016_all_period_M03_data.gif[/qimg]
This isn't some new obscure statistic, I'm a little surprised that you didn't know about this.

The labor participation rate peaked in 2000 and has been falling ever since. It is expected to continue to fall for the next decade no matter who is president. The participation rate has less to do with political policies than demographics, baby boomers retiring, and other things. It's not the gotcha that some conservatives think it is when countering the lower unemployment rates under Obama

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

 

[ZirconBlue]

The big problem with the labour participation rate is that it isn't a particularly good measure. For example, if you have a larger number of people of working age in education (an educated and more skilled workforce being a good thing) then the participation rate will be lower. If you have more people retiring, or a switch towards stay at home parents then the labour participation rate will drop.

The articles I have read (and linked below) seem to indicate that it's the baby boomers retiring which is the largest single factor driving down this number

http://equitablegrowth.org/declinin...pation-rate-causes-consequences-path-forward/
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...ow-but-more-workers-are-leaving-the-workforce
http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/us-labor-force-participation-drops/
http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

Indeed:

Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.


​

Among the reasons cited for the trend:

1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”

So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.

<snip>

However, Fujita concluded, “Almost all of the decline (80 percent) in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is accounted for by the increase in nonparticipation due to retirement. This implies that the decline in the unemployment rate since 2012 is not due to more discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.”

 

[Ziggurat]

The big problem with the labour participation rate is that it isn't a particularly good measure.

Neither is the "official" unemployment rate. No single measure is. But if you want to start calling statements by politicians based on one measure a lie, then basically everything any politician has ever said about employment is a lie. I don't actually mind such an approach, but in that case Ted Cruz isn't in any way exceptional.

 

[Ziggurat]

The labor participation rate peaked in 2000 and has been falling ever since.

Follow my link the the BLS website, and graph the data yourself. Yes, the rate was dropping, but it dropped much faster after 2008.

The participation rate has less to do with political policies than demographics, baby boomers retiring, and other things. It's not the gotcha that some conservatives think it is when countering the lower unemployment rates under Obama

Demographics play a role, but they are not responsible for the whole decline, not even close. If you look at the labor force participation rate for the age group 25-54 years old, that excludes baby boomer retirement (as well as most college kids). This also peaked around 2000, declined slowly until 2008, and then declined more rapidly since then. Blame whomever or whatever you like for that, but it's not simply demographics, and I don't see how you can interpret that as anything other than a bad economic indicator.

 

[Ziggurat]

Indeed:

Look up the report. Compare their projections to what actually happened.

2005: 66.0%
2010: projected 65.9%
2020: projected 64.5%

Now, what actually happened? Well, it dropped below 65% in 2010, and in 2015 it was below 63%. So yes, the BLS predicted in 2006 that the labor force participation rate would drop due to demographic factors. But it dropped a lot more than they predicted it would. That additional deficit is not due to demographics, and it's very significant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Neither is the "official" unemployment rate. No single measure is. But if you want to start calling statements by politicians based on one measure a lie, then basically everything any politician has ever said about employment is a lie. I don't actually mind such an approach, but in that case Ted Cruz isn't in any way exceptional.

That's not the thing you are lying about. You are lying about the reasons for the decline in the Labor Participation Rates.

It's not an indication of the declining economy unless you control for

1) The aging of baby boomers.
2) A decline in working women.
3) More young people are going to college.​

Those are all signs of a strong economy: retiring early, more stay at home spouses because one spouse earns enough to have the other at home with the kids, and more kids going to college.

So unless you control for those three variables, you got nothing.

On a personal note, my house value is back up, my son has his masters degree and he and his girlfriend have great jobs, she got hers through a tech industry funded scholarship complete with a monthly stipend, education, internship, and at the end, 6 job offers from the companies that invested in the program.


Obviously all sectors of the economy are not doing well, but some certainly are. And I'm willing to look at valid data about the overall state of the economy. But you haven't provided that.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not the thing you are lying about. You are lying about the reasons for the decline in the Labor Participation Rates.

I'm not lying about anything. Even if I'm wrong, that wouldn't make it a lie. Don't make personal accusations you can't back up.

It's not an indication of the declining economy unless you control for

1) The aging of baby boomers.
2) A decline in working women.
3) More young people are going to college.​

I already controlled for 1 and 3, by two independent methods: selecting an age group which excludes these demographics, and by comparing it to projections of these effects. Furthermore, the labor force participation rate for those 55 and over (and every sub-group within that as well) has actually INCREASED between 2004 and 2014, so that cannot even contribute to an overall decrease. And 2? Well, why would there be a decline in working women? Certainly a bad economy could do that too, yes? Furthermore, while the participation rate has dropped for women (from 59.2 in 2004 to 57.0 in 2014), it's dropped for men even more, from 73.3 in 2004 to 69.2 in 2014).

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

So unless you control for those three variables, you got nothing.

I have controlled for them, and none of them account for the decrease.

Obviously all sectors of the economy are not doing well, but some certainly are.

Not relevant to the evaluation of the claims here.

And I'm willing to look at valid data about the overall state of the economy. But you haven't provided that.

Woe, you're deep in denial. It's one thing to argue that the statistics I have provided do not give a full picture (you tried to, but your reasoning is wrong), but to claim that they aren't even valid data?

Since when is the data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics not valid data?

 

[twinstead]

Look up the report. Compare their projections to what actually happened.

2005: 66.0%
2010: projected 65.9%
2020: projected 64.5%

Now, what actually happened? Well, it dropped below 65% in 2010, and in 2015 it was below 63%. So yes, the BLS predicted in 2006 that the labor force participation rate would drop due to demographic factors. But it dropped a lot more than they predicted it would. That additional deficit is not due to demographics, and it's very significant.

Can't that just mean their projections were off?

 

[Ziggurat]

Can't that just mean their projections were off?

Of course their projections were off. They didn't project the recession.

If you're trying to imply that they got the number of retiring boomers wrong, again, the participation rate has actually gone UP from 2004 to 2014 for every age group over 55. So no, boomer retirement doesn't explain the decline. Neither do women or college kids. The recession does.

 

[twinstead]

Follow my link the the BLS website, and graph the data yourself. Yes, the rate was dropping, but it dropped much faster after 2008.

It dropped much faster because the economy tanked. Obama didn't cause the economy to tank

 

[twinstead]

Of course their projections were off. They didn't project the recession.

If you're trying to imply that they got the number of retiring boomers wrong, again, the participation rate has actually gone UP from 2004 to 2014 for every age group over 55. So no, boomer retirement doesn't explain the decline. Neither do women or college kids. The recession does.

Agreed, but I thought the whole idea was that many conservatives claim it was Obama's policies that caused the drop.

 

[Ziggurat]

It dropped much faster because the economy tanked. Obama didn't cause the economy to tank

I didn't say he did. That's not part of the current discussion.

Agreed, but I thought the whole idea was that many conservatives claim it was Obama's policies that caused the drop.

This is the post I responded to:

I know he lies like a rug though. With a straight face says that employment is down the last 7 years under the iron fist of Obama and Hilliary.

???

I don't know the exact wording Cruz used, but I take "under the iron fist" to be creative paraphrasing. Taken literally (except for "iron fist"), Cruz's claim as presented here is confined to what happened and when, not why. One might infer a causal link, or the possibility of a causal link, but it's not part of the claim itself, and need not be established in order to evaluate the veracity of the claim. It's relevant to the question of the importance of the claim, but I'm not addressing that here.