It's time for a Ted Cruz thread.

[ZirconBlue]

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.

Yes, that's discussed in the factcheck article I linked to. I was going to included that section but feared I would end up quoting too much of the article.

 

[twinstead]

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



This is the post I responded to:



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.

Ah, gotcha. We were actually arguing the same point, but I was being a little OT

 

[Senex]

You poor dear.

We all might be poor dears if that crazy person gets elected.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Don't get your drawers in a bunch.

Your answer included:

But if you want to start calling statements by politicians based on one measure a lie,

Which is why I used the same word.

II 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

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

Not relevant to the evaluation of the claims here.

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?

I'm not in denial. The economy around here is pretty good. You cherry picked a stat, but you think your stat is the magic one that matters. I don't believe you controlled for all the variables, those were just three that came to mind right off the bat.

Taking some examples from the chart:
16 to 19 age group dropped from 52.7 to 43.9 to 34.0.

There was a recession. It makes sense this age group would be the last to recover.

This age group increased participation: 55 and older: 30.1 - 36.2 - 40.0

So the presumably most skilled and experienced are doing better.

65 and older: 12.4 - 14.4 - 18.6
Working longer because they are in better health than 20 years ago, or because their retirement investments were hit during the recession. That doesn't say the economy hasn't improved.

A decline in working women can men hubby's making enough for mom to stay at home with the kids.

You are cherry picking to confirm your bias.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't get your drawers in a bunch.

Your answer included: Which is why I used the same word.

You called me a liar. Not politicians, me. Don't do that. This isn't a hard request to understand, and I shouldn't even have to make it.

I'm not in denial. The economy around here is pretty good. You cherry picked a stat, but you think your stat is the magic one that matters.

I never said that it was the only statistic that matters. I will say that it's a statistic that matters,

I don't believe you controlled for all the variables, those were just three that came to mind right off the bat.

You can make this claim about any possible economic data that anyone ever presents. And when you can make a claim about everything, that means the claim is meaningless. Sure, I didn't control for all the variables. I didn't control for the rainfall in Madagascar, or the wind speed in Florence, or the price of toothpicks in Taiwan. Nor is anyone ever going to be able to. But that's not a criticism that matters. I've controlled for the variables that might make a difference and which are unrelated to the recession. And they didn't just happen to be the ones which came to your mind, they were the three factors which the BLS itself identified as being responsible for the downward trend prior to the recession.

There was a recession.

Yes, SG, there was. Thank you for finally noticing.

This age group increased participation: 55 and older: 30.1 - 36.2 - 40.0

So the presumably most skilled and experienced are doing better.

Just listen to yourself: if their numbers went down, then it's because they're doing well so they can retire early. If their numbers went up, then it's because they're doing well so they can find more good jobs. Contradictory information both supports your view. Do you know what that's a sign of? Hint: it's not a sign that you're right.

A decline in working women can men hubby's making enough for mom to stay at home with the kids.

Perhaps in some alternate dimension. In the real world, men's employment is down, and wages are stagnant, so women are not staying home because men are doing so well.

You are cherry picking to confirm your bias.

Look in the mirror, SG. I'm not the one spinning desperately to explain away hard data.

 

[twinstead]

It's obvious that the participation rate is continuing to fall, due to various reasons. Ted Cruz seems to think that Obama's policies are to blame. Others realize that the reasons are more complicated than that, but a big part of it is because of the major recession that occurred in 2008, before Obama even took office.

So what exactly are we debating here?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You called me a liar. Not politicians, me. Don't do that. This isn't a hard request to understand, and I shouldn't even have to make it.

Yes, SG, there was. Thank you for finally noticing.

Was, thank you for noticing.

Just listen to yourself: if their numbers went down, then it's because they're doing well so they can retire early. If their numbers went up, then it's because they're doing well so they can find more good jobs. Contradictory information both supports your view. Do you know what that's a sign of? Hint: it's not a sign that you're right.

And you aren't paying attention to the details in my post: Other variables. I didn't draw any conclusions from the benchmark except that is contradicts the local economy here, and there are many variables that need to be considered before drawing conclusions.

What is it you are trying to say? Let me guess: the economy sucks because ... Democrat POTUS. We need more trickle down, them libruls are ruining the economy.

Perhaps in some alternate dimension. In the real world, men's employment is down, and wages are stagnant, so women are not staying home because men are doing so well.

Wages are stagnant but that doesn't affect all the workers measured in that data. My son and his girlfriend are making more money than I am and they're in their mid-twenties.

Look in the mirror, SG. I'm not the one spinning desperately to explain away hard data.

Why would I be desperate? Another Democrat POTUS is almost certain and the economy around here is good.

You are taking one indicator, no matter how you spin it as the one and only correct indicator ergo the economy sucks because ... Obama.

From my POV the economy's sluggish recovery is due to the suppression of wages and unions because ... Republicans, and, the refusal to fund any public infrastructure because ... Republicans.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you aren't paying attention to the details in my post: Other variables.

But you can't name them. The ones you can name I HAVE controlled for.

Anyone can appeal to unnamed other variables. It's meaningless.

I didn't draw any conclusions from the benchmark except that is contradicts the local economy here

Not relevant to the claim.

and there are many variables that need to be considered before drawing conclusions.

There are not in fact a lot of variables we need to consider before drawing a conclusion about the veracity of the original claim under discussion. There's pretty much just one.

What is it you are trying to say? Let me guess: the economy sucks because ... Democrat POTUS. We need more trickle down, them libruls are ruining the economy.

Wrong again, as usual. What I'm trying to say is that the original claim is not a lie. None of what you say here is part of that original claim.

Wages are stagnant but that doesn't affect all the workers measured in that data.

Not relevant.

My son and his girlfriend are making more money than I am and they're in their mid-twenties.

Not relevant.

Why would I be desperate?

I don't know. Nor do I know why you completely misunderstood my argument. But you still did.

You are taking one indicator, no matter how you spin it as the one and only correct indicator ergo the economy sucks because ... Obama.

Nope, still wrong. Nowhere in this thread have I blamed anyone for the state of the economy.

From my POV the economy's sluggish recovery is due to the suppression of wages and unions because ... Republicans, and, the refusal to fund any public infrastructure because ... Republicans.

So that's why you think I must be so partisan: you just assume that I think the same way you do.

But I don't.

 

[twinstead]

So that's why you think I must be so partisan: you just assume that I think the same way you do.

But I don't.

That's what is confusing me; what exactly is this debate about? It's a Ted Cruz thread, and although you may not be partisan, Ted Cruz certainly is, and he is very clear about blaming Obama's and the Democrats' policies for the participation rate decline.

 

[Tero]

I'm thinking of becoming a Muslim. Inspired by Ted Cruz. Will they take atheists?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's what is confusing me; what exactly is this debate about? It's a Ted Cruz thread, and although you may not be partisan, Ted Cruz certainly is, and he is very clear about blaming Obama's and the Democrats' policies for the participation rate decline.

There was a claim that Cruz lied. We can only say he lied about something which isn't a matter of opinion. That the labor force participation rate has dropped during Obama's presidency, and dropped more than demographic factors can account for, is factually true, not false. So Cruz's claim on that part is true. In regards to who to blame for that, we cannot prove that definitively. It is effectively a matter of opinion. You may disagree with his opinion, you may even have very good reasons for doing so, but you really can't call it a lie, which is what NoahFence claimed. It's not a lie, there's no reason to think Cruz doesn't honestly believe it, and it's not even an unreasonable belief (like him being born in Kenya) either. We need not agree with Cruz in order to decide he wasn't lying.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But you can't name them. The ones you can name I HAVE controlled for.[snip]

There's no sense arguing with you. You are using a single indicator and insisting that one indicator is the magical indicator. You claim to have controlled for half a dozen variables, I beg to differ. You claim it's not partisan it's all about the facts. Obviously you are convinced. I am not.

I agree to disagree.

 

[twinstead]

We need not agree with Cruz in order to decide he wasn't lying.

I never did consider it lying. I do consider it propaganda though

 

[Ziggurat]

I never did consider it lying. I do consider it propaganda though

Of course it's propaganda. Everything a politician says in the course of trying to get elected is propaganda simply by the definition of the word, no matter how truthful it is. Calling it propaganda is not a useful descriptor.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's no sense arguing with you. You are using a single indicator and insisting that one indicator is the magical indicator.

No, SG, this is NOT what I am doing. You made this straw man accusation previously, and I explicitly denied that this was my position. To repeat it now after I already corrected you demonstrates bad faith on your part. But you're right: there's no sense in making bad-faith arguments.

Once again: I have NEVER claimed that this is the only important economic indicator. I have never even claimed that this is the most important economic indicator. I do claim that it is AN important indicator. The alternative to this position is that this indicator doesn't mean anything, but you've never said that it doesn't. See what I did there? I noted that you haven't said something, and therefore avoided assuming that what you didn't say was your position. It's not hard, try it some time.

You claim to have controlled for half a dozen variables, I beg to differ.

No. I claim to have controlled for three variables, not six. And those three were chosen (by you, I should note) because they were the variables that the BLS identified as being responsible for the non-recession decrease in labor force participation rate.

And why should I bother to control for any other variables? There is no reason to think that there are any other recession-independent variables that significantly influence the labor force participation rate. You certainly can't name any. Hell, you couldn't even come up with the original three by yourself. Appealing to unnamed "variables" is psuedo-science: no matter how many variables I control for, you could always claim that there's something else I haven't controlled for. You should know better by now than to try such a debate tactic with me.

I agree to disagree.

That's nice. But you still don't have a coherent argument (let alone evidence) for your disagreement. You simply disagree because you don't like the conclusion.

In summary: you present NO EVIDENCE for your position. You appeal to uncontrolled variables, but cannot name a single one. Weak, SG, weak.

 

[twinstead]

Of course it's propaganda. Everything a politician says in the course of trying to get elected is propaganda simply by the definition of the word, no matter how truthful it is. Calling it propaganda is not a useful descriptor.

I can't think of a better descriptor, mainly because practically every single conservative I know repeats the same thing whenever unemployment rates come up in any political debate. It's just one of those things that may sound logical on its face, but is way more complicated than it looks.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't think of a better descriptor, mainly because practically every single conservative I know repeats the same thing whenever unemployment rates come up in any political debate. It's just one of those things that may sound logical on its face, but is way more complicated than it looks.

That's not peculiar to conservatives. Liberals will do the same thing, appealing to the official unemployment rate to show that the economy has recovered, even though it's way more complicated than that. Almost everybody appeals to the simplest thing which supports their position, because simple is easy for both the speaker and the listener.

And it's not even something you can really blame them for. Politicians running for office may put up long and detailed policy statements on their website (where almost nobody will bother reading it), but when they're doing interviews or ads, the have to keep it simple, because the format really doesn't permit anything else. You cannot win an election by focusing on nuance.

 

[twinstead]

And it's not even something you can really blame them for. Politicians running for office may put up long and detailed policy statements on their website (where almost nobody will bother reading it), but when they're doing interviews or ads, the have to keep it simple, because the format really doesn't permit anything else. You cannot win an election by focusing on nuance.

Very true, and I don't blame Cruz at all. Nuance is the responsibility of the electorate; voting because of the simple explanations without regard for nuance is bad citizenship.

I'm not comfortable with claiming Obama has done wonders with the economy, nor am I comfortable claiming the country's going to hell because of his policies. I personally think we would be very close to where we are now had a Republican won in 2012--no better no worse--and Democrats would be the ones claiming things are going to hell.

 

[Tony Stark]

Very true, and I don't blame Cruz at all. Nuance is the responsibility of the electorate; voting because of the simple explanations without regard for nuance is bad citizenship.

I'm not comfortable with claiming Obama has done wonders with the economy, nor am I comfortable claiming the country's going to hell because of his policies. I personally think we would be very close to where we are now had a Republican won in 2012--no better no worse--and Democrats would be the ones claiming things are going to hell.

Mitt Romney promised that he would get unemployment down to 6% by the end of his term. It is currently 5%. I wonder what those lying scumbag Republicans would say if everything was the same except he was President. Actually, I don't. They would without any doubt whatsoever be going on about how good of a President Romney is and how he saved us from Obama.

 

[twinstead]

They would without any doubt whatsoever be going on about how good of a President Romney is and how he saved us from Obama.

They would be doing exactly that