American workers worse off in the first 18 months under Trump

CanadianJudo · 2018-10-05T02:45:16.396Z

America want into the Canadian market, Canada is very overprotective of the dairy market.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-05T02:45:24.534Z

Cynic:

Delusional Kool-Aid drinker ALERT

Notice how it’s also stagnant from 2011 to 2013? So take that zero right there and divide it by the zero of 2015/2016 and what do you get?

0/0. What is 0/0? undefined. Obama’s administration literally broke the rules of math. That’s how bad it was.

CanadianJudo · 2018-10-05T02:46:10.317Z

Mostly because Dairy farmers are a very powerful lobby in Prov/Fed elections.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2018-10-05T02:52:12.230Z

CanadianJudo:

America want into the Canadian market, Canada is very overprotective of the dairy market.

CanadianJudo:

Mostly because Dairy farmers are a very powerful lobby in Prov/Fed elections.

Oh ok so canada is putting tarrifs on US imports, I thought you were saying US was putting tarrifs on our exports

adroit · 2018-10-05T03:26:54.658Z

WuWei:

MichaelScarn:

People are idiots. Has their purchasing power increased or decreased since January 2017?

Increased. They have jobs again.

You think you’re smarter than people?

Well, fewer jobs are being created and with decreasing real wages. Double whammy.

Guilds · 2018-10-05T04:00:31.821Z

WuWei:

That was extremely rude. Perhaps some self reflection is in order. For you.

It was accurate. Sometimes, the truth hurts, and some may perceive that to be rude.

Not my problem.

mobulis · 2018-10-05T04:56:04.347Z

peek-a-boo:

mobulis:

Obama went from 25 to 125, trump went from 125 to about 130., which is greater?

The CCI was about 103 in November 2016 when Trump was elected. It had remained in that range for 2 years. Under Obama, the CCI failed to return to its pre-recession value in the 110 range. Immediately following Trump’s election it shot up, passing 125 and today stands at 138.

Only the most delusional Kool-Aid drinkers would point to these charts and claim that it is just a continuation of Obama’s failed economic polices.

Obama went from -8 to 125 according to the chart, please explain how that’s failure.

JayJay · 2018-10-05T10:13:01.899Z

peek-a-boo:

dantes:

I don’t believe you’re very talented with data analysis, certainly haven’t demonstrated any such thing here.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but anyone who truly understand data analysis would beg to disagree with you

No- people who understand data analysis completey agree with Dantes…you have demonstrated no talent towards data analysis on these boards.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-05T11:29:31.958Z

mobulis:

Obama went from -8 to 125 according to the chart, please explain how that’s failure.

because it stagnates for a little bit in 2016!!!

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-05T11:31:10.255Z

mobulis:

Obama went from -8 to 125 according to the chart, please explain how that’s failure.

also those are two different metrics on there. The -8 is GDP contraction. He went from about 25 to about 100 before the election, and yes about 125 when he left office.

2ndpillar · 2018-10-05T14:54:48.099Z

By the way, how much does Soros pay?

AmusedObserver · 2018-10-05T15:37:06.771Z

peek-a-boo:

You’ve lost me. You beg to disagree with him and yet find him to be on very solid ground? Or are you saying you understand data analysis and believe me to be full of crap?

If option two is what you are saying, then maybe you could point out the flaws in my reasoning,

No, I understand data analysis, and agree with him that you have shown little to nothing on this site that demonstrates a similar level of understanding. At your job, perhaps you’re more objective and rigorous in your analysis, though I doubt it - you regularly imply about having a narrative and then finding data to support it. It’s supposed to be the other way around, of course.

Your “alternative narratives” and data analysis here are regularly flawed. You take an eyeball approach rather than math-based, frequently cherry-pick data in a narrow and arbitrary window and draw absurd conclusions. For example, in this thread alone you mention in passing that the CCI didn’t regain pre-recession numbers under Obama. So what? Where did it start under Obama? What’s the trend? Do you understand the meaning of that red line on the chart? Have you done a regression analysis of the trend under Obama?

Also, you probably should stop with the experience/education/compensation-waving. You may find that you don’t have the biggest . . . resume on this site.

JayJay · 2018-10-05T16:17:01.259Z

peek-a-boo:

Guilds:

Facts are facts. Democrats do not own them, nobody owns them. They simply are.

talking points are talking points. Nobody owns them. They simply are.

Do you have the best brain too? Trump may disagree.

DEMs sure believe they do.

Nah…just better than some Trump supporters…which isn’t usually a high bar to exceed…

tnt · 2018-10-05T16:22:33.878Z

I don’t see dates, but I assume that bottom is the recession.

This is a continuation of an established trend line. Since you study data provisionally, I won’t bore you with how to draw a trend line. But certainly you would agree that is what we have here.

tnt · 2018-10-05T16:28:30.026Z

peek-a-boo:

Actually, do this kind of analysis for a living and I have 40+ years of experience. I’ve also taken my share of college level economic courses.

As I stated earlier:

Only the most delusional Kool-Aid drinkers would point to these charts and claim that it is just a continuation of Obama’s failed economic polices.

The trend line from 2008 is up. The current data is a continuation of the trend line.

How can you not see that?

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-05T16:58:35.844Z

Not quite sure where to begin. But let me attempt to address each of your points.

First let’s talk about the red regression line. That is a linear regression line which doesn’t provide much in the way of predictability. It is in the chart I provided because I couldn’t track down the raw data to remove it.

So instead let’s step back and look at the 41 year history provided in the chart. What does it show? What it shows is that during a recession consumer confidence falls and during the inevitable recovery consumer confidence rises.

To truly understand more about Obama’s recovery, one must look at each of the previous recoveries for comparison.

Additionally we can’t ignore the dramatic boost in consumer confidence that took place between 1987 and 1988. What were the drivers? And again between 1996 and 2000 where consumer confidence soared to a record 144.7. What happened in 1996? And finally 2017 to present day. The CCI is once again soaring towards record territory. What happened in November 2016 to boost consumer confidence?

In regards to consumer confidence recovery following a recession, how does Obama’s compare? At first glance I see that his recovery time period was much longer. What is the significance of that?

So now back to the premise being put forth by forum members. What is the value of simply ignoring everything but the time period between 2009 and 2018? Who is really doing the cherry picking here?

dantes · 2018-10-05T17:01:19.367Z

I love how you are trying to use words like “linear regression” in an attempt to sound like you know what you’re talking about.

You still never explained why consumer confidence is more important than actual earnings.

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-05T17:03:09.756Z

I never stated that consumer confidence is more important than actual earnings. It is but one of several measures. It is the OP that chooses to focus on a single measure, to the exclusion of everything else.

dantes · 2018-10-05T17:15:17.218Z

The OP chooses to focus on measures of how people are actually doing rather than how they “feel” they are doing.

Which is consistent with the OP focusing on results. Consumer confidence has no importance when discussing results.

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-05T17:21:39.109Z

dantes:

The OP chooses to focus on measures of how people are actually doing rather than how they “feel” they are doing.

Which is consistent with the OP focusing on results. Consumer confidence has no importance when discussing results.

Then why does it ignore the real increases American works saw in their paychecks as a result of the tax decreases?