SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The World Socialist Web Site reports
The Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and their allies in the corporate-controlled media have hailed the Census Bureau report released [September 13], claiming it demonstrates that the US economy has "turned the corner" and that the supposed "economic recovery" is now providing big dividends for working people and even for the poor.
[...] A careful examination of the figures presented in the Current Population Survey (CPS), the formal name of the study, suggests that the hosannas by Obama and the media are premature. The statistical data is not fabricated, but it has been packaged in the light most favorable to the Democrats in the final two months of a hotly contested presidential election.
[...] Many workers who were limited to part-time work in 2014, or were unemployed entirely, went back to work or worked longer hours in 2015. This does not mean they got a raise. A minimum-wage worker who went from 15 hours of work a week in 2014 to 30 hours of work a week in 2015 would see a doubling in his or her income, a 100 percent increase, entirely from longer hours, even as their pay remained abysmally low.
[...] Most new jobs taken by previously unemployed workers were in the low-pay service sectors, like healthcare, restaurants and bars, nursing homes, retail outlets, etc.
[Continues...]
[...] The only section of the population which saw an outright decline in median household income were people living in rural areas, already lower paid on average than people living in cities or suburbs. Their median household income fell 2 percent, to $44,657 annually, more than $15,000 a year behind people living in metropolitan areas (combining cities and suburbs). During the presidential primaries, these areas saw some of the largest votes for Trump, as well as for Sanders.
[...] Obama and the media also hailed the reported drop in the poverty rate.
[...] If one adds up those excluded from the survey--2.3 million prisoners, 1.4 million nursing home residents, 1.2 million in hospices, and 1.1 million in other long-term care settings--that means that some 6 million people are left out.
In addition, as the Census report explains, "Since the CPS is a household survey, people who are homeless and not living in shelters are not included in the sample." Again, a large group of people, at least half a million and perhaps many more, who are all living in poverty, but not counted in the Census report. [...] [If those folks were added in,] the total number of people living in poverty [would be] closer to 50 million Americans.
[...] "During the 4-year period from 2009 to 2012, 34.5 percent of the population had at least one spell of poverty lasting 2 or more months." The number is staggering: about 110 million people. The official poverty line is absurdly low, set now at $24,250 for a family of four, or $11,770 for an individual. But more than one-third of all Americans fell below that abysmal marker for a significant period of time.
An interviewer on my Pacifica Radio affiliate suggested another reason why the *household* income numbers seemed to go up a bit: Adult children moving back in with their parents and adding their part-time poverty-wage income to the total.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Non Sequor on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:45AM
Why do you think that shadowstats guy isn't lying with statistics?
He's clearly including marginal numbers in his calculation, like students and retirees. The baby boom generation is the largest part of the workforce and they've been rapidly retiring over at least the last decade. They really shouldn't be counted.
Take a look at https://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/the-trouble-with-shadowstats/ [azizonomics.com]
Shadowstats is completely bogus.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:42PM
Reminds me of the cuckoo right's fascination with "unskewing" the polls.
That didn't work out so well for Romney, but they are trying to do it for Trump too.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/return-unskew-polls-donald-trump-edition [rightwingwatch.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @07:05PM
1) That's 1 blogger's opinion.
...and has that blogger ever done any actual work and had that work cited by someone else?
Y'know, by people in the field who lend him credibility.
2) There are dozens of rebuttals there to his claim.
(With over 200 comments total!, he needs to offer a page view without comments and one with a limited number of comments.)
3) That page isn"t about EMPLOYMENT numbers.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Sunday September 18 2016, @09:08PM
I don't care much for economics but some data based economics can be reasonable. Shadowstats has no claim to being data based because if any distinct external source of data were used, it would show up as a differently shaped graph when compared to the CPI data series. That point is valid regardless of whether or not I know anything else about Mr. Aziz's work, whatever it may be, and the rebuttals aren't relevant to this point.
Now that said, establish for me why shadowstats is your preferred source of information on employment numbers and adds more to the conversation than the range of employment, underemployment, and workforce participation metrics maintained by BLS.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @06:21AM
if any distinct external source of data were used, it would show up as a differently shaped graph
You didn't look closely enough at the chart.
Don't like Williams' results?
Here's another guy who ran the numbers and said, again, USA.gov's numbers have a HUGE error. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]