June 11, 2018

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (061118)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:00 am

This open thread is meant for commenters to post on items either briefly noted below (if any) or otherwise not covered at this blog. Rules are here.
_________________________________

6:00 a.m.: A presidential election post-mortem which makes sense (HT Sara Hoyt at Instapundit) —

Clinton ultimately lost largely because of her poor performance with women. Had Hillary won the same shares as Obama, Gore, or even her husband with this constituency, or if she had equivalent (or especially increased) rates of female turnout, she almost certainly would be president today.

… Trump’s victory is often described as a “whitelash” by voters eager to erase the legacy of America’s first black president. However, this narrative fails to take account of basic election data. For instance, the most decisive votes for the 2016 race came from people who had supported Barack Obama in 2012 (and often 2008 as well) but then switched to Trump. If these were people horrified by a black commander-in-chief, it is not clear why they would have voted to give him another four years to pursue his agenda (let alone have voted for him in 2008).

Trump actually won a smaller share of the white vote than Mitt Romney. He was nonetheless able to win because he won more Hispanics and Asians than his predecessors, and more black votes than any Republican since 2004.

The author notes that these stubborn facts remain as academics and other churn out garbage about sexism, misogyny, and racism explaining the election result.

Read the whole thing.

_________________________________

7:15 a.m.: A few days ago, I posted about this topic at the Facebook page of someone who, as it turns out, might as well be a never-Trumper. Before I could copy the comment and use it as a starting point pending further review here at BizzyBlog, he deleted it and claimed that I’m a “palace guard,” apparently for Donald Trump. ROTFLMAO.

So I’m finally getting back to it with the additional research completed.

I was responding to this person’s claim that “when unemployment was dropping during the Obama administration … all of my fellow conservatives talked incessantly about the Labor Force Participation Rate … (but now) we’re suddenly in love with an artificially low unemployment rate. Oh wait, political expediency.”

I took exception to “all.” It’s lazy stereotyping, especially in this instance. Nobody’s perfect, but I work mightily to avoid generalizations like this, and so should everyone else.

People who read this blog know I look for/hope for improvements in labor force participation ever month. That said, the month-to-month focus and the tiny percentage changes in the key metrics have masked a pretty impressive improvement in the last 17 months which could arguably be linked to first to Trump’s election, and then to December’s tax cuts, as seen in this mini-table:

WorkforceAndEmployment1216to0518

The civilian labor force has increased by almost 2.4 million in the past 17 months. That’s an average of 140,000 per month. The average growth in the civilian labor force in the seven-year period from 2010-2016 was 75,000 (to be fair, the annual results fluctuated wildly, but in terms of momentum, 2016′s average growth after considering population control adjustments from 2015 and 2016 was still only 74K).

If that Obama-era trend had continued, today’s unemployment rate would be 3.1 percent, and the complaints about people remaining on the sidelines would be deafening.

There’s still a concern about people on the sidelines, but, as seen in the table, there has been noticeable improvement.

_________________________________

8:30 a.m.: Here’s why you should scroll back through Instapundit for Sara Hoyt’s overnight entries, because she often links to strong pieces like this one, which in turn links here:

SJWsAreAllAboutPower060818

This is why ESPN won’t change despite bleeding subscribers; why CNN won’t change despite losing 25 percent of its viewers in one year, and why corporations like Dick’s Sporting Goods won’t change stupid, virtue-signaling decisions even when they obvious hurt their bottom line; why colleges and universities won’t stop protecting the unhinged radicals in their ranks; why Bill Maher roots for a recession, we could go on and on and on.

More darkly, it’s why places like Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela won’t change unless there is regime change or overwhelming evidence that someone with greater power can and will resort to regime change if they don’t change.

Share

2 Comments

  1. During 8 years of Obama’s feckless reign of incompetence, did the States have a problem like this:

    States battle for workers amid low unemployment

    http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/391440-states-battle-for-workers-amid-low-unemployment

    Nothing more needs to be said, the proof is in the tasting of the pudding, liberal ideas and governance suck.

    Comment by dscott — June 11, 2018 @ 4:26 pm

  2. Just imagine how much worse it would be if the only 1.2 million (the Obama rate) instead of 2.4 million (the Trump era rate) had entered the workforce during the past 17 months.

    Comment by Tom — June 11, 2018 @ 4:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.