"Employed full time" is a subset of total employment.
And the subset that we're generally concerned with.
It excludes part time work. I'm not sure why you are constantly using metrics that are subsets of the larger metrics that tell a more negative story.
I'm using the same metrics people use at all times to evaluate the economy unless they're trying to spin. If we're being really honest, when people ask the question, there are generally two things they look at--unemployment rates and GDP growth. For a regular person who just wants a quick answer, that's what they care about. Someone who is more seriously looking at it would move to some deeper stuff, like median real wages, real wages, real wage growth, prime-age LFP, etc. In almost all cases, including the current time, those numbers tell the same story, though they tell it in more depth.
What's going on here is that partisans don't like the story being told, so you guys are desperately, pathetically, trying to look under the hood for some, any sign that things aren't as good as they look. And, again, we know this, because a few years ago, the economy was in a similar state, though not quite as good, as Republicans (yourself very much included) were rightly celebrating it as being good. I was on board with the analysis then, and I'm still on board with using the same basic metrics.
You never specified "full time employment real wages are up", you specified "real wages are up", so not sure why you wouldn't include part-time workers. Now if I was you, I would call this "an embarrassing, partisan mistake" and that you should "Read more carefully".
Again, that's what it means when we talk about that. It's only because you are so desperate to deny the simple, obvious reality that you're trying to look around for some reason to ignore the data.
They soared because they were down from two years ago. Again, the economy has been stagnant over the past two years and arguably longer, as I have mentioned with regards to total LFPR.
Um, no. There's no some kind of magical force that puts things on the trendline. And they only fell during the pandemic because of composition effects (which I have tried in vain to get you to understand--I have rarely encountered such denseness).
Your points are false and based on statistical manipulation. Easy enough to say as well and adds nothing of value. Take it up with the BEA if you disagree with my points.
Well, no, because I'm just using the same metrics that people always use--the ones you used yourself when partisanship didn't compel you to try to misrepresent the state of the economy.
I don't make predictions based on something out of my control.
But you have been implying a prediction. You're just running from any kind of accountability because you know that what you're saying is false.
But there's absolutely no need to worry, right?
Unless you are going to actually argue points instead of just saying "your wrong, bro", I think I am done wasting my time here.
I've argued points from the start. This is not a complicated or legitimately controversial argument. All the metrics that people look at to evaluate the state of the economy show that it is extraordinarily strong. It is fascinating to me that you'd rather make a fool of yourself for several pages than just admit that the economy is doing really well right now.
Also note that the claim that the economy is currently very strong is not a prediction that there will never be a downturn. It is a certainty that at some point, we'll have a recession.
