Manufacturing Jobs USA (source Wikipedia). Note the original graph showed jobs since 1940
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
President Obama’s administration thinks CO2 emissions have been decoupled from GDP. The reality is many of the manufacturing jobs, and the CO2 emissions which went with them, have simply been exported.
Climate Change is Costly; Serious Climate Policy is a Bargain
Summary: As the climate changes, global economic output will fall, but most of those economic damages can be avoided with smart policy.
As the President wrote this week in the journal Science, the last eight years demonstrate that carbon emissions can decline while the economy is growing. This is in contrast to centuries old reality that increased economic output entailed increased carbon emissions. Emissions did, in fact, drop during the Great Recession. But due to trends in the energy system and policies pursued by President Obama, carbon pollution has continued to fall while our economy has recovered from that shock. From 2008-2015, U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5 percent while the economy grew more than 10 percent.
GDP and Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Dioxide Emissions 2000 – 2015, source Whitehous
The decoupling of carbon pollution and economic growth in the United States is underway, and recent data from the International Energy Agency suggests that this trend is going global, as emissions have stayed flat in 2014 and 2015 while the global economy grew. When the Paris Agreement took effect in December 2015, the world took an important step toward avoiding the most dangerous impacts of climate change. But Paris alone is not enough to avoid average global surface temperature increases that climate scientists say are very risky — additional policies that reduce CO2 emissions are needed, in the United States and elsewhere, to ensure that these damages are avoided.
Moreover, as we consider the interaction of climate change mitigation policies and the economy, it is important to remember that the counterfactual to serious mitigation is not free – the absence (or even delay of effective climate policy can be very costly over time. The figure below graphs estimates of the annual economic damages from climate change, expressed as a fraction of global gross domestic product (GDP), from mid- to late-century, under different climate policy scenarios. We can think of this as a “climate damage cost” that world nations will pay each year as the climate changes, in terms of lost economic output. This cost includes impacts of increased temperature on agricultural productivity, sea level rise, and deaths and illnesses related to heat, pollution and tropical diseases. In the reference curve (in blue), no action is taken to address climate change. Each of the other curves incorporate different assumptions about how much emissions mitigation the world will achieve, and how quickly. If countries meet their individual nationally-determined contributions (INDCs) agreed to in Paris and go no further, moving the world from the blue to the purple curve, we can avoid significant economic damages. To move to the red curve, countries must meet the Paris INDCs and continue to decarbonize beyond 2030 at about the same rate represented in the INDCs. If we achieve net-zero global GHG emissions in 2080, we can reduce climate damage impacts on the level of global GDP from more than 4 percent to less than 1 percent by 2100.
Climate Change Impacts as a Fraction of Global Economic Output, 2050 – 2100. Source Whitehouse
Failing to make investments in climate change mitigation could leave the global economy, and the U.S. economy, worse off in the future. And the estimates graphed above are uncertain and may be conservative; they do not account for damages that are difficult to monetize (such as increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather), or for the possibility that we may cross critical greenhouse gas concentration thresholds that cause catastrophic damages (such as the melting of Greenland ice sheets and associated sea-level rise), or for the chance that climate change will reduce the rate of economic growth in some countries, rather than just the level of output.
We may have become used to reading about the predicted physical impacts of climate change, like inundated coasts and lower crop production. But the economic impacts, and their fiscal consequences, will be severe, as well. For example, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget recently estimated that a reduction in annual global economic output of 4 percent—well within the range of what economic models suggest could happen by 2100 without further climate action—could translate to lost U.S. federal tax revenue of $340 to $690 billion per year (about 0.5 percent of expected U.S. GDP in 2100).
In deciding how much to reduce carbon pollution, and how quickly to act, countries must weigh the costs of policy action against estimates of avoided climate damages. But we should be clear-eyed about the fact that effective action is possible, and that the economic and fiscal costs of inaction are steep.
Why do I think manufacturing jobs have been exported? The following paper published by the US government in 2012 claims such a link.
The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment Justin R. Pierce and Peter K. Schott
NBER Working Paper No. 18655
December 2012
JEL No. E0,F1,J0
ABSTRACT
This paper finds a link between the sharp drop in U.S. manufacturing employment after 2001 and the elimination of trade policy uncertainty resulting from the U.S. granting of permanent normal trade relations to China in late 2000. We find that industries where the threat of tariff hikes declines the most experience greater employment loss due to suppressed job creation, exaggerated job destruction and a substitution away from low-skill workers. We show that these policy-related employment losses coincide with a relative acceleration of U.S. imports from China, the number of U.S. firms importing from China, the number of Chinese firms exporting to the U.S., and the number of U.S.-China importer-exporter pairs.
Justin R. Pierce
Federal Reserve Board 20th and C ST NW Washington, DC 20551
justin.r.pierce@frb.gov
Peter K. Schott
Yale School of Management
135 Prospect Street
New Haven, CT 06520-8200 and NBER peter.schott@yale.edu
I have read other analysis claiming the real issue is robotics, artificial intelligence and automation. As a software expert I have no doubt automation has had a substantial impact, and will continue to impact employment. Many skilled metal working jobs have been displaced over the last few decades by robot CNC machines. The automobile manufacturing industry has embraced robot assembly lines for a long time.
There is also evidence that US manufacturing productivity, output per job, and production as a whole has grown substantially – though it seems likely those estimates include a substantial increase in the proportion of unfinished components imported from overseas, components which used to be manufactured in America.
A rise in the domestic US increase in use of gas, and a policy driven decline in coal use, has also likely contributed to a reduction in US GHG emissions.
But the claim that US GDP has been decoupled from CO2 emissions seems very weak, given that the US government’s own research shows that many of those jobs, and the CO2 emissions which go with them, have simply been exported.
John,
The usual deliberate muddle between correlation and causation.
FIFY.
These off-spring of not-legally wed mothers are, indeed, out to get us.
Auto
Chris Hanley
January 12, 2017 11:04 pm
“… recent data from the International Energy Agency suggests that this trend is going global, as emissions have stayed flat in 2014 and 2015 …”
================================
If human emissions were responsible for most of the CO2 concentration increase, I would expect to see a ‘flattening’ here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
The report was for the US, this chart is for the world as a whole.
The increases in India and China are easily large enough to cover for any drop in the US.
Martin A
January 13, 2017 1:53 am
Chris Hanley: Yes indeed.
michael hart
January 13, 2017 3:15 am
And in other news, the Obama White House announced that water had been decoupled from life, and that the White House isn’t actually white if you look hard enough.
mountainape5
January 13, 2017 3:53 am
It’s a shame the US doesn’t make anything nowadays but relies on cheap products from China and other low income countries.
Bill Illis
January 13, 2017 4:13 am
The increase in energy efficiency and reduction in CO2 emissions is because of the new Combined Cycle Natural Gas power plants.
The newest versions of these plants are more efficient than the earliest ones and most importantly, they are more reliable. Some of the turbine arrangements in the first and second generations broke down a lot but now they are more reliable. In combined cycle, they recover the heat generated in the first phase to generate another round of power. And natural gas is both cheap and provides lower CO2 emissions than coal for example. In addition, these plants can be built to almost any size now. Small back-ups, to full city-sized facilities.
That is why CO2 emissions are lower and energy efficiency has gone up.
Natural Gas became Number 1 in the US in 2016. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2016.03.16/main.png
“Or maybe human emissions haven’t been what has been affecting the Mauna Loa figures.”
There is “No” maybe about it.
Because there is no, none, zero, zilch, nada “”human emission” signature as a result of human CO2 emitting activities to be found, detected, observed or pointed out to exist in the 59 years of the Mauna Loa CO2 Record, …… either the monthly or daily Record, to wit:
NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
NOAA’s complete weekly/daily average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.txt
The only signature that can be found, detected, observed or pointed out to exist in the 59 years of the Mauna Loa CO2 Record …… is the “temperature signature” of the ocean waters in the Southern Hemisphere.
And there are, in actuality, two (2) ocean water temperature “signatures” that are depicted by or in the Keeling Curve Graph of Mauna Loa CO2 measurements.
One is the bi-yearly or seasonal “saw-tooth” CO2 ppm signature and the other one is the maximum “yearly” CO2 ppm signature that has been slowly increasing since the end of the LIA in the late 1800’s.
Cliffhanger
January 13, 2017 5:49 am
Obama has done an amazing job. He killed Osama Bin Laden. He saved the automakers. He tripled the stock market. He lowered unemployment to under five percent. He ended two unpopular wars overseas. He disarmed Iran. The dollar is strong. Gasoline is under 2.50 a gallon. He brought the world together to sign the Paris climate agreement. He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents ever!
Everything I listed was a fact. Its hard to spin numbers isn’t it? Supply side economics is want Trump and the GOP believe in. And once again we will all watch it fail miserably. And in eight years when things are rough again. The voters will long for the Obama days again.
How am I delusional? Everything I listed were facts. Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6% if he was elected. Obama brought it down under 5%. Keynesian economics worked once again. Just like it did when it brought us out of the great depression. Supply side economics is a flawed and debunked strategy. Wake up!
It is not Keynesian Economics. Period. Keynes advocate SHORT term deficit spending followed by surpluses to pay for them Obama ran up $10t in deficits. There were no surpluses.
Second, the Stockmarket did not triple. It was just under 8k when he took office. it is not 24k now. Not even close.
Third, the Unemployment rate is bogus as every credible person will tell you. That is because of the 95 million MarkW told you about. While some are normally NOT in the labor force, the labor participation rate is the lowest many years. The difference added to the currently reported U3 is a truer rate – 7%. Hardly anything to crow about.
Fourth, the stock market has nothing to do with Obama as it has more to do with the Trillions the Fed injected into the market to prop it up. It also does not reflect the economic performance of the past 8 years, which works out to an annual growth rate of 1.2% BEFORE inflation.
Fifth, while the “reported” inflation rate has remained low, it is still above 1.2% over the past 8 years. So the actual growth rate is negative.
Sixth – Obama failed to achieve a growth rate in excess of 3% for ANY quarter of his regime, a record not shared by any other president in history.
I would suggest doing research and stop using talking points.
The spin is that you are trying to claim that your facts either matter, or that Obama was responsible for them.
Killiing Bin Laden. Meaningless act, Bin Laden hadn’t had any authority in Al Queda in over a decade prior to his death. Beyond that Al Queda had become a backwater in terms of their ability to commit terrorist acts.
He did not save the auto companies. It’s possible that one of them might have gone bankrupt, the rest would have survived. Ford for one didn’t take any government help. Regardless, the factories would not have disappeared, they would have been bought by someone and production would have continued.
What Obama did do was steal 10’s of millions from investors in order to reward his union supporters.
He did not lower unemployment, his 10% GDP growth over 8 years isn’t even enough to keep up with growth in the working age population. What brought the unemployment rate down was 95 million people giving up and no longer looking for work. Labor rate participation today is lower than it was at the depths of the Depression.
He ended the war by unilaterally withdrawing. He cut and ran and as a result lost two wars that had already been won. Most of today’s resurgence in terrorism can be traced to those two monumentally stupid acts.
Disarmed Iran? By giving them everything they wanted? Only the totally delusional believes that Iran has given up it’s quest for the bomb. If anything Obama has made their goal easier.
The dollar is strong, only compared to other countries that are in even worse shape economically.
Gasoline under $2.50 a gallon. Only because Obama wasn’t able to stop exploration and production on private lands. He did everything in his power to block it on government owned lands. You can also thank Saudi Arabia which had the twin goals of slowing down oil/tar sands revolution and defunding Iran and Russia. Again, nothing to do with Obama.
Obama single handedly brought the world together in Paris? Once again, you give Obama credit for things that would have happened anyway. Beyond that, the Paris agreement is a toothless tiger, it has no concrete goals and no enforcement methods. Finally, he didn’t even bother to submit it to the Senate. Until the Senate ratifies it, it remains a worthless piece of paper.
Obama has been a disaster in every way imaginable, the only question remaining is if he is the worst president ever, or merely one of the 3 worst.
You simply don’t understand how Obama works, do you? It’s ‘just get to the targeted number.’ And if it’s not true, just change the unit of measure. It’s more about filling in lines on a checklist than any actual accomplishment. It’s virtual reality and PR.
Your claim that the US unemployment rate is not a valid statistic is pure nonsense. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Obama took it to 4.7%. Give the man some credit. Leave your echo chamber once an awhile and get some fresh air!
No, I said the rate is deceptive. And it is. for the reasons I explained. It does not matter what Romney said – he is not president and never will be! What is your problem? Tired of blaming Boosh 8 years after Obama took over? Do liberals ever accept responsibility? Or are they always victims?
Get a clue. Obama has been president for 8 years. Not Bush. not Romney. OBAMA. And he failed.
Hey, Cliffhanger, if you change the unit of measurement, statistics become meaningless. If you can’t see that simple, obvious mechanism – which is the go-to methodology of this president – well, I think you not trying to.
My God, look who’s talking about an echo chamber.
Saying 90% or whatever has left the job force due to lack of opportunity is simply not true. There was a study done that showed it was over 80% were retiree’s who dropped out of the labor force., Also woman saw a slight downward trend in working. And there was a large increase in more college educated citizens who have choose not to work. So to count this number as your statistic is cherry picking at its finest. The US unemployment rate is the greatest statistic we have for judging employment. Its been that way for a long time. If you would have done any research you would have came to the same conclusion. For example you would have learned we actually know what the labor participation rate will be up till 2050. It doesn’t matter who is president. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/ .
Cliff – no one but you said 90%. We gave you the facts and figures. Clearly you are not capable of handling them. And as others have pointed out, factcheck is 2 lies in one. They have no facts and they do not check. It is a fake news site for the fake news sites of the MSM. Proven wrong continually.
I said, and will restate it, that while more people are retired, as a PERCENT of the population, the percentage has not changed much (due to immigration and births). Ergo a RATE that has gone UP is showing a greater percentage out of the labor force. I did not say the number, I said the RATE.
As MarkW clearly pointed out, your talking points are failing you. You have no response to the FACT that Obama is the only president with a net zero increase in the labor force during a term of his regime. Even Carter, during stagflation, could at least point to SOME job creation. Obama could not.
And the irony is that while the fake news sites whined about the jobs created under Bush as being “burger flippers”, the reality is the few jobs that Obama “created” in his second term WHERE burger flippers! Part time jobs that were taken by former full time workers because the companies could not afford Obamacare.
Now run along and get some more talking points that have nothing to do with my comment so you can post another non sequitur.
Cliffy, you really do cling to your delusions, don’t you.
Yes a big portion is retiree’s, but many of those weren’t voluntary retirements.
If there is this huge group of people who have simply chosen not to work, ans your fantasy insists, then there should be lots and lots available jobs for those who want to work but can’t find any.
Yes, a lot of women have given up trying to find work and are relying on their husband’s income to support the family. But that is not necessarily a good thing.
PS, I notice you are completely ignoring the spanking I gave you above.
Gosh, to me, it looks like Obama lit the world on fire, ran up more debt than all the other presidents combined, crippled as many industries as he could, destroyed the healthcare system, set Americans at each other’s throats over every issue possible, discredited major institutions, corrupted the press beyond repair, demolished and demoralized the military, alienated our allies, propped-up and invigorated our enemies. We’ve never been in a more precarious place since before World War II – all this while downsizing our military and telling us everything’s fine, nothing to see here.
And your statement that he ‘disarmed Iran’ is simple self-serving stupidity. For your comments about ‘echo-chambers’, it seems you just simply suck up Obama’s own version of events without the slightest critique.
Gasoline prices are in spite of him – almost entirely due to fracking and price war outside his control – and don’t forget they held at sub-four-bucks a gallon for nearly his entire first term.
The stock market was simply crony capitalists, in league with government at the expense of small business, and the employment rate was achieved by changing the unit of measure (gosh, where have we heard THAT before?)
We’re still in Afghanistan – with increased troop deaths (funny how the press’s ‘troop-death count’ disappeared once Obama started ramping up the numbers) – we’re back in Iraq because of impossibly irresponsible policies – and I don’t know HOW many other countries.
And funny that I’ve never seen a photograph of Bin Laden’s corpse – I’ve seen pictures of nearly every other dead-guy of note.
Greatest president ever? Wow. Talk about trying to get there. I was no fan of George Bush, but Obama was absolutely the worst possible guy to follow him.
But you just keep repeating your talking points – the only one you’re really trying to convince is yourself.
You make up conspiracy theories to support your beliefs. Like saying “government is in bed with the market and crony capitalism. LOL I hope you have a source to that delusion. And I am not sure what you mean by “Ive never seen pictures of Bin Laden”. I am guessing you are saying there is a conspiracy involved again!. He enabled 30 million people to gain health insurance. As a result the US is at all time lows in percentage of citizens with health insurance. I am not sure how that exactly is destroying the whole system? And you claimed the “Press troop death count disappeared once Obama started ramping up the numbers?”. I hope you have a good credible source to back up another conspiracy theory you believe in.
Cliffhanger January 13, 2017 at 5:49 am wrote: “Obama has done an amazing job.”
That’s funny. It is amazing to me that anyone could even say that seriously. How blind do you have to be to not see the blemishes on Obama?
Cliffhanger: “He killed Osama Bin Laden.”
Navy Seals killed bin Laden. Whoever had been president when they spotted bin Laden, would have killed him (with the exception of Joe Biden).
Cliffhanger: “He saved the automakers.”
Obama screwed the GM bond holders and gave all the money to the unions. The automakers would have been bailed out with, or without, Obama.
Cliffhanger: “He tripled the stock market.”
The American economy and low energy prices are what stimulated the stock market. And that is despite Obama, not because of him. Obama’s regulations and policies have stifled the U.S. economy. That it has done so good in the face of such restrictions is a testatment to the strength of the economy, which is moving ahead despite Obama’s rediculous regulations and Obamacare (a huge job killer).
Cliffhanger: “He lowered unemployment to under five percent.”
A bogus figure. When people give up looking for a job, Obama doesn’t count them as unemployed. He doesn’t count them at all. There are now about 95 million able-bodied Americans who could work if they had work, but they don’t, and none of these 95 million unemployed are counted in the 5 percent figure.
Cliffhanger: “He ended two unpopular wars overseas.”
The only thing Obama ended was Amrican participation. A war only ends when both sides say it has ended. The Islamic fanatics are still at war with the U.S. Obama turned Iraq from a success story into a horrendous nightmare with his failure to protect the hardwon peace George W. Bush handed him. And the Taliban in Afghanistan now control more territory than they did when the war began, all due to Obama’s neglect. Obama’s idiocy had destablized the entire Middle East and Western Europe.
Cliffhanger: “He disarmed Iran.”
Ridiculous. Obama made it possible for Iran to get nuclear weapons, and has given the Mad Mullahs of Iran billions of dollars to finance their continued terrorist activities around the world. Obama is the greatest enabler of radical Islam since Mohammed.
Cliffhanger: “The dollar is strong.”
Obama had nothing to do with it.
Cliffhanger: “Gasoline is under 2.50 a gallon.”
That is despite Obama, not because of him. If it were up to Obama, gasoline would cost $5 per gallon. Obama had nothing to do with lowering gasoline prices, although he is happy to lie about it and claim he did.
Cliffhanger: “He brought the world together to sign the Paris climate agreement.”
Some people consider that a bad thing, not a good thing.
Cliffhanger: “He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents ever!”
I don’t think so. In my book, he is by far, the worst president the U.S. has ever had. We will be dealing with the damage he has caused us for many years to come. A total failure. Unless his objective was to screw everything he touched up royally, then he is a huge success.
Don’t forget, TA, that the Government recently sold the remaining 6% shares in Chrysler for $560 million which represents a $1.3 Billion dollar LOSS on the nearly $2 Billion in taxpayer bailout they received. Chrysler is now a foreign owned company and the Government touted the $560 million selloff as a major accomplishment.
When it comes to government numbers, figures lie and liars figure and under-educated Public School students, such as Cliffhanger, eat it up like breakfast cereal. Life is so much simpler when you believe what you want to believe. HOPE, CHANGE, BELIEVE.
MarkW
January 13, 2017 6:37 am
The only reason why CO2 emissions are declining is because of the switchover from coal to gas for power plants.
Once the switchover is complete, CO2 emissions will more closely match GDP again. Until economics dictates that we switch from gas back to coal.
Scott
January 13, 2017 6:39 am
Real manufacturing output is back to where it was in 2008. But fewer employees are required to produce it. Seems to suggest technology has been substituted for labor. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/05/manufacturing-up-down/
They are right that the economy is decoupling from CO2 but they are wrong that government deserves the credit. Jesse Ausubel did a study several years ago showing that the U.S. economy has been “decarbonizing” per unit of GDP since the Civil War. He concluded that is the “natural” evolution economies takes as they develop and mature. First people use wood and dung for energy. Then coal. Then oil. Then natural gas. Then ultimately nuclear. There is a natural evolution in which hydrogen gradually displaces carbon. Here’s the New York Times reporting on Ausubel’s study in 1999. I used to have the actual paper but can’t find it now and I don’t have time to search. But it is online if you are interested. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/31/us/global-economy-slowly-cuts-use-of-fuels-rich-in-carbon.html
Businesses that waste money don’t stay in business.
All businesses are constantly looking for ways to save money, and that includes money spent on utilities.
It’s quite natural that as time progresses, businesses will find ways to make more stuff using less resources.
Reasonable Skeptic
January 13, 2017 9:11 am
You can say the exact same thing of travel being decoupled from CO2 emissions.
Chart distance travelled to CO2 emissions.
Now increase efficiency of the Internal Combustion Engine and you will show that you can move further with the same CO2 emissions.
Efficiency also includes weight as well of course.
Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 13, 2017 10:33 am
Isn’t building a wall along the border with Mexico just a perfect example of Keynesian economics?
Obama deported over 3 million people. Illegal immigration is at a twelve year low! 50 percent of illegal immigrants happen via VISA overstay’s. So half of all illegal immigration doesn’t even come over the border, where a wall would do any harm. But simple people want simple answers! I get it! I get it! LOL
philjourdan – The labor participation rate includes retirees and college students. We have seen an increase in more college students who are not working and we have the baby boomers now retiring which means this number is only going to get larger over time. So to discredit the unemployment rate statistic is bogus. You just can’t give Obama any credit. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Look it up! So nice try but facts do matter. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
College students not working is a big problem, they still need to pay off those college loans.
The question remains, why are so many more college students not working?
As to retirees, you are correct. Millions of older people have given up looking for work and gone on Social Security. Yet another reason why the SS trust fund is rapidly being depleted. Much faster than actuaries predicted just 10 years ago.
FactCheck is little more than a DNC affiliate.
You didn’t leave any sources to support your claims about SS and evidence that Factcheck.org is biased or misleading? You are just attacking the messengers credibility without providing any evidence. The unemployment rate is the best indicator we have. Period. Stop trying to cherry pick data to fit your confirmation bias. Maybe you should rethink your potions on Obama. History will judge him kindly.
Do I need to provide evidence that water is wet?
Regardless, you have proven impervious to evidence in the past, so why bother this time.
Really now, the unemployment indicator is the the best indicator, or is it merely the only one that shows what you want to believe.
Do you even know the many ways in how the unemployment numbers are calculated have changed in recent decades?
As to cherry picking, you really should invest in a mirror.
Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation is a large funder of PBS programming, and has been branching out to fund projects in environmental stewardship, social justice, and animal welfare. Factcheck.org is operated by former journalists and academics.
No bias there.
Its easy to understand why the labor participation rate is used by the right. The answer is that its very misleading since most people are unaware that it counts college students, and retired people. So it sounds very high and is used as fear mongering. Under careful consideration and critical analysis. The truth of the statistic is easy shown. The Factcheck.org article that I posted links directly to the Government study done on this subject. And since you and others here are so quick to bring up the labor participation rate WITHOUT properly explaining it clearly. Is very misleading. And no right wing pundit that spouts this figure EVER explains what the guts of the metric really are. We know the labor participation rate is going up and is going to keep going up for another fifty years. But I guess its true what Twain said “It’s easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled”.
Wrong again. The LPR has ALWAYS been used. And it CLEARLY states what it is. You should rephrase your statement to say YOU do not know what it entails. But then talking points do not explain it either.
Factcheck is deceiving the same way you are. They are trying to hand wave a “rate” away by using whole numbers. Just as you are. But a “rate” is a percentage, and while there are more retired, there are also a lot more people. So the RATE is still applicable and a better indication than whole numbers.
Thank you for proving that factcheck is lying.
I love the way trolls just declare that only their facts are facts.
It reminds me of Griff going on and on about how a small drop in arctic ice is proof positive that CO2 is going to kill us all.
People are retiring for sure. That doesn’t mean they don’t want to work. You try living on Social Security only. Quite honestly, because Obama’s bankruptcy judge gave away most of my savings in the GM bankruptcy, I’ll be working forever plus collecting SS. The government’s own statistics on people not having enough savings for retirement means the claim that people are retiring and not wanting to work makes no sense!
I would like to add that the judge in question completely ignored the law in order to steal money from investors so that the unions wouldn’t have to suffer any.
Sorry cliff – the LPR contained those 50 years ago too. And the ration from 50 years ago is the same as it is today – so that does not affect the rate. While there are more retired and more in college, there is alos a lot more people. That is why we use the RATE and not the absolute number.
The simple fact is that more people are OUT of the labor force due to loss of jobs. That is not debatable. If you do not like it, scream at the BLS.
It is also a fact, that I did not put down in the first post, that Obama’s first term was the only presidential term since WWII that had NO (not small, not minimal, NO) Job Growth. More people were working during Bush than at the end of Obama’s first term.
But that is hardly surprising. The only thing that really went up during Obama’s regime was the regulatory paperwork.
As I said, you need to do some research. You have no clue about labor statistics. you have no clue about Keynesian (or any) economics and you have no clue about earning a living. I cannot get you a job, but I can get you to read some books that will aid in your education. You have but to chose to learn.
Yes the fact that we have more people OUT of the labor force due to loss of jobs IS debatable. And I already posted a link to the Government study conducted in 2012 which concluded 80% were due to retiring NOT lack of jobs available. . http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
No you did not post a link to a government study. You posted a link to a fake news site. Proven so. Why do you fabricate what you have done when it is still there?
Apparently because you have no clue what facts are. Now, do you want to discuss the issue again in a logical and factual manner? Or are you going to continue to spam this forum with your fabrications?
You make all these big claims but provide no sources to confirm anything you say. I have provided solid evidence of everything I have stated. And you have nothing but put downs about my education and employment levels. “Both of which you are wrong about”. But whatever helps with your cognitive dissonance!
I gave you the source. I cannot make you drink from it. Once again, the source is BLS.GOV.
Want to argue with them? Go right ahead. But then they will laugh at you just as we are.
Cliffhanger
January 13, 2017 1:44 pm
MarkW – There are tons of jobs available. Under President Obama’s leadership, the economy has added 15.5 million private sector jobs over the last 81 months. And 75 consecutive months of uninterrupted private-sector job. https://blog.dol.gov/tag/jobs-report/. Once again I have proven my point beyond a shadow of any doubt. Obama did a great job creating jobs in this country coming out of the great recession. The source I shared already linked to the US governments own study that concluded 80% of the growth in lack of labor participation was linked to retirement of the baby boomers. Its a very misleading statistic because its not properly explained. But I can’t do anything for you if you don’t believe in facts.
No he did a terrible job. During his leadership, unemployment was stuck at 9.5% for years.
It’s not until Congress took policy away from him, cancelled the crushing waste, ended the crowding out of stimulus handouts to “favoured” groups and enabled the cheap energy revolution did jobs return. Obama OPPOSED cheap energy. He OPPOSED the sequester. He claimed budget repair would cost 1m jobs and result in a recession – instead, it generated over 10m jobs.
So before giving him the credit, I suggest you bring up a chart of the unemployment rate and look up June 30, 2011 on it.
About the only thing a president can do to help the U.S. economy is to cut taxes and regulations and get out of the way of business. Anything else a president does usually hinders the economy.
President Obama did neither tax cuts or regulation reductions. Instead, he raised taxes and increased regulations, which stifled job creation.
Face it, Obama is a bystander to the U.S. economy, as are most presidents. Trump might be a little less of a bystander than most.
When Trump gets in Office he will cut taxes and regulations and *then* we can make a claim that a president did something which benefited the nation’s economy. And not before then.
Since Obama raised taxes and increased regulations, please describe how these actions of Obama caused 15 million jobs to be created.
The fact is if not for Obama’s tax increases and increased regulations there would be millions more jobs that would have been created during this time period.
Obama took office 2 years before the start date of that report. All you have proven is that MarkW is correct. and you cherry picked it. DOL is run by Obama, so of course they are going to twerk the report to look favorable on him! But BLS has to report ACTUAL numbers. And that shows a different story.
Notice also how the DOL report does not quantify PT vs FT jobs. Another lie of omission. Yes, you are a good little sycophant. But not too bright on the uptake. And Clinton had a longer and better run than Obama has had! I guess that is why Obama sabotaged Hillary’s campaign.
J Mac
January 13, 2017 1:50 pm
The decoupling of political economics from reality is underway….
Cliffhanger
January 13, 2017 1:52 pm
MarkW – The unemployment rate is the best measurement we have. Its been that way for over one hundred years. Yes its not perfect and is only one of many statistics economist use to determine the health of an economy. That being said its still the best statistic we have to measure unemployment in America. To disregard it and ignore it on purpose shows willfully ignorance. And to use the labor participation rate “On purpose” without properly explaining it. And incorrectly linking it to the health of our economy is flat wrong. The labor participation rate will continue to lower under Trump and will for the next fifty years. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Obama lowered it to 4.7.%. So the point goes to Obama FTW!
J Mac
January 13, 2017 2:05 pm
“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago’s public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation.” CAC Board of Directors Barack Obama, civil rights attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School; member of the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation and the Woods Fund of Chicago; winner, Crain’s Chicago Business 40 Under 40 award, 1993; former president of the Harvard Law Review (1990–1991); former executive director of the Developing Communities Project (June 1985–May 1988); current President of the United States[24][40][41][42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
FactCheck.org is funded and controlled by the Annenberg Foundation. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/political-communication/factcheck-org/
Obama, the Annenberg Foundation, and FactCheck.org are all parts of the same entity.
You are proposing a conspiracy theory that Obama is connected to Factcheck.org. That is complete nonsense. Unless you have a credible source to confirm. Ill be waiting… And btw can you point out even ONE article or Fact they have got wrong ever? Just one single fact?
No one except YOU is proposing that! Are you saying that Obama is connected to CBS? CNN? NBC? Wapo? Get real! You are going unhinged!
However, as the podesta emails proved, they are colluding with the democrats. And as my links proved, Fact Check is devoid of facts and checking.
Take your straw man back to the corn field. And get some real facts.
Don’t put words in my mouth.. or try to change the topic. I did not ‘propose’ anything. I provided fact based information (with links to sources) for your and all readers edification. Is that what you consider “complete nonsense”? Do you dispute the information provided? If so, please provide your sources.
I’ll be waiting……
The best way for Kyoto signatories to comply has been to have China make all the world’s steel and aluminium. It’s almost pure energy, all baseload. Everybody is happy, and there is zero or positive effect on global CO2 output. So when Trump666 says it’s a Chinese scam, he’s simplifying but that’s what the outcome has been.
Was it the word scam that sent my post to moderation?
[Likely. There are a number of “key words and tricky phrases” that trip the moderation queue automatically. .mod]
+1 And that’s been the plan all along. People are accused of being “conspiracy theorists” for believing this but simple logic and fact checking proves it correct.
Bill Powers
January 14, 2017 12:47 pm
This reminds me of the shell game where the grifter plays hide the pea and bilks you out of all your pocket money. Let’s see how else to they play it: hide the inflation, hide the unemployment, hide the captive terroists…”now you see it now you don’t.”
Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 12:56 pm
Yes, me too “would be surprised if Apple was the only image obsessed US company which seems to see offshore manufacturing as a convenient way to deflect attention from the true magnitude of their supply chain CO2 emissions.”
+
“A rise in the domestic US increase in use of gas, and a policy driven decline in coal use, has also likely contributed to a reduction in US GHG emissions.”
Cheers – Hans
The usual deliberate or mistaken muddle between correlation and causation.
John,
The usual deliberate muddle between correlation and causation.
FIFY.
These off-spring of not-legally wed mothers are, indeed, out to get us.
Auto
“… recent data from the International Energy Agency suggests that this trend is going global, as emissions have stayed flat in 2014 and 2015 …”
================================
If human emissions were responsible for most of the CO2 concentration increase, I would expect to see a ‘flattening’ here:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
The report was for the US, this chart is for the world as a whole.
The increases in India and China are easily large enough to cover for any drop in the US.
Chris Hanley: Yes indeed.
And in other news, the Obama White House announced that water had been decoupled from life, and that the White House isn’t actually white if you look hard enough.
It’s a shame the US doesn’t make anything nowadays but relies on cheap products from China and other low income countries.
The increase in energy efficiency and reduction in CO2 emissions is because of the new Combined Cycle Natural Gas power plants.
The newest versions of these plants are more efficient than the earliest ones and most importantly, they are more reliable. Some of the turbine arrangements in the first and second generations broke down a lot but now they are more reliable. In combined cycle, they recover the heat generated in the first phase to generate another round of power. And natural gas is both cheap and provides lower CO2 emissions than coal for example. In addition, these plants can be built to almost any size now. Small back-ups, to full city-sized facilities.
That is why CO2 emissions are lower and energy efficiency has gone up.
Natural Gas became Number 1 in the US in 2016.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2016.03.16/main.png
A picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks, Bill.
@ur momisugly Forrest Gardener
There is “No” maybe about it.
Because there is no, none, zero, zilch, nada “”human emission” signature as a result of human CO2 emitting activities to be found, detected, observed or pointed out to exist in the 59 years of the Mauna Loa CO2 Record, …… either the monthly or daily Record, to wit:
NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
NOAA’s complete weekly/daily average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.txt
The only signature that can be found, detected, observed or pointed out to exist in the 59 years of the Mauna Loa CO2 Record …… is the “temperature signature” of the ocean waters in the Southern Hemisphere.
And there are, in actuality, two (2) ocean water temperature “signatures” that are depicted by or in the Keeling Curve Graph of Mauna Loa CO2 measurements.
One is the bi-yearly or seasonal “saw-tooth” CO2 ppm signature and the other one is the maximum “yearly” CO2 ppm signature that has been slowly increasing since the end of the LIA in the late 1800’s.
Obama has done an amazing job. He killed Osama Bin Laden. He saved the automakers. He tripled the stock market. He lowered unemployment to under five percent. He ended two unpopular wars overseas. He disarmed Iran. The dollar is strong. Gasoline is under 2.50 a gallon. He brought the world together to sign the Paris climate agreement. He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents ever!
Seven more days ….
Everything I listed was a fact. Its hard to spin numbers isn’t it? Supply side economics is want Trump and the GOP believe in. And once again we will all watch it fail miserably. And in eight years when things are rough again. The voters will long for the Obama days again.
No, but they are spin. Try reading MarkW again.
The delusion is strong in this one.
How am I delusional? Everything I listed were facts. Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6% if he was elected. Obama brought it down under 5%. Keynesian economics worked once again. Just like it did when it brought us out of the great depression. Supply side economics is a flawed and debunked strategy. Wake up!
It is not Keynesian Economics. Period. Keynes advocate SHORT term deficit spending followed by surpluses to pay for them Obama ran up $10t in deficits. There were no surpluses.
Second, the Stockmarket did not triple. It was just under 8k when he took office. it is not 24k now. Not even close.
Third, the Unemployment rate is bogus as every credible person will tell you. That is because of the 95 million MarkW told you about. While some are normally NOT in the labor force, the labor participation rate is the lowest many years. The difference added to the currently reported U3 is a truer rate – 7%. Hardly anything to crow about.
Fourth, the stock market has nothing to do with Obama as it has more to do with the Trillions the Fed injected into the market to prop it up. It also does not reflect the economic performance of the past 8 years, which works out to an annual growth rate of 1.2% BEFORE inflation.
Fifth, while the “reported” inflation rate has remained low, it is still above 1.2% over the past 8 years. So the actual growth rate is negative.
Sixth – Obama failed to achieve a growth rate in excess of 3% for ANY quarter of his regime, a record not shared by any other president in history.
I would suggest doing research and stop using talking points.
The spin is that you are trying to claim that your facts either matter, or that Obama was responsible for them.
Killiing Bin Laden. Meaningless act, Bin Laden hadn’t had any authority in Al Queda in over a decade prior to his death. Beyond that Al Queda had become a backwater in terms of their ability to commit terrorist acts.
He did not save the auto companies. It’s possible that one of them might have gone bankrupt, the rest would have survived. Ford for one didn’t take any government help. Regardless, the factories would not have disappeared, they would have been bought by someone and production would have continued.
What Obama did do was steal 10’s of millions from investors in order to reward his union supporters.
He did not lower unemployment, his 10% GDP growth over 8 years isn’t even enough to keep up with growth in the working age population. What brought the unemployment rate down was 95 million people giving up and no longer looking for work. Labor rate participation today is lower than it was at the depths of the Depression.
He ended the war by unilaterally withdrawing. He cut and ran and as a result lost two wars that had already been won. Most of today’s resurgence in terrorism can be traced to those two monumentally stupid acts.
Disarmed Iran? By giving them everything they wanted? Only the totally delusional believes that Iran has given up it’s quest for the bomb. If anything Obama has made their goal easier.
The dollar is strong, only compared to other countries that are in even worse shape economically.
Gasoline under $2.50 a gallon. Only because Obama wasn’t able to stop exploration and production on private lands. He did everything in his power to block it on government owned lands. You can also thank Saudi Arabia which had the twin goals of slowing down oil/tar sands revolution and defunding Iran and Russia. Again, nothing to do with Obama.
Obama single handedly brought the world together in Paris? Once again, you give Obama credit for things that would have happened anyway. Beyond that, the Paris agreement is a toothless tiger, it has no concrete goals and no enforcement methods. Finally, he didn’t even bother to submit it to the Senate. Until the Senate ratifies it, it remains a worthless piece of paper.
Obama has been a disaster in every way imaginable, the only question remaining is if he is the worst president ever, or merely one of the 3 worst.
You simply don’t understand how Obama works, do you? It’s ‘just get to the targeted number.’ And if it’s not true, just change the unit of measure. It’s more about filling in lines on a checklist than any actual accomplishment. It’s virtual reality and PR.
Delusional. And deceptive.
Your claim that the US unemployment rate is not a valid statistic is pure nonsense. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Obama took it to 4.7%. Give the man some credit. Leave your echo chamber once an awhile and get some fresh air!
No, I said the rate is deceptive. And it is. for the reasons I explained. It does not matter what Romney said – he is not president and never will be! What is your problem? Tired of blaming Boosh 8 years after Obama took over? Do liberals ever accept responsibility? Or are they always victims?
Get a clue. Obama has been president for 8 years. Not Bush. not Romney. OBAMA. And he failed.
I notice that the troll can’t even be bothered to defend his talking points. He just repeats them shouting louder.
Talking points do not contain any facts to support them. It is hard to defend a talking point because it is merely a spin of a lie.
Hey, Cliffhanger, if you change the unit of measurement, statistics become meaningless. If you can’t see that simple, obvious mechanism – which is the go-to methodology of this president – well, I think you not trying to.
My God, look who’s talking about an echo chamber.
Saying 90% or whatever has left the job force due to lack of opportunity is simply not true. There was a study done that showed it was over 80% were retiree’s who dropped out of the labor force., Also woman saw a slight downward trend in working. And there was a large increase in more college educated citizens who have choose not to work. So to count this number as your statistic is cherry picking at its finest. The US unemployment rate is the greatest statistic we have for judging employment. Its been that way for a long time. If you would have done any research you would have came to the same conclusion. For example you would have learned we actually know what the labor participation rate will be up till 2050. It doesn’t matter who is president.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/ .
Cliff – no one but you said 90%. We gave you the facts and figures. Clearly you are not capable of handling them. And as others have pointed out, factcheck is 2 lies in one. They have no facts and they do not check. It is a fake news site for the fake news sites of the MSM. Proven wrong continually.
I said, and will restate it, that while more people are retired, as a PERCENT of the population, the percentage has not changed much (due to immigration and births). Ergo a RATE that has gone UP is showing a greater percentage out of the labor force. I did not say the number, I said the RATE.
As MarkW clearly pointed out, your talking points are failing you. You have no response to the FACT that Obama is the only president with a net zero increase in the labor force during a term of his regime. Even Carter, during stagflation, could at least point to SOME job creation. Obama could not.
And the irony is that while the fake news sites whined about the jobs created under Bush as being “burger flippers”, the reality is the few jobs that Obama “created” in his second term WHERE burger flippers! Part time jobs that were taken by former full time workers because the companies could not afford Obamacare.
Now run along and get some more talking points that have nothing to do with my comment so you can post another non sequitur.
Cliffy, you really do cling to your delusions, don’t you.
Yes a big portion is retiree’s, but many of those weren’t voluntary retirements.
If there is this huge group of people who have simply chosen not to work, ans your fantasy insists, then there should be lots and lots available jobs for those who want to work but can’t find any.
Yes, a lot of women have given up trying to find work and are relying on their husband’s income to support the family. But that is not necessarily a good thing.
PS, I notice you are completely ignoring the spanking I gave you above.
Gosh, to me, it looks like Obama lit the world on fire, ran up more debt than all the other presidents combined, crippled as many industries as he could, destroyed the healthcare system, set Americans at each other’s throats over every issue possible, discredited major institutions, corrupted the press beyond repair, demolished and demoralized the military, alienated our allies, propped-up and invigorated our enemies. We’ve never been in a more precarious place since before World War II – all this while downsizing our military and telling us everything’s fine, nothing to see here.
And your statement that he ‘disarmed Iran’ is simple self-serving stupidity. For your comments about ‘echo-chambers’, it seems you just simply suck up Obama’s own version of events without the slightest critique.
Gasoline prices are in spite of him – almost entirely due to fracking and price war outside his control – and don’t forget they held at sub-four-bucks a gallon for nearly his entire first term.
The stock market was simply crony capitalists, in league with government at the expense of small business, and the employment rate was achieved by changing the unit of measure (gosh, where have we heard THAT before?)
We’re still in Afghanistan – with increased troop deaths (funny how the press’s ‘troop-death count’ disappeared once Obama started ramping up the numbers) – we’re back in Iraq because of impossibly irresponsible policies – and I don’t know HOW many other countries.
And funny that I’ve never seen a photograph of Bin Laden’s corpse – I’ve seen pictures of nearly every other dead-guy of note.
Greatest president ever? Wow. Talk about trying to get there. I was no fan of George Bush, but Obama was absolutely the worst possible guy to follow him.
But you just keep repeating your talking points – the only one you’re really trying to convince is yourself.
You make up conspiracy theories to support your beliefs. Like saying “government is in bed with the market and crony capitalism. LOL I hope you have a source to that delusion. And I am not sure what you mean by “Ive never seen pictures of Bin Laden”. I am guessing you are saying there is a conspiracy involved again!. He enabled 30 million people to gain health insurance. As a result the US is at all time lows in percentage of citizens with health insurance. I am not sure how that exactly is destroying the whole system? And you claimed the “Press troop death count disappeared once Obama started ramping up the numbers?”. I hope you have a good credible source to back up another conspiracy theory you believe in.
Cliffhanger January 13, 2017 at 5:49 am wrote: “Obama has done an amazing job.”
That’s funny. It is amazing to me that anyone could even say that seriously. How blind do you have to be to not see the blemishes on Obama?
Cliffhanger: “He killed Osama Bin Laden.”
Navy Seals killed bin Laden. Whoever had been president when they spotted bin Laden, would have killed him (with the exception of Joe Biden).
Cliffhanger: “He saved the automakers.”
Obama screwed the GM bond holders and gave all the money to the unions. The automakers would have been bailed out with, or without, Obama.
Cliffhanger: “He tripled the stock market.”
The American economy and low energy prices are what stimulated the stock market. And that is despite Obama, not because of him. Obama’s regulations and policies have stifled the U.S. economy. That it has done so good in the face of such restrictions is a testatment to the strength of the economy, which is moving ahead despite Obama’s rediculous regulations and Obamacare (a huge job killer).
Cliffhanger: “He lowered unemployment to under five percent.”
A bogus figure. When people give up looking for a job, Obama doesn’t count them as unemployed. He doesn’t count them at all. There are now about 95 million able-bodied Americans who could work if they had work, but they don’t, and none of these 95 million unemployed are counted in the 5 percent figure.
Cliffhanger: “He ended two unpopular wars overseas.”
The only thing Obama ended was Amrican participation. A war only ends when both sides say it has ended. The Islamic fanatics are still at war with the U.S. Obama turned Iraq from a success story into a horrendous nightmare with his failure to protect the hardwon peace George W. Bush handed him. And the Taliban in Afghanistan now control more territory than they did when the war began, all due to Obama’s neglect. Obama’s idiocy had destablized the entire Middle East and Western Europe.
Cliffhanger: “He disarmed Iran.”
Ridiculous. Obama made it possible for Iran to get nuclear weapons, and has given the Mad Mullahs of Iran billions of dollars to finance their continued terrorist activities around the world. Obama is the greatest enabler of radical Islam since Mohammed.
Cliffhanger: “The dollar is strong.”
Obama had nothing to do with it.
Cliffhanger: “Gasoline is under 2.50 a gallon.”
That is despite Obama, not because of him. If it were up to Obama, gasoline would cost $5 per gallon. Obama had nothing to do with lowering gasoline prices, although he is happy to lie about it and claim he did.
Cliffhanger: “He brought the world together to sign the Paris climate agreement.”
Some people consider that a bad thing, not a good thing.
Cliffhanger: “He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents ever!”
I don’t think so. In my book, he is by far, the worst president the U.S. has ever had. We will be dealing with the damage he has caused us for many years to come. A total failure. Unless his objective was to screw everything he touched up royally, then he is a huge success.
Don’t forget, TA, that the Government recently sold the remaining 6% shares in Chrysler for $560 million which represents a $1.3 Billion dollar LOSS on the nearly $2 Billion in taxpayer bailout they received. Chrysler is now a foreign owned company and the Government touted the $560 million selloff as a major accomplishment.
When it comes to government numbers, figures lie and liars figure and under-educated Public School students, such as Cliffhanger, eat it up like breakfast cereal. Life is so much simpler when you believe what you want to believe. HOPE, CHANGE, BELIEVE.
The only reason why CO2 emissions are declining is because of the switchover from coal to gas for power plants.
Once the switchover is complete, CO2 emissions will more closely match GDP again. Until economics dictates that we switch from gas back to coal.
Real manufacturing output is back to where it was in 2008. But fewer employees are required to produce it. Seems to suggest technology has been substituted for labor.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/05/manufacturing-up-down/
They are right that the economy is decoupling from CO2 but they are wrong that government deserves the credit. Jesse Ausubel did a study several years ago showing that the U.S. economy has been “decarbonizing” per unit of GDP since the Civil War. He concluded that is the “natural” evolution economies takes as they develop and mature. First people use wood and dung for energy. Then coal. Then oil. Then natural gas. Then ultimately nuclear. There is a natural evolution in which hydrogen gradually displaces carbon. Here’s the New York Times reporting on Ausubel’s study in 1999. I used to have the actual paper but can’t find it now and I don’t have time to search. But it is online if you are interested.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/31/us/global-economy-slowly-cuts-use-of-fuels-rich-in-carbon.html
Businesses that waste money don’t stay in business.
All businesses are constantly looking for ways to save money, and that includes money spent on utilities.
It’s quite natural that as time progresses, businesses will find ways to make more stuff using less resources.
You can say the exact same thing of travel being decoupled from CO2 emissions.
Chart distance travelled to CO2 emissions.
Now increase efficiency of the Internal Combustion Engine and you will show that you can move further with the same CO2 emissions.
Efficiency also includes weight as well of course.
Isn’t building a wall along the border with Mexico just a perfect example of Keynesian economics?
Obama deported over 3 million people. Illegal immigration is at a twelve year low! 50 percent of illegal immigrants happen via VISA overstay’s. So half of all illegal immigration doesn’t even come over the border, where a wall would do any harm. But simple people want simple answers! I get it! I get it! LOL
3 million is nothing – especially since over 90% of those are interdictions! Not real deportations. However, even your golden book of the MSM says – http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/deportations-fall-all-time-low-obama-took-office-n697156
You really need to get some facts and leave the talking points to the idiots in DC.
philjourdan – The labor participation rate includes retirees and college students. We have seen an increase in more college students who are not working and we have the baby boomers now retiring which means this number is only going to get larger over time. So to discredit the unemployment rate statistic is bogus. You just can’t give Obama any credit. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Look it up! So nice try but facts do matter.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
College students not working is a big problem, they still need to pay off those college loans.
The question remains, why are so many more college students not working?
As to retirees, you are correct. Millions of older people have given up looking for work and gone on Social Security. Yet another reason why the SS trust fund is rapidly being depleted. Much faster than actuaries predicted just 10 years ago.
FactCheck is little more than a DNC affiliate.
You didn’t leave any sources to support your claims about SS and evidence that Factcheck.org is biased or misleading? You are just attacking the messengers credibility without providing any evidence. The unemployment rate is the best indicator we have. Period. Stop trying to cherry pick data to fit your confirmation bias. Maybe you should rethink your potions on Obama. History will judge him kindly.
Ever heard of google? First hit – http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
A left wing site no less.
Want to try doing your own research for a change?
Do I need to provide evidence that water is wet?
Regardless, you have proven impervious to evidence in the past, so why bother this time.
Really now, the unemployment indicator is the the best indicator, or is it merely the only one that shows what you want to believe.
Do you even know the many ways in how the unemployment numbers are calculated have changed in recent decades?
As to cherry picking, you really should invest in a mirror.
Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation is a large funder of PBS programming, and has been branching out to fund projects in environmental stewardship, social justice, and animal welfare. Factcheck.org is operated by former journalists and academics.
No bias there.
Its easy to understand why the labor participation rate is used by the right. The answer is that its very misleading since most people are unaware that it counts college students, and retired people. So it sounds very high and is used as fear mongering. Under careful consideration and critical analysis. The truth of the statistic is easy shown. The Factcheck.org article that I posted links directly to the Government study done on this subject. And since you and others here are so quick to bring up the labor participation rate WITHOUT properly explaining it clearly. Is very misleading. And no right wing pundit that spouts this figure EVER explains what the guts of the metric really are. We know the labor participation rate is going up and is going to keep going up for another fifty years. But I guess its true what Twain said “It’s easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled”.
Wrong again. The LPR has ALWAYS been used. And it CLEARLY states what it is. You should rephrase your statement to say YOU do not know what it entails. But then talking points do not explain it either.
Factcheck is deceiving the same way you are. They are trying to hand wave a “rate” away by using whole numbers. Just as you are. But a “rate” is a percentage, and while there are more retired, there are also a lot more people. So the RATE is still applicable and a better indication than whole numbers.
Thank you for proving that factcheck is lying.
I love the way trolls just declare that only their facts are facts.
It reminds me of Griff going on and on about how a small drop in arctic ice is proof positive that CO2 is going to kill us all.
People are retiring for sure. That doesn’t mean they don’t want to work. You try living on Social Security only. Quite honestly, because Obama’s bankruptcy judge gave away most of my savings in the GM bankruptcy, I’ll be working forever plus collecting SS. The government’s own statistics on people not having enough savings for retirement means the claim that people are retiring and not wanting to work makes no sense!
I would like to add that the judge in question completely ignored the law in order to steal money from investors so that the unions wouldn’t have to suffer any.
Sorry cliff – the LPR contained those 50 years ago too. And the ration from 50 years ago is the same as it is today – so that does not affect the rate. While there are more retired and more in college, there is alos a lot more people. That is why we use the RATE and not the absolute number.
The simple fact is that more people are OUT of the labor force due to loss of jobs. That is not debatable. If you do not like it, scream at the BLS.
It is also a fact, that I did not put down in the first post, that Obama’s first term was the only presidential term since WWII that had NO (not small, not minimal, NO) Job Growth. More people were working during Bush than at the end of Obama’s first term.
But that is hardly surprising. The only thing that really went up during Obama’s regime was the regulatory paperwork.
As I said, you need to do some research. You have no clue about labor statistics. you have no clue about Keynesian (or any) economics and you have no clue about earning a living. I cannot get you a job, but I can get you to read some books that will aid in your education. You have but to chose to learn.
S/B ratio from 50 years ago. Guess I got rations on my mind.
Yes the fact that we have more people OUT of the labor force due to loss of jobs IS debatable. And I already posted a link to the Government study conducted in 2012 which concluded 80% were due to retiring NOT lack of jobs available. . http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
No you did not post a link to a government study. You posted a link to a fake news site. Proven so. Why do you fabricate what you have done when it is still there?
Apparently because you have no clue what facts are. Now, do you want to discuss the issue again in a logical and factual manner? Or are you going to continue to spam this forum with your fabrications?
You make all these big claims but provide no sources to confirm anything you say. I have provided solid evidence of everything I have stated. And you have nothing but put downs about my education and employment levels. “Both of which you are wrong about”. But whatever helps with your cognitive dissonance!
I gave you the source. I cannot make you drink from it. Once again, the source is BLS.GOV.
Want to argue with them? Go right ahead. But then they will laugh at you just as we are.
MarkW – There are tons of jobs available. Under President Obama’s leadership, the economy has added 15.5 million private sector jobs over the last 81 months. And 75 consecutive months of uninterrupted private-sector job. https://blog.dol.gov/tag/jobs-report/. Once again I have proven my point beyond a shadow of any doubt. Obama did a great job creating jobs in this country coming out of the great recession. The source I shared already linked to the US governments own study that concluded 80% of the growth in lack of labor participation was linked to retirement of the baby boomers. Its a very misleading statistic because its not properly explained. But I can’t do anything for you if you don’t believe in facts.
No he did a terrible job. During his leadership, unemployment was stuck at 9.5% for years.
It’s not until Congress took policy away from him, cancelled the crushing waste, ended the crowding out of stimulus handouts to “favoured” groups and enabled the cheap energy revolution did jobs return. Obama OPPOSED cheap energy. He OPPOSED the sequester. He claimed budget repair would cost 1m jobs and result in a recession – instead, it generated over 10m jobs.
So before giving him the credit, I suggest you bring up a chart of the unemployment rate and look up June 30, 2011 on it.
About the only thing a president can do to help the U.S. economy is to cut taxes and regulations and get out of the way of business. Anything else a president does usually hinders the economy.
President Obama did neither tax cuts or regulation reductions. Instead, he raised taxes and increased regulations, which stifled job creation.
Face it, Obama is a bystander to the U.S. economy, as are most presidents. Trump might be a little less of a bystander than most.
When Trump gets in Office he will cut taxes and regulations and *then* we can make a claim that a president did something which benefited the nation’s economy. And not before then.
Since Obama raised taxes and increased regulations, please describe how these actions of Obama caused 15 million jobs to be created.
The fact is if not for Obama’s tax increases and increased regulations there would be millions more jobs that would have been created during this time period.
Obama took office 2 years before the start date of that report. All you have proven is that MarkW is correct. and you cherry picked it. DOL is run by Obama, so of course they are going to twerk the report to look favorable on him! But BLS has to report ACTUAL numbers. And that shows a different story.
Notice also how the DOL report does not quantify PT vs FT jobs. Another lie of omission. Yes, you are a good little sycophant. But not too bright on the uptake. And Clinton had a longer and better run than Obama has had! I guess that is why Obama sabotaged Hillary’s campaign.
The decoupling of political economics from reality is underway….
MarkW – The unemployment rate is the best measurement we have. Its been that way for over one hundred years. Yes its not perfect and is only one of many statistics economist use to determine the health of an economy. That being said its still the best statistic we have to measure unemployment in America. To disregard it and ignore it on purpose shows willfully ignorance. And to use the labor participation rate “On purpose” without properly explaining it. And incorrectly linking it to the health of our economy is flat wrong. The labor participation rate will continue to lower under Trump and will for the next fifty years. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Obama lowered it to 4.7.%. So the point goes to Obama FTW!
“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago’s public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation.”
CAC Board of Directors
Barack Obama, civil rights attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School; member of the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation and the Woods Fund of Chicago; winner, Crain’s Chicago Business 40 Under 40 award, 1993; former president of the Harvard Law Review (1990–1991); former executive director of the Developing Communities Project (June 1985–May 1988); current President of the United States[24][40][41][42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
FactCheck.org is funded and controlled by the Annenberg Foundation.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/political-communication/factcheck-org/
Obama, the Annenberg Foundation, and FactCheck.org are all parts of the same entity.
You are proposing a conspiracy theory that Obama is connected to Factcheck.org. That is complete nonsense. Unless you have a credible source to confirm. Ill be waiting… And btw can you point out even ONE article or Fact they have got wrong ever? Just one single fact?
No one except YOU is proposing that! Are you saying that Obama is connected to CBS? CNN? NBC? Wapo? Get real! You are going unhinged!
However, as the podesta emails proved, they are colluding with the democrats. And as my links proved, Fact Check is devoid of facts and checking.
Take your straw man back to the corn field. And get some real facts.
And I see where others said you ignore posts you cannot refute since I already gave you a link to no-fact-no-check’s errors.
Don’t put words in my mouth.. or try to change the topic. I did not ‘propose’ anything. I provided fact based information (with links to sources) for your and all readers edification. Is that what you consider “complete nonsense”? Do you dispute the information provided? If so, please provide your sources.
I’ll be waiting……
Turns out religious folks are MORE impulsive than the rest of us!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393216302639
Of course, cliff, you would be an exception to the rule…
Would a higher resolution study show that GDP lags CO2 reduction?
Oh no, not another “lag” controversy !
Cliffhanger is a Bot ?
The best way for Kyoto signatories to comply has been to have China make all the world’s steel and aluminium. It’s almost pure energy, all baseload. Everybody is happy, and there is zero or positive effect on global CO2 output. So when Trump666 says it’s a Chinese scam, he’s simplifying but that’s what the outcome has been.
Was it the word scam that sent my post to moderation?
[Likely. There are a number of “key words and tricky phrases” that trip the moderation queue automatically. .mod]
+1 And that’s been the plan all along. People are accused of being “conspiracy theorists” for believing this but simple logic and fact checking proves it correct.
This reminds me of the shell game where the grifter plays hide the pea and bilks you out of all your pocket money. Let’s see how else to they play it: hide the inflation, hide the unemployment, hide the captive terroists…”now you see it now you don’t.”
Yes, me too “would be surprised if Apple was the only image obsessed US company which seems to see offshore manufacturing as a convenient way to deflect attention from the true magnitude of their supply chain CO2 emissions.”
+
“A rise in the domestic US increase in use of gas, and a policy driven decline in coal use, has also likely contributed to a reduction in US GHG emissions.”
Cheers – Hans