Monday's meandering musings
I've decided to use the blog to deal with a Facebook thread in order to share some information.
The post in question reads as follows:
"Facts are ... less people are in the work force than ever before, more people are on Gov. subsidies, more people are living under the poverty level and we have not had a 3% GDP growth in 8 years."
Let's deal with these one at a time.
"...less people are in the work force than ever before."
False. The current labor force participation rate of 62.7% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is low. But it has been lower as recently as September of 2015 when it dipped to 62.4%. It has been lower in the past. It was lower when President Carter was inaugurated, at 61.6%. In 1969 it hit 59.6%.
Was the rate that much lower back then because far fewer women were in the workforce? Perhaps. But that doesn't make the bold claim above any less inaccurate.
"...more people are on Gov. subsidies..."
That depends on how you define government subsidies. Absent a clearer definition of the term, it's impossible to determine the accuracy of the claim. As an example, the number of people receiving what were traditionally known as "food stamps" is higher than ever, but that has a lot to do with the fact the Obama Administration engaged in educating the eligible population that they could receive this benefit. Has the percentage of the population that qualified for that benefit grown? To some extent, thanks to the economic collapse of 2008.
"...more people are living under the poverty level"
False. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of the U.S. Population living below the poverty line fell from 14.5% in 2014 to 13.5% in 2015. That's down from a 2010 high in excess of 15%.
Further, in evaluating poverty levels it is important to note that the measure of that poverty level by the Census folks has not changed to take into account non-cash transfers like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP which is what food stamps are now known as) or the Earned Income Tax Credit. There's an interesting article from Forbes on this subject.
"we have not had a 3% GDP growth in 8 years."
Depends on how you measure GDP growth. If you mean specifically per calendar year, that's true. But the most recent quarter shows the GDP growth to have been 3.2%. And as you can see in this chart, measured from April of 2014 through March of 2015, annualized GDP growth was slightly over 3.3%. So I have to rate this one as mostly false as well.
What's the lesson here? If you're going to make bold statements, make them very specific or they can easily be proven inaccurate.
* * *
United Airlines will pay a fine of $2.4 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to settle charges involving "cooking their books." What did they do? They covered up the fact that they had reinstated a money-losing route in order to curry favor with the man who ran the agency that oversees airports, tunnels and bridges in the New York City area.
Why did David Samson want United to reinstate a non-stop direct flight from Newark, NJ to Columbia, SC? Because that was the most convenient way for him to travel to his vacation home. And since United was in negotiations with the New York Port Authority where Mr. Samson was the Chairman over a hangar lease. Is it a coincidence that the day the route was reinstated, the Port Authority approved that lease? Or that the route was again discontinued four days after Mr. Samson resigned his position?
Mr. Samson has pleaded guilty in a bribery case. United paid a fine of $2.25 million in a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice in that matter.
But my question is, will the lease agreement be reviewed and possibly canceled or renegotiated in light of these revelations? Probably not. It should be.
* * *
When I read about the tragic death of 11 year old Oakley Debs over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend it hit close to home. He died from a food allergy and I have food allergies. The difference is that mine aren't severe enough to put my life in jeopardy as long as I don't massively overdose on any of those things I'm allergic to.
But I've eaten things that made it more difficult for me to breath to the level of severe discomfort, so I have some notion of how he suffered (having nearly died of ARDS gives me a much better understanding I fear).
His family has started The Red Sneakers Foundation to educate parents of the real level of danger involving food allergies. Good for them.
* * *
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has sent a letter to the Obama Administration asking the federal government to reimburse the city in the amount of $35 million for the cost of providing security around Trump Tower since the November 8th election.
Mayor de Blasio's letter references a federal code section passed in 1976 that allows reimbursement for such expenses only in cases where the town or city providing presidential protection has a population of less than 7,000.
If the cost of providing that protection to President-Elect Trump is as Mayor de Blasio claims, some $500,000 per day, that means that either the federal government or the city of New York will be spending over $700 million on this expense during the four years of his presidency.
Perhaps that should be considered in the calculation of whether or not the future President Trump should reside exclusively in the White House with his family, since he is so focused on eliminating wasteful spending.
The post in question reads as follows:
"Facts are ... less people are in the work force than ever before, more people are on Gov. subsidies, more people are living under the poverty level and we have not had a 3% GDP growth in 8 years."
Let's deal with these one at a time.
"...less people are in the work force than ever before."
False. The current labor force participation rate of 62.7% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is low. But it has been lower as recently as September of 2015 when it dipped to 62.4%. It has been lower in the past. It was lower when President Carter was inaugurated, at 61.6%. In 1969 it hit 59.6%.
Was the rate that much lower back then because far fewer women were in the workforce? Perhaps. But that doesn't make the bold claim above any less inaccurate.
"...more people are on Gov. subsidies..."
That depends on how you define government subsidies. Absent a clearer definition of the term, it's impossible to determine the accuracy of the claim. As an example, the number of people receiving what were traditionally known as "food stamps" is higher than ever, but that has a lot to do with the fact the Obama Administration engaged in educating the eligible population that they could receive this benefit. Has the percentage of the population that qualified for that benefit grown? To some extent, thanks to the economic collapse of 2008.
"...more people are living under the poverty level"
False. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of the U.S. Population living below the poverty line fell from 14.5% in 2014 to 13.5% in 2015. That's down from a 2010 high in excess of 15%.
Further, in evaluating poverty levels it is important to note that the measure of that poverty level by the Census folks has not changed to take into account non-cash transfers like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP which is what food stamps are now known as) or the Earned Income Tax Credit. There's an interesting article from Forbes on this subject.
"we have not had a 3% GDP growth in 8 years."
Depends on how you measure GDP growth. If you mean specifically per calendar year, that's true. But the most recent quarter shows the GDP growth to have been 3.2%. And as you can see in this chart, measured from April of 2014 through March of 2015, annualized GDP growth was slightly over 3.3%. So I have to rate this one as mostly false as well.
What's the lesson here? If you're going to make bold statements, make them very specific or they can easily be proven inaccurate.
* * *
United Airlines will pay a fine of $2.4 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to settle charges involving "cooking their books." What did they do? They covered up the fact that they had reinstated a money-losing route in order to curry favor with the man who ran the agency that oversees airports, tunnels and bridges in the New York City area.
Why did David Samson want United to reinstate a non-stop direct flight from Newark, NJ to Columbia, SC? Because that was the most convenient way for him to travel to his vacation home. And since United was in negotiations with the New York Port Authority where Mr. Samson was the Chairman over a hangar lease. Is it a coincidence that the day the route was reinstated, the Port Authority approved that lease? Or that the route was again discontinued four days after Mr. Samson resigned his position?
Mr. Samson has pleaded guilty in a bribery case. United paid a fine of $2.25 million in a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice in that matter.
But my question is, will the lease agreement be reviewed and possibly canceled or renegotiated in light of these revelations? Probably not. It should be.
* * *
When I read about the tragic death of 11 year old Oakley Debs over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend it hit close to home. He died from a food allergy and I have food allergies. The difference is that mine aren't severe enough to put my life in jeopardy as long as I don't massively overdose on any of those things I'm allergic to.
But I've eaten things that made it more difficult for me to breath to the level of severe discomfort, so I have some notion of how he suffered (having nearly died of ARDS gives me a much better understanding I fear).
His family has started The Red Sneakers Foundation to educate parents of the real level of danger involving food allergies. Good for them.
* * *
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has sent a letter to the Obama Administration asking the federal government to reimburse the city in the amount of $35 million for the cost of providing security around Trump Tower since the November 8th election.
Mayor de Blasio's letter references a federal code section passed in 1976 that allows reimbursement for such expenses only in cases where the town or city providing presidential protection has a population of less than 7,000.
If the cost of providing that protection to President-Elect Trump is as Mayor de Blasio claims, some $500,000 per day, that means that either the federal government or the city of New York will be spending over $700 million on this expense during the four years of his presidency.
Perhaps that should be considered in the calculation of whether or not the future President Trump should reside exclusively in the White House with his family, since he is so focused on eliminating wasteful spending.
posted by me at 7:02 PM
<< Home