4 ms·
Interesting. Whatever it was, Trump did have a sharp effect on employment rate.
by NhanH 6y ago
Interesting. Whatever it was, Trump did have a sharp effect on employment rate.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoHow were you able to determine the cause was Trump?
- NhanH 6y agoThe chart picked up sharply starting in 2016. Lowest point was in July 2015. No one here likes Trump. But if any of you have a good explanation, I’d love to hear it, rather than whatever point it is you are trying to make.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoA claim was made, and I asked for evidence supporting the claim. Has nothing to do with liking or disliking Trump.
- NhanH 6y agoI assumed you already saw the chart. The period of increase starts right at the start of Trump's term and it seems fairly simple to make a descriptive claim like I did.
- lotsofpulp 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... In the same chart, there was a huge decline during Trump’s tenure also, but I wouldn’t say he had something to do with it just because he was President.
- NhanH 6y agoIf you are saying that a sitting President have no effect on unemployment rate and the economy, I think it’s fair for the burden of proof to be on the detractors. The wording of my original statement was careful to avoid this whole boring “correlation does not imply causation” conversation. The negative of that statement would be one to claim Trump has no effect whatsoever on the unemployment.
- lordnacho 6y agoThe burden of proof is squarely on whoever says the president caused the good times. I could as well say that Mike Pence did it, since his term was the same. Or Pelosi as the leader of the House. There's no way around it, claiming the president has something to do with causing a good economy requires a statistical argument along the lines of "it must be him because this line informs that one and these plausible alternatives don't". That's my one liner summary but of course there are books about causality. My guess is that there's not much you can do as president to improve the economy, or someone would have done it. There are lots of things you can do to derail it, which people from time to time because they're naive about how it works.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoConsidering the graph started going up in Sep 2015, Trump didn’t even become president until Jan 2017, and didn’t pass the tax cuts until Dec 2017, I don’t think there is any burden of proof for the detractors.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- buffaloo 6y agoSpeak for yourself.
- ladberg 6y agoThe graph had been going steadily upwards for a year and a half before Trump entered office.
- tfehring 6y agoTrump took office in January 2017. Eyeball test suggests the pickup you're seeing started in late 2015.
- treebog 6y agoNot really. The upward trend started long before Trump became president.
- ttul 6y agoCorrection: Trump’s term overlaps with a period in which this indicator rose.
- roenxi 6y agoThat is the absolutely classic correlation-causation mistake and that level of overly simplistic interpretation is why the politicians get away with implementing stupid economic policies. Trump was president 2016-2020. The participation rate went up 2016-2020. That does not mean Trump had anything to do with it. It is entirely plausible that it has nothing to do with politics at all, the economy is very complicated. There are arguments to be made that Trump helped, but those have to be made. Blanket "the line went up at the same time!" observations are meaningless. It isn't even suggestive that Trump was involved.
- dang 6y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26364864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26364864.