Sanders' unemployment/underemployment comparisons

[PDittie]

are drawing accusations of "Republican talking point" and even "liar" from the usual suspects (Clintonites). Not on DU but other places on the InterTubes. I'm not an economist so I don't really understand what this is about, and Google is unhelpful (I probably can't get the search query correct).

Does anyone understand what's going on with this?

[Babel_17]

1. Well, we've improved on the mess that was left to us

Well, we've improved on the mess that was left to us, and we like to brag about that.
In government there are several sets of number you can choose from when talking about unemployment, inflation, poverty, the economy, etc.
In order to show the contrast in how we've improved things, we have to use the methods of measuring that the Republicans used.
Long story short, the Republican method, of measuring how well the bottom half of the country is doing, is misleading. Republican critics of the administration, being shameless hypocrites and strangers to the truth, argue that the administration is a lying liar when it provides numbers that say they have improved things.
So, when Sanders accurately talk about how people aren't doing as well as the Republican system of measurement suggests, some people seize on that as echoing a piece of a Republican talking point.

P.S. I can remember Bill Clinton in either '91 or '92 being in a debate. He was using for reference a budget assessment. Someone complained that the budget numbers were admitted to be inaccurate by whatever agency made them. Clinton replied something like "I know that, but we all agreed that for this debate we would go by these numbers". That's where the level of debate is at amongst the administration and its critics. Everyone knows the numbers have false optimism baked in, but they still snipe over it. Sanders has no obligation to play by those rules. He rather has an obligation to speak the plain truth to the voters. E.g., this is how much the cost of living has risen, this is how many young people are unemployed, underemployed, underpaid, and under-compensated.

[daleanime]

5. +1

[marym625]

2. I don't know what you mean

So I can't respond properly.

[PDittie]

3. I'll try to explain it better

Apparently Bernie is using economic arguments that conflate unemployment with underemployment. Some people who are not Bernie supporters object to his doing that and use ad hominem (GOP talking point, liar) to do so.

I understand the difference between un- and under-, I just don't get why it's a big hairy deal to the Clinton people. As best as I can determine, he's making the same case he always has: that any economic recovery has left a lot of people besides the 1% out. It's including the 'underemployed' in that measurement that has their shorts in a wad.

They seem to be stretching that into an attack on Obama and a Democratic administration, which (their POV) isn't a path to the WH.

I consider all this to be disingenuous at best on the part of Clinton's supporters, but I really think I need someone with a background in economics to help me get what their beef is.

[marym625]

4. ah!

Haven't seen this complaint. I would agree with you. Even president Obama has said that the jobs are not big money. Clinton is saying people have to work 2 and 3 jobs to get by. It's reality.

[PDittie]

6. Where the 'liar' part comes in

is the way Bernie seems to weight underemployment with unemployment. They use terminology like U6 and U7, then someone else says no, you're supposed to be using U-4 or U-5, and it's a Republican point and he's manipulating the data to his own end.

Ultimately this is all horseshit but I was hoping some with greater economics experience would help me understand WHY it's HS.

[marym625]

7. Oh

That's in the federal reports. I can try to find it later. But it's all just bullshit. We're underemployed and unemployed to a detrimental point for the country, not just the individual. And it's all corporate games