Unemployment Numbers are Bogus [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment Numbers are Bogus


DonGlock26
10-11-2012, 09:21
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/unemployment-claims-fall-prices-rise-hou


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-11/data-massaging-continues-initial-claims-tumble-339k-lowest-2008-far-below-lowest-exp

Basically, one large state didn't turn in their figures yet. Why weren't we told this????

series1811
10-11-2012, 09:29
So BLS put out there figures knowing the data from one state was missing? Wonder why they didn't wait on them, or publicize the fact that it was incomplete data, instead of putting out as accurate what would have to be inaccurate data?

So, let's here from the truth squadders who were calling us all nuts for saying it was easy for government agencies to fudge the numbers when they needed to.

DonGlock26
10-11-2012, 09:45
So BLS put out there figures knowing the data from one state was missing? Wonder why they didn't wait on them, or publicize the fact that it was incomplete data, instead of putting out as accurate what would have to be inaccurate data?

So, let's here from the truth squadders who were calling us all nuts for saying it was easy for government agencies to fudge the numbers when they needed to.

:popcorn:

Apparently, the incomplete nature of the numbers was kept from the American people. This is an administration in meltdown.

Rabid Rabbit
10-11-2012, 10:03
I can only think of two "large" states that could have that kind of impact, CA and TX.

JMag
10-11-2012, 10:09
What's NOT bogus with this administration?

jeanderson
10-11-2012, 10:17
What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

GWSHARK
10-11-2012, 10:55
What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

Don't mind them... its already established that here

Any bad news= must be gospel.
Any good news = must be tainted.

Folks here actually are hoping for bad news and rooting against economic recovery. Damnedest thing I've ever seen. :dunno:

series1811
10-11-2012, 11:49
What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

If you don't see the problem, then you are the problem.

Sorry.

Goaltender66
10-11-2012, 11:56
Don't mind them... its already established that here

Any bad news= must be gospel.
Any good news = must be tainted.

Folks here actually are hoping for bad news and rooting against economic recovery. Damnedest thing I've ever seen. :dunno:

You don't think it's slightly odd that the BLS dropped a report, without a big disclaimer that would keep the otherwise unbiased and scrupulously detail-oriented MSM from drawing the wrong conclusion, that did not include the data from "one large state" a mere month before a major election?

It's de rigeur for the BLS to release a report with incomplete data? That's not "tainted" in your mind?

Because I don't think it's normal and I can only think of one reason why the BLS would release such a thing. If you can think of another, by all means share with the group.

GWSHARK
10-11-2012, 12:32
You don't think it's slightly odd that the BLS dropped a report, without a big disclaimer that would keep the otherwise unbiased and scrupulously detail-oriented MSM from drawing the wrong conclusion, that did not include the data from "one large state" a mere month before a major election?

It's de rigeur for the BLS to release a report with incomplete data? That's not "tainted" in your mind?

Because I don't think it's normal and I can only think of one reason why the BLS would release such a thing. If you can think of another, by all means share with the group.

Why are you accepting these two questionable links as gospel?

Goaltender66
10-11-2012, 12:36
Why are you accepting these two questionable links as gospel?

Well, OK:

http://nation.foxnews.com/jobs/2012/10/11/strange-jobless-claims-sank-339000-latest-week-though-data-didnt-include-one-large-state?intcmp=fly

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/11/which-state-distorted-jobless-claims-data/?mod=wsj_streaming_stream

Is it only a "questionable link" when it doesn't foot with the "happy days are here again" narrative the Administration is trying to fool people into believing?

W420Hunter
10-11-2012, 12:39
I am sure this is not shocking to any one. The truth of the matter is if you keep your eye open they have been doing for a while now. Look at the job #'s at the end of every month and then look at them again a week after. You will find that the # become higher every time.

IvanVic
10-11-2012, 12:40
You don't think it's slightly odd that the BLS dropped a report, without a big disclaimer that would keep the otherwise unbiased and scrupulously detail-oriented MSM from drawing the wrong conclusion, that did not include the data from "one large state" a mere month before a major election?

It's de rigeur for the BLS to release a report with incomplete data? That's not "tainted" in your mind?

Because I don't think it's normal and I can only think of one reason why the BLS would release such a thing. If you can think of another, by all means share with the group.

Just out of curiosity:

1) What would you say if the report that is due to be released just days before the election shows that the unemployment rate has gone up to 7.9 or 8%? Will you still claim conspiracy?

2) Were you questioning the unemployment numbers under Obama when they were above 9%? If it's all a conspiracy, why were you not complaining then?

3) Were you questioning the numbers during his entire administration, minus the last week, when they were above 8% when he promised that the stimulus would prevent that from happening?

All of those scenarios I have listed above are bad for Obama. Even the current 7.8% number is still dismal. If you are consistent in your position of the numbers being bogus, and are not just complaining whenever they don't go your way (despite the fact that every American should be happy about a falling unemployment rate), why were you not bringing this up in the past?

ChuteTheMall
10-11-2012, 12:50
Pretty strange to leave a large state out, expecially if it's California, the so-called 8th largest economy in the world.

Name one good reason for releasing the report at this time with only 49 of the 50 states included.

It's dishonest.

Goaltender66
10-11-2012, 12:51
In order:

1) What would you say if the report that is due to be released just days before the election shows that the unemployment rate has gone up to 7.9 or 8%? Will you still claim conspiracy?
But it hasn't has it?

2) Were you questioning the unemployment numbers under Obama when they were above 9%? If it's all a conspiracy, why were you not complaining then?

3) Were you questioning the numbers during his entire administration, minus the last week, when they were above 8% when he promised that the stimulus would prevent that from happening?
These are really the same question. I never said it was "all" a conspiracy, but it certainly is odd that right when it serves Obama's purpose, weird outliers and statistically significant errors start creeping into the BLS numbers, isn't it? Particularly when the inevitable corrections will come later and buried in the back half of a word-wall report.

The logical error you're committing is thinking that just because something didn't happen before means it isn't happening now.

Lastly, I've been questioning the unemployment rate calculations since I graduated from college, for reasons given below.

All of those scenarios I have listed above are bad for Obama. Even the current 7.8% number is still dismal. If you are consistent in your position of the numbers being bogus, and are not just complaining whenever they don't go your way (despite the fact that every American should be happy about a falling unemployment rate), why were you not bringing this up in the past?

Actually, high reported unemployment in the first two years serves Obama's narrative just fine...as the steward of an inherited mess that he must take increasingly severe actions to clean up. Saying that's "bad" for him doesn't entirely ring true, not from a political standpoint. He got elected exactly because of a bad jobs climate.

On the larger point, the unemployment situation in this country is not getting better. The unemployment rate only lists a percentage of people who cannot find work desipte their actively seeking it. When people drop out of the labor force (aka the labor participation rate) they no longer are counted in the unemployment rate. And the labor participation rate is decreasing. So no, contextually this "falling unemployment rate" is not cause for happiness.

ETA:

I was going to put this into a second post, but I might as well keep it all together. Apologies for the length.

Here's why I'm questioning the unemployment numbers, and sorry for the background but it's important. There are two surveys done every month. The first is one done of businesses, and the survey is done of 410,000 businesses. The second is the household survey done by phone to 60,000 homes. Now the thing is, the household survey has lots of ups and downs, but this latest unemployment number is questionable because the big spike is even bigger than usual. But it's that household survey that is used for the actual unemployment rate. The business survey is used to calculate net job creation/month.

And when you look at the household survey, it's saying 873,000 jobs were created last month. Almost a million jobs. In one month. And that's a lot.

However, to put this number into context, let's look at the last time we got a million jobs created in a month. It was 1983. We were coming off the Carter Recession and Good Time Were Here. We were getting flush. So flush that we even put up with Wham!. So flush that our GDP growth rate was 9.3% In that economy, it was so hot that you could play hardball with your boss vis a vis raises and promotions. You could leave your job on a whim and know you'd have a new one in a month or two when you got tired of the Sally Jesse Raphael show.

That's contrasted with 1.4ish% today. Does today feel like 1983 to you?

That isn't to say we haven't had similar jumps with lower growth rates. Other times GDP growth has been at the 5-5.5% level and job creation jumps were close to 1983 levels. But there's never been a job jump with such an anemic growth rate like we have today.

So here, I kind of reject the premise that to believe this number is faulty is to necessarily believe in some grand conspiracy. You don't have to cotton to the thought that someone is deliberately cooking the books to think this looks very odd. OTOH, as I said to you in the other thread, this is an administration that is illegally telling contractors to ignore the WARN act and promises taxpayer money will be there to satisfy any law suits.

As simply and plainly as I can put it...there is no way this economy created 873,000 jobs last month. There is no independent data confirming it (hey, did payroll tax collection jump by a similar margin?) and the payroll survey directly refutes it. So you can believe it's true (in which case you're wrong), you can think it's wrong but there was an error somewhere (in which case it seems awfully convenient), or you can think someone took a more active hand in massaging the data (in which case you're probably a cynic.).

Pick one. :)

IvanVic
10-11-2012, 13:20
In order:


But it hasn't has it?



No, but it certainly could. The number has gone up plenty of times over his administration. The chart below is from the BLS' website. If the number is bogus, why does it continually increase, then decrease, then increase again etc? If they're in the tank for Obama, why has it been over his magical 8% for so long? Was the number also bogus when GW was president? What about before him?


http://imageshack.us/a/img253/1545/chartr.jpg



These are really the same question. I never said it was "all" a conspiracy, but it certainly is odd that right when it serves Obama's purpose, weird outliers and statistically significant errors start creeping into the BLS numbers, isn't it?

Since I have not researched the history of this "error", I can't comment on that in earnest. This weekend when I've had some time to do that, I could give you a better answer. If it turns out that the data was released missing a state, and that has never happened before, or only happened once or twice, then yes, it would be suspicious.

In order:
The logical error you're committing is thinking that just because something didn't happen before means it isn't happening now.


I'm not saying that it's not possible, what I am saying is that if it is occurring, the pattern it has followed makes absolutely no sense. This is where conspiracy theories fall flat. Almost always, as soon as you start to dig a little deeper, you find things that are at complete odds with the entire theory - some of which I have already pointed out: the increasing and decreasing and then increasing again, the fact that it's been over 8% his entire administration minus the last week, etc.

In order:
Lastly, I've been questioning the unemployment rate calculations since I graduated from college, for reasons given below.


Can you point me to any actual threads or posts that show you specifically questioning the rate when it does not suit your political agenda?

In order:
Actually, high reported unemployment in the first two years serves Obama's narrative just fine...as the steward of an inherited mess that he must take increasingly severe actions to clean up. Saying that's "bad" for him doesn't entirely ring true, not from a political standpoint. He got elected exactly because of a bad jobs climate.


Then why didn't they bring it under 8% some time after the stimulus was passed? The stimulus is about the only thing other than Obamacare that he can point to and say "I did that." The entire premise was that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8%. That didn't happen - if they truly had the ability to rig the numbers, that would be the first thing they would have done.

In order:
When people drop out of the labor force (aka the labor participation rate) they no longer are counted in the unemployment rate.

Right, because a person who is not looking for work can't possibly be helpful in understanding how hard it is to find a job. There is no perfect way of doing it, but that is certainly the best way. You can't include people who are not seeking work in a stat that tries to define how hard or easy it is to find work.

herose
10-11-2012, 13:24
What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

Uh don't know where you get your information but... actual unemployment requests WITHOUT California reporting increased by 26,000 but after the numbers were "adjusted" they showed a decrease of applications of 30,000. According to Business News Weekly

herose
10-11-2012, 13:27
Don't mind them... its already established that here

Any bad news= must be gospel.
Any good news = must be tainted.

Folks here actually are hoping for bad news and rooting against economic recovery. Damnedest thing I've ever seen. :dunno:

The only people rooting against the economy is the present administration who has been doing all it can to destroy the economy, and those who follow Obama like sheep.

A good economy means a powerful USA and that is exactly what Obama and his liberals dont want. Damnedest thing I've ever seen!

michael_b
10-11-2012, 13:31
Alternate Unemployment-Charts (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts)


-On mobile

Goaltender66
10-11-2012, 13:34
IvanVic, you are taking my comments vis a vis the BLS new jobless claims report and extending them to the calculation of the unemployment rate as a whole. I think you should be clear that they are two different things.

That said:

No, but it certainly could.

So you are taking a hypothetical and casting it as a factual occurence.

Since I have not researched the history of this "error", I can't comment on that in earnest. This weekend when I've had some time to do that, I could give you a better answer. If it turns out that the data was released missing a state, and that has never happened before, or only happened once or twice, then yes, it would be suspicious.
I posted two links (and not of the "questionable" sort) where a Labor economist is quoted as saying exactly that a state was left out. If you find another instance of that happening I'm all ears.


I'm not saying that it's not possible, what I am saying is that if it is occurring, the pattern it has followed makes absolutely no sense. This is where conspiracy theories fall flat. Almost always, as soon as you start to dig a little deeper, you find things that are at complete odds with the entire theory - some of which I have already pointed out: the increasing and decreasing and then increasing again, the fact that it's been over 8% his entire administration minus the last week, etc.
But again, you're assuming that chicanery isn't happening now if it hasn't happened before. I'm saying that's a faulty assumption.


Can you point me to any actual threads or posts that show you specifically questioning the rate when it does not suit your political agenda?
Um, GlockTalk wasn't even invented when I was in college. :upeyes:

You know, I'm of the opinion that murder is bad, yet you're suggesting that if I don't have any posts specifically saying that then my opinion can be questioned.



Then why didn't they bring it under 8% some time after the stimulus was passed? The stimulus is about the only thing other than Obamacare that he can point to and say "I did that." The entire premise was that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8%. That didn't happen - if they truly had the ability to rig the numbers, that would be the first thing they would have done.
And again, you're assuming whomever would have even hit on a good way to game numbers back then, or even thought to do it. And you're also suggesting that if it didn't happen (as you assume) that necessarily implies an inability to do so. That's a shaky logic chain there.


Right, because a person who is not looking for work can't possibly be helpful in understanding how hard it is to find a job. There is no perfect way of doing it, but that is certainly the best way. You can't include people who are not seeking work in a stat that tries to define how hard or easy it is to find work.
It is a statistic, and like all statistics it has to be taken in context with complementary data. The rate is intended to describe how many people who want a job have one. However, it fails because it assumes that people who aren't actively looking day in and day out don't want jobs, and that is turning out to be a weak assumption in this economy. Perhaps the job market is such that someone wants a job but can't find one so he goes back to school. Perhaps someone stopped looking and moved in with his parents and is waiting for things to turn around before looking again. I'd call them unemployed, but the BLS wouldn't.

So while there may not be "a better way" to calculate it, it's a serious mistake to look at the number in a vaccuum. The best complementary data is the labor force participation rate. It serves to really tell you how many people out there are working. When that rate declines in concert with an unemployment rate decrease (or one that's static), that gives you all kinds of insights that you wouldn't get by looking at the unemployment rate alone. In fact, if you confined yourself to the unemployment rate you'd be seriously misled as to the true state of the economy.

jeanderson
10-11-2012, 14:22
If you don't see the problem, then you are the problem.

Sorry.
Easy there big fella... Just injecting a little sarcasm. GWSHARK didn't get it either apparently. Of course these numbers are cooked!

Nothing is beyond this president. He's pulling all the strings.

IvanVic
10-11-2012, 14:35
So you are taking a hypothetical and casting it as a factual occurence.



I am posting a hypothetical question, yes. However, that hypothetical is not that unlikely when you look at the BLS' chart. The number has decreased, and then increased the following month on numerous occasions. You seem to be specifically avoiding the history of the rate under Obama, and also avoiding my hypothetical question, because both blow a gigantic hole right in the middle of this conspiracy theory.


I posted two links (and not of the "questionable" sort) where a Labor economist is quoted as saying exactly that a state was left out. If you find another instance of that happening I'm all ears.


And if it turns out that this has not happened before, I would agree that it is suspicious.


But again, you're assuming that chicanery isn't happening now if it hasn't happened before. I'm saying that's a faulty assumption.


You are making a claim, that Obama has direct control over the unemployment rate. I am not assuming anything. I am examining past data and pointing out to you that your theory makes no sense when reviewing that past data. You only have a leg to stand on if you're claiming that Obama has suddenly, in the last 2 weeks, taken over the BLS and has direct control of their reporting. Well, this isn't the first time the unemployment numbers have been questioned here, so that's not what the posters here have been saying.


Um, GlockTalk wasn't even invented when I was in college. :upeyes:


It says below your avatar that you have been a member since the year 2000. Can you point me to a single post of yours that questions the rate when it does not suit your agenda? Those examples would be either an instance of you claiming the rate was bogus when it goes down under a Republican president, or claiming it's bogus when it goes up under a Democrat president. Either will do.


You know, I'm of the opinion that murder is bad, yet you're suggesting that if I don't have any posts specifically saying that then my opinion can be questioned.


This analogy is so ridiculous I can't believe you went with it. I'll make it even easier for you, can you show me a post from ANY ONE of the conspiracy theorists in these unemployment threads that have made posts equivalent to what I have suggested above in bold font?


The rate is intended to describe how many people who want a job have one. However, it fails because it assumes that people who aren't actively looking day in and day out don't want jobs, and that is turning out to be a weak assumption in this economy.

Of course that is a weakness, but it's setup that way because it's the only possible method that would achieve some type of consistency across both good and bad economies. If you included people who are not actively seeking work in the unemployment rate, the number would be artificially high, especially during good economies, because lazy people who don't want a job would be artificially raising the rate.

Yes, you are correct when you assume that the number might be a bit artificially low when discouraged workers drop out of the labor force in a bad economy because they can't find a job, but the number of lazy people will far outweigh the number of discouraged job seekers in any economy.

Expanding on that, I'd like to bold this because I think it's an essential point: I'd argue that if you give up looking for work because you can't find a job, you either have no education, have a criminal record, are lazy, don't have any marketable skills, have very poor social skills, or a combination of the above. Then there's that tiny sliver of people who do have an education, no serious criminal record, have interviewing skills, are not lazy, yet still somehow decide to stop looking for work. In all my years, I've yet to meet a single one of these educated, non-lazy, sociable people with interviewing skills who choose to sit on the couch instead of look for a job.

cowboy1964
10-11-2012, 14:38
Just out of curiosity:

1) What would you say if the report that is due to be released just days before the election shows that the unemployment rate has gone up to 7.9 or 8%? Will you still claim conspiracy?

As long as it's under 8% it's a plus for Obama. Plus keep in mind early/absentee voting is going to be over long before the final report comes out. So this 7.8% figure from this week is the big one in terms of impact on the election. You are going to hear about it over and over again in these last three debates. It's bogus as hell though and will be "adjusted" in November, just you watch.

series1811
10-11-2012, 14:49
Easy there big fella... Just injecting a little sarcasm. GWSHARK didn't get it either apparently. Of course these numbers are cooked!

Nothing is beyond this president. He's pulling all the strings.

Oh, then in that case, ................... never mind. :supergrin:

ModGlock17
10-11-2012, 14:51
Here's my prediction for Jay Carney lines in tomorrow's WH Press briefing:

"No, We did not mislead and had no intention to mislead with the employment numbers."

"We had never said that these employment figures are complete figures, and it really depends on how you would define 'unemployment'. "

"The President of the United States did state the facts correctly."

BHO did say nearly four years ago that these are the redefining moments for America. Sure enough, his administration is redefining the definitions of:
-Terrorism
-unemployment
-economic recovery

and more. It is "transparently" clear!

I have to wonder when he's on the golf course, he'd redefined how golf scores are kept, or introduce another concept called ObamaMath and ObamaEnglish.

GAFinch
10-11-2012, 15:29
Simply amazing

Goaltender66
10-12-2012, 05:59
I am posting a hypothetical question, yes. However, that hypothetical is not that unlikely when you look at the BLS' chart. The number has decreased, and then increased the following month on numerous occasions. You seem to be specifically avoiding the history of the rate under Obama, and also avoiding my hypothetical question, because both blow a gigantic hole right in the middle of this conspiracy theory.
No, what you are doing is demanding comment on a hypothetical. It's kind of creaky logic to say that because I won't cast an opinion on a number that hasn't been released yet that it's some kind of evidence that the September unemployment rate is correct.

And I've already directly addressed your history argument. Your faulty assumptions rebut your questions.


And if it turns out that this has not happened before, I would agree that it is suspicious.
So has it?



You are making a claim, that Obama has direct control over the unemployment rate.

Where did I claim that?
I am not assuming anything. I am examining past data and pointing out to you that your theory makes no sense when reviewing that past data. You only have a leg to stand on if you're claiming that Obama has suddenly, in the last 2 weeks, taken over the BLS and has direct control of their reporting. Well, this isn't the first time the unemployment numbers have been questioned here, so that's not what the posters here have been saying.
No, what you're doing is making an assumption. The basis of your argument is that if you can't find chicanery (or, I'll be generous, incompetence) in past numbers then it cannot exist in the present. That's very weak tea.

And again, I've never said Obama is directly responsible for it, just as I've never said Obama is directly responsible for breaking the law inre the WARN Act. Perhaps its some lower level apparatchik trying to "help."

But hey, as I said earlier, if there's another reason why the BLS released a report that omitted data from an entire state without calling attention to it and at a very advantageous time (namely, after Obama's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad debate), I'm interested.



It says below your avatar that you have been a member since the year 2000. Can you point me to a single post of yours that questions the rate when it does not suit your agenda? Those examples would be either an instance of you claiming the rate was bogus when it goes down under a Republican president, or claiming it's bogus when it goes up under a Democrat president. Either will do.

This analogy is so ridiculous I can't believe you went with it. I'll make it even easier for you, can you show me a post from ANY ONE of the conspiracy theorists in these unemployment threads that have made posts equivalent to what I have suggested above in bold font?
No more ridiculous than suggesting that if I haven't written posts on Glock Talk 25 years ago supporting an opinion that said opinion isn't valid. I suppose I could point you to a few of my professors to whom I've complained about the calculation of the unemployment rate....

Simply put, it's another logic fail to try and say if one hasn't written about something on the board in the past that the opinion in the present is somehow invalid or questionable. I think there's a lot of stuff you haven't written about here either, but that doesn't mean your opinions in the present are invalid because of that, nor does that lack of writing imply some kind of rebuttal evidence to the opinion.

Seriously, your line of argument here is fatally flawed.



Of course that is a weakness, but it's setup that way because it's the only possible method that would achieve some type of consistency across both good and bad economies. If you included people who are not actively seeking work in the unemployment rate, the number would be artificially high, especially during good economies, because lazy people who don't want a job would be artificially raising the rate.

Yes, you are correct when you assume that the number might be a bit artificially low when discouraged workers drop out of the labor force in a bad economy because they can't find a job, but the number of lazy people will far outweigh the number of discouraged job seekers in any economy.

The weakness is looking at the rate in a vacuum, as you are doing. A falling rate means nothing if people have stopped looking for work in greater numbers (or, as a sidebar, that government employment is increasing), as is the case in September...and indeed, throughout the past three and a half years.

As for the "lazy" argument, well....


Expanding on that, I'd like to bold this because I think it's an essential point: I'd argue that if you give up looking for work because you can't find a job, you either have no education, have a criminal record, are lazy, don't have any marketable skills, have very poor social skills, or a combination of the above. Then there's that tiny sliver of people who do have an education, no serious criminal record, have interviewing skills, are not lazy, yet still somehow decide to stop looking for work. In all my years, I've yet to meet a single one of these educated, non-lazy, sociable people with interviewing skills who choose to sit on the couch instead of look for a job.



That is so...condescending that it is hard to figure out where to start. So today's unemployment rate is a factor of people being lazy?! Again, this is why yesterday I posted a description of how the rate is calculated and the complementary data that goes with it. If the payroll survey showed a bunch of empty jobs then there's be an argument there, but the payroll survey isn't showing a bunch of empty jobs just waiting to be filled.

So what's holding the economy back are lazy people with bad social skills? Really? The structural drags that this President implemented into the economy have nothing to do with it? The higher taxes and overall demonization of job creators don't create barriers for good people trying to find jobs? You bolded it which I suppose is great for demonstrating how you buoy your self esteem at the expense of others. However, it also demonstrates your facile, Obama-level understanding of the macro issues at play here.

To your last sentence...the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

IvanVic
10-15-2012, 06:57
No, what you are doing is demanding comment on a hypothetical. It's kind of creaky logic to say that because I won't cast an opinion on a number that hasn't been released yet that it's some kind of evidence that the September unemployment rate is correct.


Then why not comment on the historical pattern? Your only explanation thus far has been "just because it wasn't happening then, doesn't mean it's not happening now." In order to prop up the conspiracy theory, you just rule out all data points along the trend line that conflict with your theory. How convenient.


No, what you're doing is making an assumption. The basis of your argument is that if you can't find chicanery (or, I'll be generous, incompetence) in past numbers then it cannot exist in the present. That's very weak tea.


This isn't the first time people have called BS on the numbers. I'm not sure why you're pretending that it is. There has been accusations in the past, and the historical data does not support those accusations.


No more ridiculous than suggesting that if I haven't written posts on Glock Talk 25 years ago supporting an opinion that said opinion isn't valid. I suppose I could point you to a few of my professors to whom I've complained about the calculation of the unemployment rate....

Simply put, it's another logic fail to try and say if one hasn't written about something on the board in the past that the opinion in the present is somehow invalid or questionable. I think there's a lot of stuff you haven't written about here either, but that doesn't mean your opinions in the present are invalid because of that, nor does that lack of writing imply some kind of rebuttal evidence to the opinion.


If I was truly suspicious of the rate's credibility, I would certainly be complaining about it whether or not it helped or hurt my party. The fact that you can't show me a single post from you, or ANY one of these conspiracy theorists that shows this harping is something more than just a partisan attack is very telling. I don't believe for a second that you're gullible enough to not understand that 99% of people are just complaining because they think it makes Obama look good, and that's bad for the Republican party. Although one would think that common sense would prevail and understand that an unemployment rate of 7.8% is not good, and the overall declining trend line has nothing to do with Obama's policies. You see, those who lack the ability to think beyond "all bad things are Obama's fault and therefore anything good that happens must be of Obama's doing" are inclined to either deny the existence of good things (a falling unemployment rate), or claim conspiracy, or both. They do not understand that a falling rate does not mean that Obama's policies have worked - just as the president is not always to credit/blame for a declining or rising DJIA/fuel prices. Despite what these people think, the world is not so simple.


That is so...condescending that it is hard to figure out where to start. So today's unemployment rate is a factor of people being lazy?!

That is a grossly oversimplified summary of my argument, and not at all what I was saying. Before we even breakdown people who are socially skilled, driven, etc., the unemployment rate for college grads is about 4.5%, and has been for some time now.


So what's holding the economy back are lazy people with bad social skills? Really?

No, and I never claimed such a thing. I stated a simple position: I have never met an educated, driven person who has social skills that suddenly chooses to sit on their ass instead of looking for a job. I mentioned this in the context of explaining that the number of slackers outweighs the number of valuable, skilled laborers in the workforce who drop out and therefore lower the unemployment rate. There is no possible way you could include workers who are not actively seeking work into the unemployment rate. It makes absolutely no statistical sense whatsoever.

GAFinch
10-15-2012, 07:26
No, and I never claimed such a thing. I stated a simple position: I have never met an educated, driven person who has social skills that suddenly chooses to sit on their ass instead of looking for a job. I mentioned this in the context of explaining that the number of slackers outweighs the number of valuable, skilled laborers in the workforce who drop out and therefore lower the unemployment rate. There is no possible way you could include workers who are not actively seeking work into the unemployment rate. It makes absolutely no statistical sense whatsoever.

I know a good number of guys, mainly in the construction/renovation industry, who have been unable to find work in their field, spent a couple years applying to entry level and mid-level jobs in other fields and were turned away due to lack of direct experience and/or large competition from other job seekers, and are now barely surviving by piecing together some part-time work that's frequently cash-based.

IvanVic
10-15-2012, 07:50
I know a good number of guys, mainly in the construction/renovation industry, who have been unable to find work in their field, spent a couple years applying to entry level and mid-level jobs in other fields and were turned away due to lack of direct experience and/or large competition from other job seekers, and are now barely surviving by piecing together some part-time work that's frequently cash-based.

That is unfortunate, and I wish them the best of luck -- but "I know some guys" is not a credible sample for statistical analysis. What level of education have they completed? The problem for these workers in down economies is that college has become the new high school. When things fall apart, those with very specified skills that are not applicable to a wide range of careers, coupled with a lack of formal education, are hit the hardest.

GAFinch
10-15-2012, 07:58
Official unemployment in the construction industry has been around 20% nationwide and higher than that in some areas. Having specific skills doesn't make someone a slacker.

IvanVic
10-15-2012, 08:21
Having specific skills doesn't make someone a slacker.

I agree, unless you're implying that I said this, which I did not. I simply stated a fact: people with specific skills are hit hard, especially when they have no formal education.

Goaltender66
10-15-2012, 08:52
Then why not comment on the historical pattern? Your only explanation thus far has been "just because it wasn't happening then, doesn't mean it's not happening now." In order to prop up the conspiracy theory, you just rule out all data points along the trend line that conflict with your theory. How convenient.
Because that's the only explanation that's needed to rebut you. You're leaning on some theory that says "well, the rate has fluctuated in the past so therefore there cannot be any chicanery in the present." That's logically unsound.



This isn't the first time people have called BS on the numbers. I'm not sure why you're pretending that it is. There has been accusations in the past, and the historical data does not support those accusations.
So wait..first you're giving me grief because I won't forward you my college work from 25 years ago where I talked about the weaknesses in the unemployment calculations, and now you're leaning on unnamed people...complaining about the weaknesses in the unemployment calculations.

Where am I pretenting this is the first time people are calling BS on the numbers? The centerpiece of your posts are that fluctuations existed in the past and therefore the September numbers aren't BS. Make up your mind.


If I was truly suspicious of the rate's credibility, I would certainly be complaining about it whether or not it helped or hurt my party. The fact that you can't show me a single post from you, or ANY one of these conspiracy theorists that shows this harping is something more than just a partisan attack is very telling.
Yes, what it's telling is that you believe if someone doesn't post about something on an internet site that hadn't even been invented yet, you think that's evidence of intellectual dishonesty.

I'll be kind though...since it's your argument, show me where I've ever celebrated the way unemployment is calculated when the end number has benefitted a GOP President. Prove me the dishonest hack you are trying to insinuate me to be.

I don't believe for a second that you're gullible enough to not understand that 99% of people are just complaining because they think it makes Obama look good, and that's bad for the Republican party. Although one would think that common sense would prevail and understand that an unemployment rate of 7.8% is not good, and the overall declining trend line has nothing to do with Obama's policies. You see, those who lack the ability to think beyond "all bad things are Obama's fault and therefore anything good that happens must be of Obama's doing" are inclined to either deny the existence of good things (a falling unemployment rate), or claim conspiracy, or both. They do not understand that a falling rate does not mean that Obama's policies have worked - just as the president is not always to credit/blame for a declining or rising DJIA/fuel prices. Despite what these people think, the world is not so simple.
Well, first you're demanding comment from me about a number that doesn't even exist yet. :)

But then here we are back to your refusal (or inability) to understand that an unemployment rate trend line is just as meaningless in and of itself as the rate. The rate calculation has to be taken in concert and context with the labor force participation rate and, to a certain extent, GDP growth. Trying to celebrate a declining trend line in the rate is dumb when a) labor force participation is trending down along with it and b) GDP "growth" is wildly down as compared to other periods with similar isolated trend lines changes. This is not a 1983 economy.

So, as I pointed out, one has to wonder exactly what is going on at the BLS. By itself one can excuse the household survey as an odd kind of outlier. But at the end of a very bad week to somehow skip counting a state in the jobless claims number and not blare a giant asterisk next to the announcement...with this Administration it is enough to make you wonder. Because while you're quick to heap scorn on Obama's critics, the reverse is also true...Obama was certainly quick to latch onto the meme that his policies were finally working because of the decline in the September unemployment rate, wasn't he?

But hey, let's trust the guy who said he was born in Kenya, right?

To close this section, I find it incredible that you seem to believe unemployment is independent of the President's policies. Even more troubling...that's apparently a sincere belief and not a rhetorical one.

That is a grossly oversimplified summary of my argument, and not at all what I was saying. Before we even breakdown people who are socially skilled, driven, etc., the unemployment rate for college grads is about 4.5%, and has been for some time now.

Well, you said (and you bolded it, no less):

"In all my years, I've yet to meet a single one of these educated, non-lazy, sociable people with interviewing skills who choose to sit on the couch instead of look for a job."

You said exactly that you never met a non-lazy person who "chose" to sit on a couch instead of looking for a job. As if "choice" were all there was to it.


No, and I never claimed such a thing. I stated a simple position: I have never met an educated, driven person who has social skills that suddenly chooses to sit on their ass instead of looking for a job. I mentioned this in the context of explaining that the number of slackers outweighs the number of valuable, skilled laborers in the workforce who drop out and therefore lower the unemployment rate. There is no possible way you could include workers who are not actively seeking work into the unemployment rate. It makes absolutely no statistical sense whatsoever.

Again with the "choice." Problem is, the Obamaconomy tends to take the "choice" out of the equation. And the problem with your statement is that it was overbroad and anecdotal.

As for the last, I have been firm in saying my issues are with lazy interpretations of the rate. I don't believe I've ever said to recalculate as a percentage of the base population, so why you're bringing that up is mystifying to me. In fact, I said quite clearly:

So while there may not be "a better way" to calculate it, it's a serious mistake to look at the number in a vaccuum.

So looking at the rate by itself, noting that it fell a few tenths of a percent, and complaining that conservatives aren't all agog at the decline is really deceptive. The reality is there's nothing at all to celebrate in the decline of that number, [i]even assuming the decline is genuine[i] - which is a very weak assumption indeed.

walt cowan
10-15-2012, 09:53
never believe any of the governments numbers, the books have been cooked.

michael_b
10-15-2012, 09:59
never believe any of the governments numbers, the books have been cooked.

+1 go read Shadowstats. Very interesting look at unemployment numbers.


-On mobile

IvanVic
10-15-2012, 12:13
Because that's the only explanation that's needed to rebut you. You're leaning on some theory that says "well, the rate has fluctuated in the past so therefore there cannot be any chicanery in the present." That's logically unsound.


No, that's not what I am saying. There have been claims of conspiracy in the past during this administration & unemployment, those claims do not make any sense when you look at the trend line. As I said before, the only leg you have to stand on is if, suddenly, the Obama admin has just taken over the BLS for the newest release, and had no prior control over the figures. This would alleviate the inconvenience of having to match up a history of corruption with a history of data that does not support that conclusion.

Are you saying that the Obama admin has been clean in the past and has just begun altering the number during this last release? That certainly doesn't seem to be what your position is, being that you have adamantly stated you have questioned the numbers for decades. You seem to be playing both sides of the fence. When historical data is brought up, you lean on the "I'm not saying it was necessarily happening before." When the idea of consistency across both Republican and Democrat admins is brought up, you shift to "I've been questioning the numbers since college."

Surely you're aware of this shape shifting in your position in order to dodge bits of data and simultaneously conform to several conflicting positions - all conspiracy theorists do it.


I'll be kind though...since it's your argument, show me where I've ever celebrated the way unemployment is calculated when the end number has benefitted a GOP President. Prove me the dishonest hack you are trying to insinuate me to be.




I am not making a claim, you are. You are making an extraodinary claim that there's a massive conspiracy surrounding the rate, and you're preaching that it has nothing to do with politics. Well then, surely someone so concerned about this issue would have discussed it in the past in a non-partisan way. I'm merely asking you if that's true. You say that it is - which of course is what anyone in your position would say. I am asking for evidence of that in your posts. If you have it, great. If not, then just say so.


But then here we are back to your refusal (or inability) to understand that an unemployment rate trend line is just as meaningless in and of itself as the rate. The rate calculation has to be taken in concert and context with the labor force participation rate and, to a certain extent, GDP growth. Trying to celebrate a declining trend line in the rate is dumb when a) labor force participation is trending down along with it and b) GDP "growth" is wildly down as compared to other periods with similar isolated trend lines changes. This is not a 1983 economy.

So, as I pointed out, one has to wonder exactly what is going on at the BLS. By itself one can excuse the household survey as an odd kind of outlier. But at the end of a very bad week to somehow skip counting a state in the jobless claims number and not blare a giant asterisk next to the announcement...with this Administration it is enough to make you wonder. Because while you're quick to heap scorn on Obama's critics, the reverse is also true...Obama was certainly quick to latch onto the meme that his policies were finally working because of the decline in the September unemployment rate, wasn't he?

But hey, let's trust the guy who said he was born in Kenya, right?

To close this section, I find it incredible that you seem to believe unemployment is independent of the President's policies. Even more troubling...that's apparently a sincere belief and not a rhetorical one.



Nobody send the unemployment rate was the singular way to judge the economy, nor did I say that a president cannot affect that rate. I am simply saying that the economy has too many moving parts to make such simple judgements and claim that any given president is automatically responsible for, or not responsible for, the unemployment rate.


Well, you said (and you bolded it, no less):

"In all my years, I've yet to meet a single one of these educated, non-lazy, sociable people with interviewing skills who choose to sit on the couch instead of look for a job."

You said exactly that you never met a non-lazy person who "chose" to sit on a couch instead of looking for a job. As if "choice" were all there was to it.


That is correct, I have never met an educated, motivated person who has social skills that sits on the couch instead of looking for a job, no matter how hard it may be to find one.


Again with the "choice." Problem is, the Obamaconomy tends to take the "choice" out of the equation. And the problem with your statement is that it was overbroad and anecdotal.

As for the last, I have been firm in saying my issues are with lazy interpretations of the rate. I don't believe I've ever said to recalculate as a percentage of the base population, so why you're bringing that up is mystifying to me. In fact, I said quite clearly:



So looking at the rate by itself, noting that it fell a few tenths of a percent, and complaining that conservatives aren't all agog at the decline is really deceptive. The reality is there's nothing at all to celebrate in the decline of that number, [i]even assuming the decline is genuine[i] - which is a very weak assumption indeed.


I've been the one promoting the idea that 7.8% unemployment is abysmal. Nice touch with the Kenya comment, though. Let me take a wild guess, you're also a birther? (This is where you retort by shape shifting again in order to avoid calling yourself a birther, but still questioning his place of birth by saying "I don't know what you consider to be a birther, I'm just taking Obama at his word")

engineer151515
10-15-2012, 12:39
Looks like the BLS is fast approaching the reputation level of the Nobel Committee

Goaltender66
10-15-2012, 13:31
No, that's not what I am saying. There have been claims of conspiracy in the past during this administration & unemployment, those claims do not make any sense when you look at the trend line. As I said before, the only leg you have to stand on is if, suddenly, the Obama admin has just taken over the BLS for the newest release, and had no prior control over the figures. This would alleviate the inconvenience of having to match up a history of corruption with a history of data that does not support that conclusion.

Are you saying that the Obama admin has been clean in the past and has just begun altering the number during this last release? That certainly doesn't seem to be what your position is, being that you have adamantly stated you have questioned the numbers for decades. You seem to be playing both sides of the fence. When historical data is brought up, you lean on the "I'm not saying it was necessarily happening before." When the idea of consistency across both Republican and Democrat admins is brought up, you shift to "I've been questioning the numbers since college."

Surely you're aware of this shape shifting in your position in order to dodge bits of data and simultaneously conform to several conflicting positions - all conspiracy theorists do it.

Shape shifting? I've been nothing but consistent. But then I'm not the guy blaming the unemployment rate on lazy people.

And once again you're falling back on the illogical idea that if a rate has shown fluctuations in the past that means there is no goofiness going on in the present (and, incidentally, the BLS is part of the Obama administration, so they aren't the separate entities you're trying to cast them as....). That you're deliberately ignoring your rather obvious illogic is about as telling as, oh, trying to invent an issue about past postings. But more importantly, you seem very incurious about why the unemployment rate has fluctuated the way it did, and why the September number is different. More on that in a minute.

So again, here you are conflating two issues and, I think, doing so intentionally. I pointed out a few days ago that you need to be careful which number you're talking about.

My first post was talking about the new jobless claim number where the BLS somehow didn't add a state before issuing the number. This was issued shortly after a very bad week for Obama. In that post I said I could only think of one reason why the number was rushed out in such a fashion.

Now here you are talking about the unemployment rate, which has its own set of problems (namely the mismatch between the household and the payroll surveys). In fact, I said flat out (in this very thread, since you seem unusually interested in literary archaeology...) that the household surveys tended to be volatile. Further, I think the volatility of those surveys and the incompetence (at best reading) of the BLS to deal with it is a weakness against the calculation of the unemployment rate. True, we've had household outliers before, but those outliers have never been as out of the ballpark as September's was.


I am not making a claim, you are. You are making an extraodinary claim that there's a massive conspiracy surrounding the rate, and you're preaching that it has nothing to do with politics.
Really? "massive conspiracy?"

Where, exactly, did I make an extraordinary claim that there's a massive conspiracy surrounding the rate?

Besides, it's your accusation that I'm lying and being partisan. I don't have to disprove your accusation...you need to support your accusation with facts.

So do so.

You want to accuse me of being a dishonest hack, then the burden is on you to support the accusation. That you are trying to get me to prove a negative speaks volumes about *your* intellectual honesty, despite your attempts to shift the burden off on the person you're accusing.

Well then, surely someone so concerned about this issue would have discussed it in the past in a non-partisan way. I'm merely asking you if that's true. You say that it is - which of course is what anyone in your position would say. I am asking for evidence of that in your posts. If you have it, great. If not, then just say so.
So now you're saying I should have, what, witnesses from school log in here and support the discussions I've had with them?

News flash...there is lots of life that doesn't happen online. If you're trapped in the thinking that if something I write now doesn't have an online trail in this (or another) website that it's somehow invalid, then you're being...oh, what's the word...a dummy.

In a nutshell, here's what you're reduced to:

1) Making up a strawman and ascribing it to me;
2) Criticizing me for not being vocal on this board about your strawman.


Nobody send the unemployment rate was the singular way to judge the economy, nor did I say that a president cannot affect that rate.

From you:

1) "...and are not just complaining whenever they don't go your way (despite the fact that every American should be happy about a falling unemployment rate)..."

2) "Although one would think that common sense would prevail and understand that an unemployment rate of 7.8% is not good, and the overall declining trend line has nothing to do with Obama's policies."

I am simply saying that the economy has too many moving parts to make such simple judgements and claim that any given president is automatically responsible for, or not responsible for, the unemployment rate.
See, here's the part where I can ask "so point me to a post here in December 2008 where you defend President Bush?" as a way to pretend to rebut you, but that would be dishonest. :)

The plain reality is that the jobs picture was beginning a rebound in December 2008 before Obama's policies strangled a recovery before it ever began.


That is correct, I have never met an educated, motivated person who has social skills that sits on the couch instead of looking for a job, no matter how hard it may be to find one.
So contra your backpedal, you did actually blame the lazy people. Thanks.

I've been the one promoting the idea that 7.8% unemployment is abysmal.
And yet you were saying all Americans should be celebrating that this faulty number is lower than the previous month's number, with no regard to context whatsoever.
Nice touch with the Kenya comment, though. Let me take a wild guess, you're also a birther? (This is where you retort by shape shifting again in order to avoid calling yourself a birther, but still questioning his place of birth by saying "I don't know what you consider to be a birther, I'm just taking Obama at his word")

Oh, geez, now you're either really reaching (in which case you're dishonest) or you're genuinely ignorant. Here, let me school you a little.

Back in college, Obama's literary agent put out a blurb on Obama's behalf saying the man was born in Kenya. This despite the fact that Obama was actually born into the mean streets of Honolulu, Hawaii. Why? Because being born in Kenya gave Obama a certain exotic, multicultural flair in the Oxy/Harvard circles that a Hawaiian pedigree couldn't give him (it also helped, I think, with his initial college applications but whatever).

Now if you know anything about such things, you know that a literary agent doesn't just make up crap about his clients. Obama was fine portraying a fraud when it suited him, and just as fine abandoning it when it was no longer useful.

walt cowan
10-15-2012, 18:19
Looks like the BLS is fast approaching the reputation level of the Nobel Committee

:rofl::yourock::rofl::rofl::rofl:

cowboy1964
10-15-2012, 19:01
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-chart-on-labor-force-growth-will-shock-you/

Since January 2009, for every one person added to the labor force, 10 have been added to those not in the labor force.

The official unemployment numbers are complete bunk and anyone with half a brain knows it.

Berto
10-15-2012, 19:23
Goaltender,


Excellent.

IvanVic
10-25-2012, 14:05
No, what you are doing is demanding comment on a hypothetical. It's kind of creaky logic to say that because I won't cast an opinion on a number that hasn't been released yet that it's some kind of evidence that the September unemployment rate is correct.

And I've already directly addressed your history argument. Your faulty assumptions rebut your questions.


So has it?




Where did I claim that?

No, what you're doing is making an assumption. The basis of your argument is that if you can't find chicanery (or, I'll be generous, incompetence) in past numbers then it cannot exist in the present. That's very weak tea.

And again, I've never said Obama is directly responsible for it, just as I've never said Obama is directly responsible for breaking the law inre the WARN Act. Perhaps its some lower level apparatchik trying to "help."

But hey, as I said earlier, if there's another reason why the BLS released a report that omitted data from an entire state without calling attention to it and at a very advantageous time (namely, after Obama's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad debate), I'm interested.


No more ridiculous than suggesting that if I haven't written posts on Glock Talk 25 years ago supporting an opinion that said opinion isn't valid. I suppose I could point you to a few of my professors to whom I've complained about the calculation of the unemployment rate....

Simply put, it's another logic fail to try and say if one hasn't written about something on the board in the past that the opinion in the present is somehow invalid or questionable. I think there's a lot of stuff you haven't written about here either, but that doesn't mean your opinions in the present are invalid because of that, nor does that lack of writing imply some kind of rebuttal evidence to the opinion.

Seriously, your line of argument here is fatally flawed.




The weakness is looking at the rate in a vacuum, as you are doing. A falling rate means nothing if people have stopped looking for work in greater numbers (or, as a sidebar, that government employment is increasing), as is the case in September...and indeed, throughout the past three and a half years.

As for the "lazy" argument, well....



That is so...condescending that it is hard to figure out where to start. So today's unemployment rate is a factor of people being lazy?! Again, this is why yesterday I posted a description of how the rate is calculated and the complementary data that goes with it. If the payroll survey showed a bunch of empty jobs then there's be an argument there, but the payroll survey isn't showing a bunch of empty jobs just waiting to be filled.

So what's holding the economy back are lazy people with bad social skills? Really? The structural drags that this President implemented into the economy have nothing to do with it? The higher taxes and overall demonization of job creators don't create barriers for good people trying to find jobs? You bolded it which I suppose is great for demonstrating how you buoy your self esteem at the expense of others. However, it also demonstrates your facile, Obama-level understanding of the macro issues at play here.

To your last sentence...the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Just to bump this, since you weren't too interested in doing any searching, I did some for you.

https://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19416024

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1435489

https://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19439007

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1433086

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1435679

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1424815

Despite the fact that glock talk does not allow you to search very far back, I was able to find these threads, and every single time the unemployment data was bad, it was taken as gospel. Not only was it taken at face value, but it was supported most vigorously by the exact same people who assured us, as soon as the "favorable" report came out, that the numbers were rigged. In fact, they were so invested in these bad numbers from the BLS, one poster started a thread with a link to MSNBC and the usual conspiracy theorists all clapped like seals and went back and forth over the numbers and how they were accurate and a precise indicator of how bad the economy was doing at the time.

series1811
10-26-2012, 07:00
Just to bump this, since you weren't too interested in doing any searching, I did some for you.

https://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19416024

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1435489

https://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19439007

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1433086

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1435679

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1424815

Despite the fact that glock talk does not allow you to search very far back, I was able to find these threads, and every single time the unemployment data was bad, it was taken as gospel. Not only was it taken at face value, but it was supported most vigorously by the exact same people who assured us, as soon as the "favorable" report came out, that the numbers were rigged. In fact, they were so invested in these bad numbers from the BLS, one poster started a thread with a link to MSNBC and the usual conspiracy theorists all clapped like seals and went back and forth over the numbers and how they were accurate and a precise indicator of how bad the economy was doing at the time.

You just keep plowing ahead don't you? But, the big difference is, we said these numbers were rigged, you and other DUers said we were crazy, and then it turned out they really were rigged.

You can't spin that away.