Unemployment rate back up since the election [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment rate back up since the election


cowboy1964
12-06-2012, 07:26
Funny how that little dip occurred in the month before the election, eh? What a coincidence.

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/12/6/saupload_Gallup_unemployment_thumb1.png

JimP
12-06-2012, 08:53
Surely you're not suggesting the dems and liberal media "lied" to us are you.....?????

Next, you'll be spouting some crap about Detroit wanting to be bailed out. Jeeeesh.

Gunnut 45/454
12-06-2012, 09:34
Yea wait until it hits 10% plus next year! But hey the Government will provide all! Until they go broke oh wait we already are! They can't even help the Hurricane Sandy victims! But you stupid libertards re-elected him so live with it! Enjoy your tax increase!:rofl:

series1811
12-06-2012, 09:34
Unemployment rate unexpectedly back up since the election

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me left wing media your thread title for you.

Bobb G
12-06-2012, 10:38
[QUOTE=series1811;19705996]Unemployment rate unexpectedly back up since the election

:shakehead:

countrygun
12-06-2012, 12:52
Unemployment rate unexpectedly back up since the election

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me left wing media your thread title for you.

Well I sure didn't expect it





:whistling:

Flying-Dutchman
12-06-2012, 14:43
Well, golly, Shazam!...Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

IvanVic
12-06-2012, 19:05
Funny how that little dip occurred in the month before the election, eh? What a coincidence.

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/12/6/saupload_Gallup_unemployment_thumb1.png

There have been consistent "little dips" across your entire chart. Did you ignore that in an attempt to single out a piece of data to push this ridiculous conspiracy theory?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

hogship
12-06-2012, 19:14
There have been consistent "little dips" across your entire chart. Did you ignore that in an attempt to single out a piece of data to push this ridiculous conspiracy theory?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

You better take another look at that chart.......there is only one big spike downward. That spike downward was predicted by Rush six months ago, and it happened, right at the exact time it benefited "the one" for election propaganda........:whistling:

ooc

kirgi08
12-06-2012, 20:43
Control the media,control the masses.'08.

callihan_44
12-06-2012, 20:47
barry stated during the campaign that "we" still have alot of work left to do, whatever that is.. We are headed in the right direction :dunno: can the resident libs please explain what barry's plan is or is this it?

LASTRESORT20
12-06-2012, 21:23
You better take another look at that chart.......there is only one big spike downward. That spike downward was predicted by Rush six months ago, and it happened, right at the exact time it benefited "the one" for election propaganda........:whistling:

ooc


I remember when Rush predicted it....He is usually right about "Them"....He got "their" number..."They" know it..."they" hate `em.:supergrin:

Zombie Surgeon
12-06-2012, 23:19
Back up?
It was NEVER down.
Three years from now Obama and his libturds will still blame Bush for the economy. And the gullible masses who voted for him twice will still believe it.

czsmithGT
12-07-2012, 00:02
Unemployment rate unexpectedly back up since the election

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me left wing media your thread title for you.

Yep- even Kreskin couldn't have seen that coming.
:rofl:

Brucev
12-07-2012, 02:21
Re: OP. So... who exactly actually believed that unemployment had gone down?

IvanVic
12-07-2012, 04:36
You better take another look at that chart.......there is only one big spike downward. That spike downward was predicted by Rush six months ago, and it happened, right at the exact time it benefited "the one" for election propaganda........:whistling:

ooc

No, there isn't only one. See where it dropped from 9.5 to 8.5?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

aircarver
12-07-2012, 05:57
Re: OP. So... who exactly actually believed that unemployment had gone down?

Enough fools to re-elect the worst 'President' we ever had.

.

MZBKA
12-07-2012, 07:20
Meanwhile, in the real world, where not everything is a conspiracy, the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.7%.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578164981319314860.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories

G19G20
12-07-2012, 07:35
Control the media,control the masses.'08.

Which is a funny comment since most here follow Fox News religiously, which is owned by a liberal.

Captain Caveman
12-07-2012, 07:38
Back up?
It was NEVER down.
Three years from now Obama and his libturds will still blame Bush for the economy. And the gullible masses who voted for him twice will still believe it.

And they will vote for him again. Watch, they will...

Meanwhile, in the real world, where not everything is a conspiracy, the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.7%.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578164981319314860.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories


With a net LOSS of 122,000 after factoring the worker participation.

kirgi08
12-07-2012, 07:58
Which is a funny comment since most here follow Fox News religiously, which is owned by a liberal.

Find any of my posts that I agree %100 with any news agency.'08.

G19G20
12-07-2012, 08:05
Find any of my posts that I agree %100 with any news agency.'08.

I don't know what you follow. My statement was a generality.

cowboywannabe
12-07-2012, 08:09
Meanwhile, in the real world, where not everything is a conspiracy, the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.7%.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578164981319314860.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories

how high is it when you add in the folks who no longer get unemployment because it ran out?

IvanVic
12-07-2012, 08:40
how high is it when you add in the folks who no longer get unemployment because it ran out?

If they are actively seeking work, then they're already part of that figure. If you don't understand how it's calculated, why not look it up before speculating?

If Romney had won the election, this thread would be filled with the same people claiming that the drop to 7.7 was a result of increased hope resulting from Romney's win. I've yet to see a single conspiracy theorist take a consistent position on anything.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

kirgi08
12-07-2012, 09:03
No we wouldn't we all know those #s are no matter what party posts them.I read last night that Detroit is at %20.That doesn't include the folks that have stopped looking.'08.

cowboywannabe
12-07-2012, 09:07
If they are actively seeking work, then they're already part of that figure. If you don't understand how it's calculated, why not look it up before speculating?

If Romney had won the election, this thread would be filled with the same people claiming that the drop to 7.7 was a result of increased hope resulting from Romney's win. I've yet to see a single conspiracy theorist take a consistent position on anything.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

what about those who've given up and no longer get unemployment comp?

Captain Caveman
12-07-2012, 09:07
If they are actively seeking work, then they're already part of that figure. If you don't understand how it's calculated, why not look it up before speculating?

If Romney had won the election, this thread would be filled with the same people claiming that the drop to 7.7 was a result of increased hope resulting from Romney's win. I've yet to see a single conspiracy theorist take a consistent position on anything.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)


Just because they are actively seeking employment, doesn't mean they are counted. My Mother-In-Law's benefits ran out almost 6 months ago. She's still looking for work.

IvanVic
12-07-2012, 14:49
what about those who've given up

Then they aren't counted. If you're trying to judge the difficulty level of trying to find a job, why would you ask someone who isn't trying to find a job?

kirgi08
12-07-2012, 14:53
They are still unemployed,expending resources like that will drain ones finances.'08.

IvanVic
12-07-2012, 16:09
They are still unemployed

Correct, but since they're not looking for a job, they aren't useful if we want to determine how hard it is to find one.

If Romney or any other conservative were President you'd be saying that it's unfair to count those who are not actively seeking work because it makes the economy look worse than it really is. Let's be honest, your position on the unemployment rate is dictated by who's in office.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

kirgi08
12-07-2012, 16:25
Correct, but since they're not looking for a job, they aren't useful if we want to determine how hard it is to find one.

If Romney or any other conservative were President you'd be saying that it's unfair to count those who are not actively seeking work because it makes the economy look worse than it really is. Let's be honest, your position on the unemployment rate is dictated by who's in office.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)


If they haven't found 1 in 99wks how hard do you reckon it is.'08.

ETA,I guess you missed my post about "it doesn't matter" whom is in office the #s will be doctored.

countrygun
12-07-2012, 17:45
Then they aren't counted. If you're trying to judge the difficulty level of trying to find a job, why would you ask someone who isn't trying to find a job?

That is like saying "An amputee is no longer considered an amputee if they quit going to physical therapy"

IvanVic
12-07-2012, 17:50
That is like saying "An amputee is no longer considered an amputee if they quit going to physical therapy"

That makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to simply count the number of people who don't have a job, regardless of the fact if they're even looking for a job, we have a number for that.

The purpose of the unemployment rate is to determine the state of the economy from the context of how hard it is for willing, motivated people who are seeking employment to successfully find employment. Do you, or do you not understand that concept?

fortyofforty
12-07-2012, 19:42
Then the easiest way for Democrats to reduce the measured rate of unemployment is to increase the incentives for people to stop looking for work altogether. Hmmmm. How would that work? I don't know. Maybe they could reduce or eliminate the work requirements for welfare. Or perhaps increase the time a person could collect unemployment payments without looking for work. Or foster a sense of entitlement that leads more people to apply for and collect disability rather than a paycheck. Or count people who have part time jobs as being fully employed. Or promise people healthcare coverage without forcing them to get insurance through their employers. Of course, nothing like that would ever happen. Just think. If nobody is looking for work, the unemployment rate is zero percent. :wavey:

cowboywannabe
12-07-2012, 21:27
lemme see, fewer "unemployed" but more people getting some form of welfare than ever before.

i get it.

countrygun
12-07-2012, 21:48
That makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to simply count the number of people who don't have a job, regardless of the fact if they're even looking for a job, we have a number for that.

The purpose of the unemployment rate is to determine the state of the economy ]from the context of how hard it is for willing, motivated people who are seeking employment to successfully find employment[/B]. Do you, or do you not understand that concept?

And just how do you factor in the people who are unwilling to take employment they aren't particularly "motivated" to take, because their benefits for not working keep them comfortable?

IF your "yardstick" is unable to measure all of the unemployed then you can't say how many people are unemployed, ergo they aren't an accurate measurement and the conclusions cannot be accurate either.

can you grok that concept?

stevelyn
12-08-2012, 01:41
Nothing the regime or the Lamestream Propaganda Corps says can be trusted.

Those number were cooked from the start to give Obama (ptooh) and advantage in the election. As was, it wasn't needed since none of his supporters want to work anyway.

kirgi08
12-08-2012, 03:25
I thought I said that.'08. :dunno:

IvanVic
12-08-2012, 06:01
And just how do you factor in the people who are unwilling to take employment they aren't particularly "motivated" to take, because their benefits for not working keep them comfortable?



If you want to simply count the number of people who don't have a job, regardless of the fact if they're even looking for a job, we have a number for that.


There is already an economic indicator that tells us this - and nobody is stopping you from using that indicator as your benchmark. Essentially you're asking for two calculations that are the exact same but are given two different names.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

barbedwiresmile
12-08-2012, 06:49
The U-3 is among the best examples of the abject absurdity of modern America. The measurement virtually guarantees that the worse the job market gets, the lower the unemployment rate will be. That we even discuss this metric or accept it as our primary metric illustrates how ridiculous we have become.

barbedwiresmile
12-08-2012, 06:51
There is already an economic indicator that tells us this - and nobody is stopping you from using that indicator as your benchmark.

I believe you are referring to U6. So why is this metric no longer used to measure "the unemployment rate" in headlines and broadcasts?

fortyofforty
12-08-2012, 12:44
The key is what measure is broadcast on ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCCNBCNPRPBS? What is the headline that most people see? What is the measure of unemployment that the majority of Stewart or Colbert or Letterman viewers see, absorb and upon which base voting decisions?