Shocking Numbers That Show The Media Is Lying To You About Unemployment [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Shocking Numbers That Show The Media Is Lying To You About Unemployment


Ruble Noon
02-03-2013, 08:58
http://www.infowars.com/shocking-numbers-that-show-the-media-is-lying-to-you-about-unemployment-in-america/

aircarver
02-03-2013, 09:10
Noooooooooooooooooo ! :shocked:

.

MZBKA
02-03-2013, 09:15
http://www.infowars.com/shocking-numbers-that-show-the-media-is-lying-to-you-about-unemployment-in-america/

The labor force is defined as the number of people working or looking for work.

The unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of the labor force that is not working.

If many unemployed people stop looking for work, even though they haven't found jobs,, the unemployment rate will drop. This may be counter-intuitive, but it is not the fault of the media -- it's just the definition of of unemployment rate.

If people are too ignorant to know what the unemployment rate tells us, it does not point to a giant conspiracy.

JBnTX
02-03-2013, 09:21
The US news media has an agenda that they follow for the purpose of guiding American citizens to a predetermined political conclusion.

Lying is a major tenet of that agenda.

jdavionic
02-03-2013, 09:31
And to think we used to laugh at the propaganda machine in the USSR.:whistling:

Ruble Noon
02-03-2013, 09:48
The labor force is defined as the number of people working or looking for work.

The unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of the labor force that is not working.

If many unemployed people stop looking for work, even though they haven't found jobs,, the unemployment rate will drop. This may be counter-intuitive, but it is not the fault of the media -- it's just the definition of of unemployment rate.

If people are too ignorant to know what the unemployment rate tells us, it does not point to a giant conspiracy.

When people run out of unemployment benefits they are no longer considered to be looking for work. I know several people that are looking for work that fall into this category.

Aren't you getting tired of carrying Obama's water?

Happypuppy
02-03-2013, 10:58
I know a lot of people that are underemployed as well. These are people that were managers in everything from IT to the financial sector. They hit the magic age of 45 or so lost their job and no one wants to hire them. They now work in retail or at 7-11 type stores.

jeanderson
02-03-2013, 11:08
Put simply: There are more takers than makers. And the government cannot sugarcoat this much longer.

sweetsdream
02-03-2013, 11:28
I personally know tens of people that were laid-off the same time I was (thousands were but I'm only talking about people I know) that ran out of benefits and are desperately looking. They are not counted as unemployed, some are even counted as two or three jobs since that's the only way they can feed their families now. One of my best friends sprays fertilizer on lawns during the weekend, Busch Gardens cleaning trash cans whenever they give him hours and as a waiter at night. He is a college educated engineer with over 25 years of experience. He's too young to retire, makes too much now to collect welfare and is in that unspoken group in America that has been forgotten about.

Another thing most people don't understand about the unemployment rate is that when they say 150,000 are added per month, that is the normal population growth that enters the workforce every month.

Tom


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

ScubaSven
02-03-2013, 12:02
Put simply: There are more takers than makers. And the government cannot sugarcoat this much longer.

We have created a system in which the top 1% own approximately 40% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% own only 7%. Factor in children, disabled and elderly . . . of course there are going to be more tax revenue "takers" than "makers".

MZBKA
02-03-2013, 12:03
When people run out of unemployment benefits they are no longer considered to be looking for work. I know several people that are looking for work that fall into this category.

Aren't you getting tired of carrying Obama's water?



You're wrong. The BLS conducts a telephone survey to determine the labor force and unemployment numbers. It doesn't look at who gets unemployment benefits.

All I've done is stated facts. Do I have to be ignorant in order not to carry Obama's water?

wprebeck
02-03-2013, 13:23
And to think we used to laugh at the propaganda machine in the USSR.:whistling:

To be fair, infowars has about as much relation to reality as Pravda ever did.


If you've got another source, preferably one that doesn't cite infowars as the original, I'd listen. Otherwise, it's like listening to Sarah Brady talk about guns.

Ruble Noon
02-03-2013, 13:29
You're wrong. The BLS conducts a telephone survey to determine the labor force and unemployment numbers. It doesn't look at who gets unemployment benefits.

All I've done is stated facts. Do I have to be ignorant in order not to carry Obama's water?


Why yes they do, they contact employers and they do a household survey which, is the one that they use to tabulate unemployment numbers. That said, people who have expended their unemployment benefits are no longer considered to be in the work force even if they are actively seeking employment.

Here are some more facts for you. In the half century prior to obama the only time that we have had unemployment declines on the order of what the obungo admin. claims, we have had GDP growth between 7 and 10%, numbers that we haven't come close to during his term.

HarlDane
02-03-2013, 14:03
There are various UE figures, their formulas and calculations are all public knowledge and published freely on the internet. If anyone is confused about what the different rates mean or how they are come by, it's only because they choose not to be informed.

It's been that way through various administrations and in good times and bad.

cowboy1964
02-03-2013, 14:18
To be fair, infowars has about as much relation to reality as Pravda ever did.


If you've got another source, preferably one that doesn't cite infowars as the original, I'd listen. Otherwise, it's like listening to Sarah Brady talk about guns.

The article cited BLS numbers. How much better a source do you want than that??

walt cowan
02-03-2013, 14:36
green shoots! oh ye fools!

MZBKA
02-03-2013, 15:49
Why yes they do, they contact employers and they do a household survey which, is the one that they use to tabulate unemployment numbers. That said, people who have expended their unemployment benefits are no longer considered to be in the work force even if they are actively seeking employment.

Again, this simply isn't true. The BLS doesn't consider whether one is collecting unemployment benefits when determining whether one is looking for work. You are welcome to check the BLS' website or do a Google search to inform yourself - but saying the same ignorant things over and over certainly does not make something true.

Here are some more facts for you. In the half century prior to obama the only time that we have had unemployment declines on the order of what the obungo admin. claims, we have had GDP growth between 7 and 10%, numbers that we haven't come close to during his term.

Your attacking a straw man if you think I'm defending Obama's record on the economy. We both don't like Obama's policies - The difference between us is I understand how unemployment numbers are calculated. You do not and this lack of understanding has lead to your believing a conspiracy theory.

Ruble Noon
02-03-2013, 16:40
Again, this simply isn't true. The BLS doesn't consider whether one is collecting unemployment benefits when determining whether one is looking for work. You are welcome to check the BLS' website or do a Google search to inform yourself - but saying the same ignorant things over and over certainly does not make something true.



Your attacking a straw man if you think I'm defending Obama's record on the economy. We both don't like Obama's policies - The difference between us is I understand how unemployment numbers are calculated. You do not and this lack of understanding has lead to your believing a conspiracy theory.


Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics



http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html

jeanderson
02-03-2013, 18:50
We have created a system in which the top 1% own approximately 40% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% own only 7%. Factor in children, disabled and elderly . . . of course there are going to be more tax revenue "takers" than "makers".

Well, let me put it another way... More money is paid out by the government than they take in. If you want to redistribute that money from the top 1%, tax revenues would be even less.

IvanVic
02-03-2013, 20:41
When people run out of unemployment benefits they are no longer considered to be looking for work. I know several people that are looking for work that fall into this category.

Aren't you getting tired of carrying Obama's water?

You are either a blithering idiot, or just legitimately mentally handicapped. This has been explained to you I don't know how many times, and none of this has changed under this president, it's always worked that way.

Ruble Noon
02-04-2013, 05:48
You are either a blithering idiot, or just legitimately mentally handicapped. This has been explained to you I don't know how many times, and none of this has changed under this president, it's always worked that way.


What a foul little beastie you are. You and MZKBA go on believing that the actual number of unemployed is 7.8%. Funny that you guys don't post for a long while yet, when an unemployment thread opens, there you are. Do you have an alarm that alerts you to these threads?

Cavalry Doc
02-04-2013, 08:29
It's a small program, you can download it, a link is at the bottom of unemployment checks after the 20th week.

[/sarcasm]

MZBKA
02-04-2013, 09:14
What a foul little beastie you are. You and MZKBA go on believing that the actual number of unemployed is 7.8%. Funny that you guys don't post for a long while yet, when an unemployment thread opens, there you are. Do you have an alarm that alerts you to these threads?

To say that the "actual number of unemployed is 7.8%" doesn't make any sense. Do you think 7.8% of a person is unemployed?

If the unemployment rate is 7.8%, then 7.8% of the labor force is unemployed. This is what the unemployment rate measures. It's what the words "unemployment rate" has measured since before any of us were born. It's not the media's fault if you don't understand what unemployment numbers mean: It's your fault.

IvanVic is right: This has all been explained -- slowly -- to you in other threads. You either choose to ignore the definition, or you are incapable of understanding and processing new information.

SPIN2010
02-04-2013, 09:17
... They hit the magic age of 45 or so lost their job and no one wants to hire them. They now work in retail or at 7-11

If you can find that. I went to my own business model ... all bets are off.

series1811
02-04-2013, 09:26
The labor force is defined as the number of people working or looking for work.

The unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of the labor force that is not working.

If many unemployed people stop looking for work, even though they haven't found jobs,, the unemployment rate will drop. This may be counter-intuitive, but it is not the fault of the media -- it's just the definition of of unemployment rate.

If people are too ignorant to know what the unemployment rate tells us, it does not point to a giant conspiracy.

See, it's not that the definition of the word "unemployment" has been politically manipulated to avoid having to reveal the actual level of unemployment in this country. But, rather, the simple answer is that people who don't agree with it, or see how brilliant it is, are ignorant.

(Similiar to the ignorance of the people just too stupid to see how brilliant Obama's liberal policies are and how he is the only thing keeping us morons who didn't vote for him, from being in a real s**tstorm.)

series1811
02-04-2013, 09:29
To say that the "actual number of unemployed is 7.8%" doesn't make any sense. Do you think 7.8% of a person is unemployed?

You can't make this stuff up. Does anyone still wonder how Obama got elected?

aircarver
02-04-2013, 09:52
You can't make this stuff up. Does anyone still wonder how Obama got elected?

One wonders how he operates his 'Obamaphone' ...

.

Cavalry Doc
02-04-2013, 09:59
Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts)


http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1359737102 (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts)




It's really not hard to understand, the books are being cooked to skew the numbers.

kirgi08
02-04-2013, 10:32
Ya reckon CD.'08. :rant:

series1811
02-04-2013, 11:05
It's really not hard to understand, the books are being cooked to skew the numbers.

Liberals (here and at the MSM) seem to think that if they just keep saying that anyone who doesn't regard U-3 as the only true indicator of our unemployment situation, is ignorant, that substitutes for a reasonable argument.

It doesn't.

MZBKA
02-04-2013, 16:41
See, it's not that the definition of the word "unemployment" has been politically manipulated to avoid having to reveal the actual level of unemployment in this country. But, rather, the simple answer is that people who don't agree with it, or see how brilliant it is, are ignorant.

If you think the unemployment numbers are calculated using the number of people on unemployment benefits, you believe something that's false - you're ignorant. It's not an insult, it's a fact.

Your claim is that the word unemployment is, under the Obama administration, being manipulated. How so? U-3 has been the reported unemployment rate since before you were born, and the methods for calculating the rate haven't changed since the 70s

Was it manipulative when the media reported the U-3 rate under Bush II? Clinton? Bush I? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Etc.

The last time you claimed something was being manipulated, it was the polls that showed Obama would win the election. The media was oversampling liberals, according to you. A big media conspiracy, according to you. In the end, you were wrong, the polls were right. I wish you'd been right, but there's a big difference between the world we live in and the world as I want it to be. Even if you want the unemployment rate to be higher or for there to be a big conspiracy, for whatever reason, it simply isn't the case.

MZBKA
02-04-2013, 16:43
Liberals (here and at the MSM) seem to think that if they just keep saying that anyone who doesn't regard U-3 as the only true indicator of our unemployment situation, is ignorant, that substitutes for a reasonable argument.

It doesn't.

Nobody here has said anything close to what you're claiming, Mr Strawman

Cavalry Doc
02-04-2013, 17:27
Nobody here has said anything close to what you're claiming, Mr Strawman

So, you missed or didn't read & understand post number three in this thread.

Sorta funny in a sad sorta way.

IvanVic
02-04-2013, 18:42
You and MZKBA go on believing that the actual number of unemployed is 7.8%.

1) A simple % of the population without a job (regardless of whether they're looking for a job, etc.)

2) The unemployment rate

^These two things are not the same. Do you understand that?

If you don't, then nobody is going to be able to get through to you.

I do not think that the % of people without a job is 7.8%. I understand that the % of people without a job is much higher than 7.8%. However, since I have a fully functioning brain, I'm also able to simultaneously understand that the unemployment rate distinguishes between some of those people, and purposefully does not include some of them, which is why it's a smaller percentage.

It hasn't been done that way to fool you, it isn't some massive conspiracy to fool Ruble Noon. It has always been done that way (for several, statistically necessary reasons), and those of us who have achieved consciousness, and possibly a 2nd grade understanding of math, are able to understand two things at once. You know, that whole walking and chewing gum thing.

series1811
02-05-2013, 09:06
If you think the unemployment numbers are calculated using the number of people on unemployment benefits, you believe something that's false - you're ignorant. It's not an insult, it's a fact.

Your claim is that the word unemployment is, under the Obama administration, being manipulated. How so? U-3 has been the reported unemployment rate since before you were born, and the methods for calculating the rate haven't changed since the 70s

Was it manipulative when the media reported the U-3 rate under Bush II? Clinton? Bush I? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Etc.

The last time you claimed something was being manipulated, it was the polls that showed Obama would win the election. The media was oversampling liberals, according to you. A big media conspiracy, according to you. In the end, you were wrong, the polls were right. I wish you'd been right, but there's a big difference between the world we live in and the world as I want it to be. Even if you want the unemployment rate to be higher or for there to be a big conspiracy, for whatever reason, it simply isn't the case.

Nobody here has said anything close to what you're claiming, Mr Strawman

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you are rolling us all into one ball. I never claimed half that stuff you are saying.

Get a grip. You guys won. You can calm down now. The plan seems to be working.

MZBKA
02-05-2013, 10:28
So, you missed or didn't read & understand post number three in this thread.

Sorta funny in a sad sorta way.

I posted post number 3 in this thread. I understood it just fine. Series' post didn't address my post.

series1811
02-05-2013, 13:46
I posted post number 3 in this thread. I understood it just fine. Series' post didn't address my post.

No, I did. But, as usual, you just didn't like what I said.

You guys will just have to settle for the 51 per cent of idiots who bought into the liberal's scam in this election. You're not going to do any better until more illegals get their citizenship.

Ruble Noon
02-05-2013, 16:10
1) A simple % of the population without a job (regardless of whether they're looking for a job, etc.)

2) The unemployment rate

^These two things are not the same. Do you understand that?

If you don't, then nobody is going to be able to get through to you.

I do not think that the % of people without a job is 7.8%. I understand that the % of people without a job is much higher than 7.8%. However, since I have a fully functioning brain, I'm also able to simultaneously understand that the unemployment rate distinguishes between some of those people, and purposefully does not include some of them, which is why it's a smaller percentage.

It hasn't been done that way to fool you, it isn't some massive conspiracy to fool Ruble Noon. It has always been done that way (for several, statistically necessary reasons), and those of us who have achieved consciousness, and possibly a 2nd grade understanding of math, are able to understand two things at once. You know, that whole walking and chewing gum thing.

So you are now agreeing that the unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story.
I guess it was too much of a tax on your mush filled cranium to actually read the article. If you had, you might, emphasis on might, have gleaned the gist of the article which is the spin that is being put on these numbers by the obama admin, the MSM and the truth about the actual number of unemployed Americans via the labor force participation rate.

Here are some stats and a question from the article that you can peruse and answer

First of all, letís take a look at the percentage of the civilian labor force that has been employed over the past several years. These numbers come directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm). As you can see, this is a number that has been steadily falling since 2006Ö2006: 63.1
2007: 63.0
2008: 62.2
2009: 59.3
2010: 58.5
2011: 58.4
In January, only 57.9 percent (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea13.htm) of the civilian labor force was employed.
Do the numbers above represent a positive trend or a negative trend?
Even a 2nd grader could answer that question.


Anyhow, tell me about this alert system. Is it a GT function?

HarlDane
02-05-2013, 16:13
You and MZKBA go on believing that the actual number of unemployed is 7.8%.
Seriously, do you honestly think that anyone whose reading comprehension is above a 4th grade level actually believes that anyone has claimed the % of unemployed people is really 7.8% in this thread?

:upeyes:

jakebrake
02-05-2013, 16:16
ruble, don't take this the wrong way, but...

a) we know the media couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it (and, i'm starting to wish it did)

and, b) in a way it's true. so many have lost unemployment comp, that they have found other ways to get free $ from the government .

i'm guessing closer to 17.8 in reality.

kirgi08
02-05-2013, 16:32
Most likely a wee bit higher.'08.

Ruble Noon
02-05-2013, 16:45
Seriously, do you honestly think that anyone whose reading comprehension is above a 4th grade level actually believes that anyone has claimed the % of unemployed people is really 7.8% in this thread?

:upeyes:

Who knows? It is GT after all.

IvanVic
02-05-2013, 19:10
So you are now agreeing that the unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story.


I've been trying to explain that to you and several other people for the last 6 months, at a minimum. Nobody is purporting that the unemployment rate tells the whole story. Nobody is purporting that any one single economic indicator by itself tells the whole story when it comes to the economy. When the media quotes the unemployment rate, they're assuming that any given viewer is intelligent enough to understand this, and they are also assuming that this viewer is intelligent enough to understand that the simple percentage of ALL people without a job (whether they want one or not) and the unemployment rate are not the same thing. I don't think it's too presumptuous of them. I mean, this stuff is taught in most high schools, and is certainly taught at the university level. An adult ought to be able to understand what the definition of the unemployment rate is - but I guess not.

When a company says "our gross revenue last year was 2.1 billion dollars," they are assuming that the person listening knows this doesn't mean they actually made 2.1 million dollars in profit. Based on your logic, it's a conspiracy because the company didn't take the time to tell you that revenue and net income are two different things.

the MSM and the truth about the actual number of unemployed Americans via the labor force participation rate.


Again, any adult ought to be able to understand something so simple. I wouldn't expect any news anchor to tell me that when it's blatantly obvious. Quoting the unemployment rate is not "spinning" anything - any given viewer should be intelligent enough to know that the unemployment rate is not a calculation of all people without jobs.

I'm still not convinced that you understand this, or understand why the rate does not include people who are not actively seeking work. Maybe you could persuade me. Including people who are not actively seeking work would cause statistical flaws in both good and bad economies. Can you explain to me what those flaws would be?

Ruble Noon
02-05-2013, 20:39
I've been trying to explain that to you and several other people for the last 6 months, at a minimum. Nobody is purporting that the unemployment rate tells the whole story. Nobody is purporting that any one single economic indicator by itself tells the whole story when it comes to the economy. When the media quotes the unemployment rate, they're assuming that any given viewer is intelligent enough to understand this, and they are also assuming that this viewer is intelligent enough to understand that the simple percentage of ALL people without a job (whether they want one or not) and the unemployment rate are not the same thing. I don't think it's too presumptuous of them. I mean, this stuff is taught in most high schools, and is certainly taught at the university level. An adult ought to be able to understand what the definition of the unemployment rate is - but I guess not.

When a company says "our gross revenue last year was 2.1 billion dollars," they are assuming that the person listening knows this doesn't mean they actually made 2.1 million dollars in profit. Based on your logic, it's a conspiracy because the company didn't take the time to tell you that revenue and net income are two different things.



Again, any adult ought to be able to understand something so simple. I wouldn't expect any news anchor to tell me that when it's blatantly obvious. Quoting the unemployment rate is not "spinning" anything - any given viewer should be intelligent enough to know that the unemployment rate is not a calculation of all people without jobs.

I'm still not convinced that you understand this, or understand why the rate does not include people who are not actively seeking work. Maybe you could persuade me. Including people who are not actively seeking work would cause statistical flaws in both good and bad economies. Can you explain to me what those flaws would be?

Oh but they are spinning it, spinning the falling unemployment numbers into an improving economy.

Jobs up, unemployment down, stocks soar - CBS News Video

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obama-touts-7-8-unemployment-romney-rounding-up-big-bird-in-campaign-speech/

Maybe you don't watch the news or keep up with current events. :dunno:

Breadman03
02-05-2013, 22:04
I'm having a difficult time with the current number of employed Americans, but http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm seems to have pegged the 2012 average at 142,469,083. Given a population estimate of 315,279,640 (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html), I estimate an employment rate of 45%. This suggests that approximately 55/100 people of any age don't have a job.

That gives me a better picture than the "unemployment rate", as defined by the government.

Iron Vic, it might have been you that gave me a link explaining the UE rate.

IvanVic
02-06-2013, 06:29
Oh but they are spinning it, spinning the falling unemployment numbers into an improving economy.



Improved from what? A 10.3% rate? That would be true.
Can incremental decreases in the rate be a result of people who stopped looking for work? Absolutely, but that does not explain a drop from 10.3% to to under 8%, it can, however, describe a drop from say 8% to 7.9%.

I'm still not convinced that you understand why the rate doesn't include people who are not actively seeking work. Can you explain to me the problems this would cause in good and bad economies?

series1811
02-06-2013, 13:25
It's getting harder and harder to carry Obama's water, but the loyal still do it.

HarlDane
02-06-2013, 14:54
Who knows? It is GT after all.So you made the BS claim in hopes someone would buy it?

DevilDocsGlocks
02-06-2013, 14:57
How many THOUSANDS of jobs will be lost if and when an assault weapons ban is authorized ?? Anyon care to to the math between Main Manufacturing companies to smaller Mom and Pop Builder/ sellers and all the stuff that goes with them?? no one has spoken of that ( at least on the left liberal gun hatin' side)

Ruble Noon
02-06-2013, 16:38
So you made the BS claim in hopes someone would buy it?

If you want to know if people believe the numbers then you should probably ask the people defending them.

IvanVic
02-06-2013, 18:23
If you want to know if people believe the numbers then you should probably ask the people defending them.

Can you show me one person that believes the total percentage of people without a job and the unemployment rate are the same thing?


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

HarlDane
02-06-2013, 20:31
If you want to know if people believe the numbers then you should probably ask the people defending them.I don't think you understand my point. I'll try to clear it up.

You originally stated the following:

You and MZKBA go on believing that the actual number of unemployed is 7.8%.

I then responded by posting this:

Seriously, do you honestly think that anyone whose reading comprehension is above a 4th grade level actually believes that anyone has claimed the % of unemployed people is really 7.8% in this thread?
What I was trying to say is that anyone who has been reading this thread realizes that MZKBA and Ivan don't actually believe the % of unemployed people is 7.8% and that by claiming they did, you were either being extremely disingenuous or dense.

You then replied:
Who knows? It is GT after all.
This tells me that either:
1. You were admitting that your original post was disingenuous, but figured someone on GT would buy it.
2. You really are that dense and basic reading comprehension skills are beyond your grasp.

From reading a number of your previous postings on this board, I'm still going with option 1, but me having to spell this all out to you and your posts in this thread have me starting to consider option 2 more seriously.

Ruble Noon
02-07-2013, 16:11
I don't think you understand my point. I'll try to clear it up.

You originally stated the following:



I then responded by posting this:


What I was trying to say is that anyone who has been reading this thread realizes that MZKBA and Ivan don't actually believe the % of unemployed people is 7.8% and that by claiming they did, you were either being extremely disingenuous or dense.

You then replied:

This tells me that either:
1. You were admitting that your original post was disingenuous, but figured someone on GT would by it.
2. You really are that dense and basic reading comprehension skills are beyond your grasp.

From reading a number of your previous postings on this board, I'm still going with option 1, but me having to spell this all out to you and your posts in this thread have me starting to consider option 2 more seriously.

Well HarlDane, it's not a matter of comprehension, rather, it is a matter of history with certain posters that continually defend the unemployment numbers and deny that these numbers are spun, even in this thread. I'm surprised that a super sleuth such as yourself missed that. Anyhow, you know the history of these posters because you have participated in many of these threads.
Now, do these people believe that that the number of unemployed is what the BLS claims? Who knows? They seem to think that everyone else has retired and are no longer looking for work.

Now some people have dropped out of the labor force, some going to SS disability, some borrowing money that they are defaulting on and going back to school. Yep, those people have dropped out of the labor force but what of the others? What about those who have expended their benefits but would still like to find a job? Are they all included? Are they all contacted by the BLS? Not according to the BLS. Oh, I know, the BLS doesn't look at the people on unemployment for part of their numbers, that's why they extended tracking of these people to 99 weeks.:upeyes:

Now, do you think the BLS contacts everyone that is unemployed? That would be an astronomical task wouldn't it? The answer is they don't.

IvanVic
02-07-2013, 19:24
Well HarlDane, it's not a matter of comprehension, rather, it is a matter of history with certain posters that continually defend the unemployment numbers and deny that these numbers are spun, even in this thread. I'm surprised that a super sleuth such as yourself missed that. Anyhow, you know the history of these posters because you have participated in many of these threads.
Now, do these people believe that that the number of unemployed is what the BLS claims? Who knows? They seem to think that everyone else has retired and are no longer looking for work.

Now some people have dropped out of the labor force, some going to SS disability, some borrowing money that they are defaulting on and going back to school. Yep, those people have dropped out of the labor force but what of the others? What about those who have expended their benefits but would still like to find a job? Are they all included? Are they all contacted by the BLS? Not according to the BLS. Oh, I know, the BLS doesn't look at the people on unemployment for part of their numbers, that's why they extended tracking of these people to 99 weeks.:upeyes:

Now, do you think the BLS contacts everyone that is unemployed? That would be an astronomical task wouldn't it? The answer is they don't.

You are incomprehensibly stupid.

How many times do you have to hear the same thing before you understand it? Nobody with a functioning brain thinks the total % of unemployed people is the same thing as the unemployment rate. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.


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

Ruble Noon
02-07-2013, 20:28
You are incomprehensibly stupid.

How many times do you have to hear the same thing before you understand it? Nobody with a functioning brain thinks the total % of unemployed people is the same thing as the unemployment rate. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.


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

Well, I know I don't, then again, I'm not the one arguing that there is no spin in the numbers or that people that aren't counted just decided to say **** it, drop out of the labor force and retire at a time when a majority of Americans don't even have a thousand bucks in the bank.

IvanVic
02-08-2013, 05:36
Well, I know I don't, then again, I'm not the one arguing that there is no spin in the numbers or that people that aren't counted just decided to say **** it, drop out of the labor force and retire at a time when a majority of Americans don't even have a thousand bucks in the bank.

It's no secret that people who drop out of the labor force, as in people who are not seeking work, are not counted. Everyone knows that. Well, apparently everyone but you knows that. You're trying to claim that your own ignorance is "spin," or evidence of the BLS misleading you.

I asked you to explain this to me, but you couldn't, so I will explain it to you, although I'm sure it will be a waste of time. In both good and bad economies, if we counted the people who are not seeking work in the unemployment rate, it would cause problems in both instances. First, in good economies, it would artificially bring the unemployment rate down, making the rate look "not as good" as it really is. Secondly, in bad economies, it would make a bad rate look even worse.

Now, because those people are not counted, that also creates some statistical errors. In bad economies, like we have now, it doesn't capture the fact that some people are not seeking work not because they're lazy, but because they've given up because the economy is so bad (although I'd argue that laziness represents 90% of those people).

So, when they were originally defining what the unemployment rate should include, they were faced with this decision. There's no right or wrong answer, because there are statistical downsides to both options - including or not including those who are not actively seeking work. I explained to you what those downsides were.

They chose to not include those people, and it's the more sensible option of the two, statistically speaking.

Again, when you hear someone on television quote the unemployment rate, they are NOT telling you that 7.9% is the total percentage of ALL unemployed people. Just because you're too ignorant to understand the difference between the two (even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam), doesn't mean they're lying to you.