View Single Post
Old 10-11-2012, 13:20   #16
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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?


Political Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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.
IvanVic is offline   Reply With Quote