View Single Post
Old 10-11-2012, 14:35   #22
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
Um, GlockTalk wasn't even invented when I was in college.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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.

IvanVic is online now   Reply With Quote