GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-11-2012, 09:21   #1
DonGlock26
Senior Member
 
DonGlock26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 106,275
Unemployment Numbers are Bogus

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/un...rices-rise-hou


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...low-lowest-exp

Basically, one large state didn't turn in their figures yet. Why weren't we told this????
__________________
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
DonGlock26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 09:29   #2
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
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.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 09:45   #3
DonGlock26
Senior Member
 
DonGlock26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 106,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
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.


Apparently, the incomplete nature of the numbers was kept from the American people. This is an administration in meltdown.
__________________
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
DonGlock26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:03   #4
Rabid Rabbit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,128
I can only think of two "large" states that could have that kind of impact, CA and TX.
Rabid Rabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:09   #5
JMag
Senior Member
 
JMag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA:Love it or leave!
Posts: 11,027


What's NOT bogus with this administration?
__________________
JMag
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Sir Winston Churchill
JMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:17   #6
jeanderson
Platinum Membership
Toga!... Toga!
 
jeanderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,179
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?
__________________
"I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America."

– Ted Nugent
jeanderson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:55   #7
GWSHARK
BITEYAHEADOFF
 
GWSHARK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Quarrel Reef
Posts: 4,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
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?
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.
GWSHARK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 11:49   #8
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
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?
If you don't see the problem, then you are the problem.

Sorry.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 11:56   #9
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWSHARK View Post
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.
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.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 12:32   #10
GWSHARK
BITEYAHEADOFF
 
GWSHARK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Quarrel Reef
Posts: 4,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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?
GWSHARK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 12:36   #11
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWSHARK View Post
Why are you accepting these two questionable links as gospel?
Well, OK:

http://nation.foxnews.com/jobs/2012/...ate?intcmp=fly

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...reaming_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?
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 10-11-2012 at 12:39..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 12:39   #12
W420Hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,230
Send a message via AIM to W420Hunter Send a message via Yahoo to W420Hunter
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.
W420Hunter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 12:40   #13
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
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?
IvanVic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 12:50   #14
ChuteTheMall
What Difference
 
ChuteTheMall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sinkholeville
Posts: 57,411


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.
__________________
"You shoot me in a dream, you better wake up and apologize"
ChuteTheMall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 12:51   #15
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
In order:

Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 10-11-2012 at 13:17..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 13:20   #16
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,584
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 13:24   #17
herose
Senior Member
 
herose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
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?
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
__________________
Fair warning! I came into this world screaming and covered in someone elses blood. I have no problem going out the same way.
herose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 13:27   #18
herose
Senior Member
 
herose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWSHARK View Post
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.
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!
__________________
Fair warning! I came into this world screaming and covered in someone elses blood. I have no problem going out the same way.
herose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 13:31   #19
michael_b
BRC #1492
 
michael_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 823
Alternate Unemployment-Charts


-On mobile
__________________
"The thing about quotes on the Internet is you cannot confirm their validity"- Abraham Lincoln

"Compromise on gun-rights? Did Rosa Parks settle for the middle of the bus?"-Mushinto
michael_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 13:34   #20
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
No, but it certainly could.
So you are taking a hypothetical and casting it as a factual occurence.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 10-11-2012 at 13:38..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 14:22   #21
jeanderson
Platinum Membership
Toga!... Toga!
 
jeanderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
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.
__________________
"I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America."

– Ted Nugent
jeanderson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 14:35   #22
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,584
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
Old 10-11-2012, 14:38   #23
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
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.

Last edited by cowboy1964; 10-11-2012 at 14:39..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 14:49   #24
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
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.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 14:51   #25
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,620
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.

Last edited by ModGlock17; 10-11-2012 at 14:58..
ModGlock17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:21.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,288
346 Members
942 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42