Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So where do you get your news information if not from MSM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
Maybe for 2016 you righties can come up with something better than a flip flopping empty suit for a candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Gee some guy on the internet says it so it MUST be true.
Nonsense.
Ken
I get my news from as many independent sources as possible, if I get it from anywhere like MSNBC or Fox, the first thing I do is check elsewhere to see if anyone else backs up the story that is legitimate.
I've never supported Mitt, and we did have a MUCH better candidate, it was Gary Johnson.
And yes..."some guy" and it also happens to be published on a pretty reputable domain, maybe you have heard of Harvard Law School? Anyway like I said, I have the ability to cross check and verify, so although it isn't a MSM source it certainly doesn't invalidate the information share there. Feel free to spot check it with some google searches like I did and you will see...but if you would rather just reply with talking points about RWNJs, and Rush/Fox, have at it.
I get my news from as many independent sources as possible, if I get it from anywhere like MSNBC or Fox, the first thing I do is check elsewhere to see if anyone else backs up the story that is legitimate.
I've never supported Mitt, and we did have a MUCH better candidate, it was Gary Johnson.
And yes..."some guy" and it also happens to be published on a pretty reputable domain, maybe you have heard of Harvard Law School? Anyway like I said, I have the ability to cross check and verify, so although it isn't a MSM source it certainly doesn't invalidate the information share there. Feel free to spot check it with some google searches like I did and you will see...but if you would rather just reply with talking points about RWNJs, and Rush/Fox, have at it.
It's a BLOG - his OPINION (that's it). Where he posts the blog is irrelevant.
Everyone has an opinion, but an opinion is JUST AN OPINION, it's NOT a FACT.
I think the biggest losers are the big corporate lobby. First, they had their hats handed to them despite how much money they pumped into races through dark money super pacs. They are bottom line oriented, and if they failed to see a return on their investment this round, it may not bode well for their efforts in the future. Second, the recent rise of social conservatives in the party was orchestrated by corporate interests like the Koch brothers to guarantee wins, and I think to provide cover from their policy agenda on economic and regulatory issues. In the past conservative candidates vocally supported social conservative issues, but they gave that end of the base very little power to actually pass policy on those issues. That all changed in 2010 when Koch pumped money into far right campaigns. They created a monster--the base went so far off a cliff that they lost all credibility. Now it's like a "the emperor has no clothes" moment. The radical social agenda isn't going to provide cover for the corporate guys anymore, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
It's a BLOG - his OPINION (that's it). Where he posts the blog is irrelevant.
Everyone has an opinion, but an opinion is JUST AN OPINION, it's NOT a FACT.
Ken
Either you are being dense on purpose, or you didn't actually read anything. A blog doesn't automatically = "opinion" that cant be trusted.
He is citing the work/writings/research of Kevin Phillips who wrote an article for Harpers Magazine where he discussed these exact FACTS that can be independently verified with multiple Google searches.
Either you are being dense on purpose, or you didn't actually read anything. A blog doesn't automatically = "opinion" that cant be trusted.
He is citing the work/writings/research of Kevin Phillips who wrote an article for Harpers Magazine where he discussed these exact FACTS that can be independently verified with multiple Google searches.
I NEVER said it "cant be trusted". I said it's JUST an OPINION. He's welcome to it, but it's still JUST an OPINION. That's it. That's all it is.
In regards to the article by Kevin Phillips - even assuming that Phillips is telling the truth, there's NO evidence that the changes were made to "deliberately skew the numbers". The BLS makes changes all the time - because the demographics change.
Statistical analysis is all about building a mathematical model that matches the real world as much as possible - not a simple feat, and when it's determined that initial assumptions were not as close to reality as first thought, the model is changed to reflect that. Not only that, but the real world ITSELF is always changing - people move from inner city to suburb and then sometimes back again. You DO realize don't you that inner cities went through a long period of time where they were LOOSING POPULATION to the suburbs right? So is it any wonder that the mathematical model was CHANGED to REFLECT THAT?
Over the last few years demographics have changed again in that regard - with recent shifts BACK into the inner city so it's a pretty good bet that at some point the BLS will change data collection again to bring their mathematical model back closer into line with the changes taking place in the real world. I spent 25 years in IT and this is the WAY data collection and statistical analysis works. Things are continually being tweeked because the real world doesn't stay static.
The problem is, these hyper-partisan bloggers and writers see EVERYTHING in terms of POLITICS. To them everything the BLS does has some "political motive" - even though these bloggers have NO CLUE about how Statistical Analysis works.
The BLS doesn't "fudge" the numbers for ANYONE. They adjust their models based on changing conditions in the REAL WORLD - as they SHOULD.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 11-07-2012 at 08:47 AM..
I NEVER said it "cant be trusted". I said it's JUST an OPINION. He's welcome to it, but it's still JUST an OPINION. That's it. That's all it is.
In regards to the article by Kevin Phillips - even assuming that Phillips is telling the truth, there's NO evidence that the changes were made to "deliberately skew the numbers". The BLS makes changes all the time - because the demographics change.
Statistical analysis is all about building a mathematical model that matches the real world as much as possible - not a simple feat, and when it's determined that initial assumptions were not as close to reality as first thought, the model is changed to reflect that. Not only that, but the real world ITSELF is always changing - people move from inner city to suburb and then sometimes back again. You DO realize don't you that inner cities went through a long period of time where they were LOOSING POPULATION to the suburbs right? So is it any wonder that the mathematical model was CHANGED to REFLECT THAT?
Over the last few years demographics have changed again in that regard - with recent shifts BACK into the inner city so it's a pretty good bet that at some point the BLS will change data collection again to bring their mathematical model back closer into line with the changes taking place in the real world. I spent 25 years in IT and this is the WAY data collection and statistical analysis works. Things are continually being tweeked because the real world doesn't stay static.
The problem is, these hyper-partisan bloggers and writers see EVERYTHING in terms of POLITICS. To them everything the BLS does has some "political motive" - even these bloggers have NO CLUE about how Statistical Analysis works.
The BLS doesn't "fudge" the numbers for ANYONE. They adjust their models based on changing conditions in the REAL WORLD - as they SHOULD.
Ken
So what is the statistical logic behind removing discouraged workers from the unemployment figures?
So what is the statistical logic behind removing discouraged workers from the unemployment figures?
The DON"T "remove discouraged workers from the UE figures". That's just more bullsh*t spread by political pundits on the Right who are trying (apparently successfully) to manipulate their ignorant readers.
The BLS has 6 different UE classification numbers:
U1: This is the proportion of the civilian labor force that has been unemployed for 15 weeks or longer. This unemployment rate measures workers who are chronically unemployed. During business-cycle expansions, this rate captures structural unemployment. However, during lengthy business-cycle contractions, this rate is also likely to include a significant amount of cyclical unemployment. U1 tends to be relatively small, in the range of 1-2 percent.
U2: This is the proportion of the civilian labor force that is classified as job losers (workers who have been involuntarily fired or laid off from their jobs) and people who have completed temporary jobs. During business-cycle expansions, this rate is likely to capture some degree of frictional unemployment. However, during business-cycle contractions, this rate is most likely to consist of cyclical unemployment. U2 is larger than U1, but still remains substantially less than the official unemployment rate (U3).
U3: This is the official unemployment rate, which is the proportion of the civilian labor force that is unemployed but actively seeking employment.
U4: This is the official unemployment rate that is adjusted for discouraged workers. In other words, discouraged workers are treated just like other workers who are officially classified as unemployed, being included in both the ranks of the unemployed and the labor force. It is technically specified as the proportion of the civilian labor force (plus discouraged workers) that is either unemployed but actively seeking employment or discouraged workers. The addition of discouraged workers generally adds a few tenths of a percentage point to the official unemployment rate.
U5: This augments U4 by including marginally-attached workers to the unemployment rate calculation. Marginally attached workers are potential workers who have given up seeking employment for various reasons. One of these reasons is that the workers believe such effort would be futile, which places them in the discouraged worker category. Those who have other reasons for not seeking employment are placed in the broader marginally-attached workers category. The addition of marginally-attached workers adds a few more tenths of a percentage point to the official unemployment rate.
U6: This augments U5 by including part-time workers to the unemployment rate calculation. The addition of part-time workers adds a full 2-3 percentage points to the official unemployment rate. This measure of unemployment is perhaps the most comprehensive measure of labor resource unemployment available.
The most important of these are the ones I've marked in BOLD (ie the U3 and the U6). The U3 is the traditional UE rate that's been around forever. It's the standard UE rate that generally gets the most press (always has and always will). It's the rate that reflects those people who are unemployed and actively looking for work. This is the rate that's currently at 7.9% (down from a peak fo 10% in October of 2009).
The other important number is the U6 rate. This is the "most complete" UE rate. It includes ALL the folks who fall into ANY category (U1-U5) - plus DISCOURAGE WORKERS etc. It's currently at 14.6% (down from a peak of 17.2% in October of 2009). This is the number YOU are asking about.
The BLS reports ALL these rates every single month - and has for MANY YEARS now. Originally not all of these categories existed because the BLS had no way to come up with them, but over the years as the BLS has refined and improved it's collection methods and statistical analysis techniques new classifications have been added. The U6 number you are specifically asking about was started during the early Clinton years.
Again, the CLAIM that the BLS doesn't report the REAL number of unemployed (ie INCLUDING those "discouraged workers") is nothing short of an outright LIE by pundits trying manipulate their ignorant readers. This data has been collected and published every month for DECADES.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
