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.
But being self taught, I don't know the box I'm supposed to think inside of. And I do think. I do listen as well.
Unless being self-taught means taking on a certain worldview then spending further learning in an echo chamber of sources who have similar. For example, people who pick and choose which data is acceptable based on whether it conforms to said worldview (while dismissing the rest as lies, propaganda, etc.) those are the ones in the smallest box to think in.
I'm probably more in a position to see this than most of you.
Sorry I don't put much weigh on someone who touts their own self-learned theoretical knowledge, especially given so many demonstrations of bizarre tin hatter logic as foundation to conclusions.
Cheating is willful deception for gain. BLS publishes exactly who they count in the various unemployment measures, and they are just a government agency tasked with statistical analysis of the labor market. None of the thousands of fed employees cranking this stuff out have any gain from choosing to use the methods they use, unless you're going back to your usual conspiracy theories you fall back on to plug gaps in your logic.
Unless being self-taught means taking on a certain worldview then spending further learning in an echo chamber of sources who have similar. For example, people who pick and choose which data is acceptable based on whether it conforms to said worldview (while dismissing the rest as lies, propaganda, etc.) those are the ones in the smallest box to think in.
You picked the first of two definitions of cheating and ignored the other. You are describing yourself here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
Sorry I don't put much weigh on someone who touts their own self-learned theoretical knowledge, especially given so many demonstrations of bizarre tin hatter logic as foundation to conclusions.
A perfect example of a worldview supported by unfounded conjecture. You're placing motivations on them that are your opinion. You have zero insight into whether some statistician in BLS has any gain or goal to show a lower unemployment rate. Hooray for theoretical knowledge!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
You picked the first of two definitions of cheating and ignored the other. You are describing yourself here.
See above. Ridiculous sampling error theories, inventing motivations, contradictions on whether data from certain sources is acceptable, dismissing data because seasonally adjusted then using other seasonally adjusted data, unfounded logic about quality of data correlating to how well known it is, etc. this is exactly why armchair economists who think theoretical with no experience makes them experts are a joke.
The funniest is the "self learning makes me more open minded" thing, like every crackpot caught up in their worldview echo chamber on the internet doesn't think the same thing.
A perfect example of a worldview supported by unfounded conjecture. You're placing motivations on them that are your opinion. You have zero insight into whether some statistician in BLS has any gain or goal to show a lower unemployment rate. Hooray for theoretical knowledge!
It is lucky that they don't have to count people as unemployed that have left the workforce, even if they plan on reentering the work force when conditions are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
See above. Ridiculous sampling error theories, inventing motivations, contradictions on whether data from certain sources is acceptable, dismissing data because seasonally adjusted then using other seasonally adjusted data, unfounded logic about quality of data correlating to how well known it is, etc. this is exactly why armchair economists who think theoretical with no experience makes them experts are a joke.
The funniest is the "self learning makes me more open minded" thing, like every crackpot caught up in their worldview echo chamber on the internet doesn't think the same thing.
Again they are lucky that the definition of unemployed doesn't count long term unemployed people that are planning on reentering the workforce that aren't looking for work currently (like me) as unemployed. Those act like unemployed people even though they aren't counted as such.
That is cheating on reporting a high unemployment rate. It is also somewhat misleading in terms of the economic conditions we currently face.
Cheating is willful deception for gain. BLS publishes exactly who they count in the various unemployment measures, and they are just a government agency tasked with statistical analysis of the labor market. None of the thousands of fed employees cranking this stuff out have any gain from choosing to use the methods they use, unless you're going back to your usual conspiracy theories you fall back on to plug gaps in your logic.
It's painful you have to spell this out for folks.
It is lucky that they don't have to count people as unemployed that have left the workforce, even if they plan on reentering the work force when conditions are correct.
Again they are lucky that the definition of unemployed doesn't count long term unemployed people that are planning on reentering the workforce that aren't looking for work currently (like me) as unemployed. Those act like unemployed people even though they aren't counted as such.
That is cheating on reporting a high unemployment rate. It is also somewhat misleading in terms of the economic conditions we currently face.
None of what you are stating as lucky has anything to do with luck. You and others act as if this measuring tool was changed recently without letting anyone know. If you don't know what the tool measures and fail to understand what it means that's your fault. It doesn't make it luck, scam, decifetful or anything of the sort. Might as well call it a Ponzi scheme while we are mislabeling
It is lucky that they don't have to count people as unemployed that have left the workforce, even if they plan on reentering the work force when conditions are correct.
Again they are lucky that the definition of unemployed doesn't count long term unemployed people that are planning on reentering the workforce that aren't looking for work currently (like me) as unemployed. Those act like unemployed people even though they aren't counted as such.
In my opinion they shouldn't be counted in the official U-3 rate, because for the core ue number should not include people who consider finding a job something that happens when convenient for them as opposed to something required to put bread on the table and a roof over their heads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
That is cheating on reporting a high unemployment rate. It is also somewhat misleading in terms of the economic conditions we currently face.
It has already been explained to you why the definition of cheating doesn't apply, and you manufacturing motivations of BLS employees to deceive isn't counter to that. It isn't even BLS that defines the characteristics of U-3, it is based on The International Labor Organization's definition of unemployment rate. So your half-baked "cheating" theory would need to extend to the United Nations having some desire to manipulate numbers to purposely deceive the entire world for every country where unemployment rate is measured.
I propose that the BLS create a deadbeat category and begin reporting the number of couch sitters waiting on the perfect storm to reenter the workforce. That would clear up all these "cheating" conspiracy theories.
I propose that the BLS create a deadbeat category and begin reporting the number of couch sitters waiting on the perfect storm to reenter the workforce. That would clear up all these "cheating" conspiracy theories.
Or stating it a bit more clearly. If the BLS were to add another unemployment rate counter that counted the part of the population likely to reenter or enter the workforce with high demand for labor we would have a more meaningful unemployment number.
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.
