U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:48 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,003 posts, read 22,024,036 times
Reputation: 6563

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
BLS includes 16 and older.
Gallup is 18 and older.

What are the BLS adjusted figures for Jan.?
9.0%

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,769 posts, read 17,827,398 times
Reputation: 18829
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
LOL...actually economists wouldn't compare two sets of figures that were using two different values....that would be stupid.
Stupid economists...

They don't know anything about economies. Only right wing radio blabbermouths have such expertise.

Dr. Econ: Why do economists tend to look at employment and not earnings when both are important? (07/2007)

Quote:
You might take note that the unadjusted figures are quite close between Gallup and the BLS...are the Gallup figures still wrong?
Gallup is known for all kinds of polling, but I don't recall ever hearing anyone quoting the Gallup unemployment figures until this morning. I've been hearing the BLS figures for as long as I can recall. I'll stick with the BLS. You can run with Gallup if you prefer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:52 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,814,232 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
9.0%

Ken
So the actual unadjusted number is 9.8%,that is the true figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:54 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,814,232 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post

Gallup is known for all kinds of polling, but I don't recall ever hearing anyone quoting the Gallup unemployment figures until this morning. I've been hearing the BLS figures for as long as I can recall. I'll stick with the BLS. You can run with Gallup if you prefer.
I really don't care what you do,none of this really matters...

But if you feel the need to rely upon the BLS that is fine,it is foolish considering their track record of being wrong but knock yourself out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:57 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,814,232 times
Reputation: 2497
From the BLS:
Quote:
The seasonal fluctuations in the number of employed and unemployed persons reflect not only the normal seasonal weather patterns that tend to be repeated year after year, but also the hiring (and layoff) patterns that accompany regular events such as the winter holiday season and the summer vacation season.

These variations make it difficult to tell whether month-to-month changes in employment and unemployment are due to normal seasonal patterns or to changing economic conditions. To deal with such problems, a statistical technique called seasonal adjustment is used. This technique uses the past history of the series to identify the seasonal movements and to calculate the size and direction of these movements. A seasonal adjustment factor is then developed and applied to the estimates to eliminate the effects of regular seasonal fluctuations on the data.

When a statistical series has been seasonally adjusted, the normal seasonal fluctuations are smoothed out and data for any month can be more meaningfully compared with data from any other month or with an annual average. Many time series that are based on monthly data are seasonally adjusted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,769 posts, read 17,827,398 times
Reputation: 18829
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
I really don't care what you do,none of this really matters...

But if you feel the need to rely upon the BLS that is fine,it is foolish considering their track record of being wrong but knock yourself out.
Likewise, I understand your reluctance to accept any positive signs of economic recovery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:25 AM
 
10,963 posts, read 7,798,691 times
Reputation: 3118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Likewise, I understand your reluctance to accept any positive signs of economic recovery.
Why should a little reality destroy the Conservative narrative?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 11:27 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,814,232 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Likewise, I understand your reluctance to accept any positive signs of economic recovery.
How is .1% decrease for one month in unemployment positive?

Using that 'logic' the .3% jump in unemployment from Sep. to Oct 2009 was horrific....

Funny how a jump in unemployment is just a glitch to the Rah rahs but a drop is obviously evidence that everything is turning around...LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:00 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,003 posts, read 22,024,036 times
Reputation: 6563
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
How is .1% decrease for one month in unemployment positive?

Using that 'logic' the .3% jump in unemployment from Sep. to Oct 2009 was horrific....

Funny how a jump in unemployment is just a glitch to the Rah rahs but a drop is obviously evidence that everything is turning around...LOL
Well, if it was JUST a .1% decrease for one month you'd be quite right - but you KNOW that's not the case. The EU rate has dropped nearly a full percentage point in the last 3 months - from 9.8 to 9.4 to 9.0. to 8.9. That's a HUGE drop in 3 months. I think it's the fastest decrease over such a short period of time since 1983 so it's pretty significant.

On top of that the February job creation numbers were the best in several years (leaving aside the temporary jump in job creation that took place last summer during the census).

AND this is ON TOP of all the other encouraging news such as surging factory orders (BIG news on that today), improving retail sales & generally improving consumer sentiment.

ALL in all, things are looking up.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:01 PM
 
10,813 posts, read 6,961,498 times
Reputation: 4163
The unemployment rate went down and is now at 8.9%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top