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, 10:18 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,814,232 times
Reputation: 2497

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Because the BLS figures are a MUCH LARGER sample.

Ken
Gallup uses 30,000 people 18 and over.

BLS uses 60,000 people 16 and over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:19 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,850,424 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
It's based on PERCENTAGE - NOT number of respondents - and the U-6 is almost always about DOUBLE the U-3 rate. So, if the folks NOW counted in the U-6 (discouraged workers etc) HAD been previously counted in the U-3 rate then when they were suddenly stripped from that U-3 rate the U-3 rate would have suddenly been cut in HALF. That simply didn't happen.



Ken
Um.. if they interview the same people monthly (i.e. 75% of them are the same) and the majority of them had a job.. then the percentage wouldnt change very much of next month because the majory of them STILL have a job.. right? Slap your head but do the math first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:20 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
I don't need to do a thing. The BLS figures have been the accepted standard for decades. The fact that this month's figures look better than expected is just such a hard pill for some partisans to swallow.
LOL.....what does seasonally adjusted mean?

What is the birth/death model?

A phone poll is a phone poll....you seem to just like the lower figure for whatever reason,perhaps due to your political leaning?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,771 posts, read 17,827,398 times
Reputation: 18830
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
LOL.....what does seasonally adjusted mean?

What is the birth/death model?

A phone poll is a phone poll....you seem to just like the lower figure for whatever reason,perhaps due to your political leaning?

Like everyone else who's serious, I accept the figures that are the long-standing standard for this phenomenon. The new info is obviously highly upsetting to some who now want to move the goalposts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:23 AM
Status: "Tioli: Troll exterminator" (set 6 days ago)
 
Location: Arizona
12,871 posts, read 7,423,191 times
Reputation: 6790
I was wondering how the republicans were going to spin the latest unemployment figures. 8.9% is the worst news possible for the republicans. Even though they have done everything in their power to hamstring the administration in it's attempt to turn the economy around over the last 2 years, the fixes Obama and democrats put in place are starting to show real results. Now if the rate continues to drop through 2011, the republicans are toast in 2012 and they know it.

Funny, every month the unemployment rate stayed at 9.6% the republicans shoved the numbers in everybody's face as proof the stimulus wasn't working. Now as the unemployment rate falls, they say those figures are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:23 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,850,424 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
I await your substantiating evidence.
I dont need to substantiate evidence, the links were provided for your review. I said they COULD.. If you are saying they dont, then thats YOUR responsibility to substantiate the evidence..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Um... yes, the BLS deals only in labor statistics.

I have been a participant in their phone survey, which is taken over a period of months. Did you read my post?
I dont consider surveys "labor statistics".. a labor statistic to me would be by looking at actual payroll figures, i.e. something concrete to validate claims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:24 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,814,232 times
Reputation: 2497
From what I see....
BLS figure for Jan. unadjusted is 9.8%.

Gallup figure for Jan. unadjusted is 9.6%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
29,020 posts, read 19,126,572 times
Reputation: 7776
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Gallup uses 30,000 people 18 and over.

BLS uses 60,000 people 16 and over.


BLS has you jump through a number of hoops before they'll call you unemployed, and this whether you working or not.


"Mrs. Jenkins tells the interviewer that her daughter, Katherine Marie, was thinking about looking for work in the prior 4 weeks but knows of no specific efforts she has made. Katherine Marie does not meet the activity test for unemployment and is, therefore, counted as not in the labor force."

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:25 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
Like everyone else who's serious, I accept the figures that are the long-standing standard for this phenomenon. The new info is obviously highly upsetting to some who now want to move the goalposts.
You must compare the same figures,one set cannot be seasonally adjusted and the other not.

Otherwise it is pointless beyond perhaps making you feel good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:28 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,850,424 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
I was wondering how the republicans were going to spin the latest unemployment figures. 8.9% is the worst news possible for the republicans. Even though they have done everything in their power to hamstring the administration in it's attempt to turn the economy around over the last 2 years, the fixes Obama and democrats put in place are starting to show real results. Now if the rate continues to drop through 2011, the republicans are toast in 2012 and they know it.

Funny, every month the unemployment rate stayed at 9.6% the republicans shoved the numbers in everybody's face as proof the stimulus wasn't working. Now as the unemployment rate falls, they say those figures are wrong.
Um.. maybe you havent been following along, but the unemployment figures didnt start dropping till the GOP took back Congress.. bad news for the GOP? Hardly..
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