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)
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,743 posts, read 17,811,767 times
Reputation: 18816

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
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.
Would it be pointless if it made you feel bad?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:30 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,806,747 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Would it be pointless if it made you feel bad?
Just trying to explain that comparing the adjusted and unadjusted numbers is pointless....

Funny thing is,Gallup's unadjusted numbers for Jan. are better than the BLS....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,743 posts, read 17,811,767 times
Reputation: 18816
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
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..
I'm the one accepting the decades old standard for unemployment figures.

For some strange reason, you object to this month's report.

Quote:
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.

You should alert the media.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,003 posts, read 22,018,039 times
Reputation: 6558
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
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.
I DID the math, you don't seem to even understand the CONCEPT - so let me lay it out for you AGAIN.

The claim is that prior to 1994 anyone without a job (including those no longer LOOKING) was grouped into ONE category of unemployed and that when the change went into place suddenly those who were no longer LOOKING were no longer counted. Since there is generally about the same amount of folks no longer LOOKING as there are actively LOOKING then IF it was true that in 1994 the folks no longer LOOKING were suddenly not included in the UE rate then that UE rate would suddenly DROP by a ratio reflecting the number of Actively LOOKING vs No Longer LOOKING (in other words the UE rate would be suddenly cut IN HALF).

There IS no such drop because prior to that change the "No Longer LOOKING" folks were NO COUNTED AT ALL.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:35 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,806,747 times
Reputation: 2497
Again....not seasonally adjusted figures show the following:
BLS figures are 9.8% for Jan. 2011

Unemployment - Google public data

Gallup figures are 9.6% for Jan. 2011.

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:39 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,003 posts, read 22,018,039 times
Reputation: 6558
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Again....not seasonally adjusted figures show the following:
BLS figures are 9.8% for Jan. 2011

Unemployment - Google public data

Gallup figures are 9.6% for Jan. 2011.

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
SOME difference - not a huge change, but some difference to be sure - with Gallup showing a lower number. I would tend to believe the BLS number over Gallup though, since the BLS uses a larger sample.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,743 posts, read 17,811,767 times
Reputation: 18816
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Just trying to explain that comparing the adjusted and unadjusted numbers is pointless....
Except to economists.

Quote:
Funny thing is,Gallup's unadjusted numbers for Jan. are better than the BLS....
Hmmmm...

I don't recall conservos trying to trumpet the Gallup figures as more valid then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:44 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,806,747 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
SOME difference - not a huge change, but some difference to be sure - with Gallup showing a lower number. I would tend to believe the BLS number over Gallup though, since the BLS uses a larger sample.

Ken
BLS includes 16 and older.
Gallup is 18 and older.

What are the BLS adjusted figures for Jan.?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:45 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,806,747 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Except to economists.



Hmmmm...

I don't recall conservos trying to trumpet the Gallup figures as more valid then.
LOL...actually economists wouldn't compare two sets of figures that were using two different values....that would be stupid.

You might take note that the unadjusted figures are quite close between Gallup and the BLS...are the Gallup figures still wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 10:45 AM
 
10,963 posts, read 7,793,468 times
Reputation: 3113
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Energy and food prices skyrocketing and a stagnant economy with increasing unemployment, isn't this what we used to call Carternomics?

Well, in any case, we're all screwed...

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Hitting 10.3% in February
Nobody on Wall Street gives a damn about the Gallup poll.

EVERYBODY ON WALL STREET waits for the Department of Labor's non-farm payroll monthy report. It's one of the most anticipated pieces of news in the financial services industry.
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