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, the best defense is to attack, (only fools)? Now, really. BTW, that name calling would include those progressives who vigorously argued just a week ago, for how great 8.3% is. Can't have it both ways and be anywhere close to intellectually honest.
Actually, it is great for the same reason the opposition presents 5% as great... as in irrational response to a situation widely used for political rhetoric. Fools rely entirely on it. There, I attacked those who qualify, again. They've earned it.
You'll find dozens of my posts in those threads as well... I prefer job additions and subtractions, instead. Is that bad? After all, that appears to be right along the lines you started this thread... that don't buy into unemployment rate... doing so is unhealthy.
Let me ask you... was job market strong in 2002 with low unemployment rate? How would you compare that year to 2011? Better, or worse? Does unemployment rate provide you with the picture, or no?
So sorry for the delay in responding. Have to make a living from time to time.
My position is still that attacking - like the use of the word 'fools' - not only does not elevate any discussion, but it also indicates a lack of confidence in putting forth one's own position. Feel free if that is all you have. The deflective questions you pose just scream, "Pay attention to me! I'm right."
Next, unless you are a widely followed, respected economist, or a very successful and independently wealthy investor who earns his or her keep fulltime in the marketplace, then what you 'prefer' is of no consequence. It is just hot air. Much as what I would prefer would be hot air. Not sure what your allusion to 5% is trying to get at, but it does not matter.
As has been argued and supported by many leading economic thinkers over these many years, participation rate, the U-6 (which includes underemployed), both matter to the full understanding of the employment picture.
I am not interested in 2002, or 1992, or even 1902, for comparison. Simply because the folks unemployed, underemployed, and so discouraged they have dropped out of the workforce today, only matter today. And, it very personal to them. As I said earlier, we ain't the geniuses in the room. So, your questions are a deflective, chasing your tail exercise.
I'll stop now. You win. Feel better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Actually, it is great for the same reason the opposition presents 5% as great... as in irrational response to a situation widely used for political rhetoric. Fools rely entirely on it. There, I attacked those who qualify, again. They've earned it.
You'll find dozens of my posts in those threads as well... I prefer job additions and subtractions, instead. Is that bad? After all, that appears to be right along the lines you started this thread... that don't buy into unemployment rate... doing so is unhealthy.
Let me ask you... was job market strong in 2002 with low unemployment rate? How would you compare that year to 2011? Better, or worse? Does unemployment rate provide you with the picture, or no?
My position is still that attacking - like the use of the word 'fools' - not only does not elevate any discussion, but it also indicates a lack of confidence in putting forth one's own position. Feel free if that is all you have. The deflective questions you pose just scream, "Pay attention to me! I'm right."
That only fools rely entirely on unemployment rate, is the essence of the article you started with. If you prefer politically correct responses, then I might not be the best person to demand it.
Quote:
Next, unless you are a widely followed, respected economist, or a very successful and independently wealthy investor who earns his or her keep fulltime in the marketplace, then what you 'prefer' is of no consequence. It is just hot air. Much as what I would prefer would be hot air. Not sure what your allusion to 5% is trying to get at, but it does not matter.
It should matter, if you agree with me that unemployment rate by itself is non-sense and not representative of the state of economy in terms of the direction, much less at that instance. Why else would you try to debunk the myth of "8.3% unemployment rate"?
Quote:
As has been argued and supported by many leading economic thinkers over these many years, participation rate, the U-6 (which includes underemployed), both matter to the full understanding of the employment picture.
U6 is one of many measures available to that effect, but hasn't been the official measure. Today, the official measure is the same as it was 25 or 30 years ago. If it represents idiocy today, it did so 5-years ago or 25 years ago. But in the end, it is the "official rate" using a standard that has been used for decades. Nothing new here.
You may stop using "leading economic thinkers" as your boogeymen to promote partisan hackery.
Quote:
I am not interested in 2002, or 1992, or even 1902, for comparison. Simply because the folks unemployed, underemployed, and so discouraged they have dropped out of the workforce today...
But I am, as I value perspective. You don't because it makes for an inconvenience towards your politics motivated arguments.
Quote:
As I said earlier, we ain't the geniuses in the room. So, your questions are a deflective, chasing your tail exercise.
Are they? Or, are they too inconvenient for you to face?
I am not interested in 2002, or 1992, or even 1902, for comparison. Simply because the folks unemployed, underemployed, and so discouraged they have dropped out of the workforce today, only matter today. And, it very personal to them. As I said earlier, we ain't the geniuses in the room. So, your questions are a deflective, chasing your tail exercise.
Nobody's arguing that it isn't personal to them; what is being argued is that the current statistics need some basis of comparison. What we're seeing here is a steady improvement of the economy, and yet conservatives and essentially those who just plain don't want Obama to be re-elected are now trying to argue that Obama's not really that successful because there's underemployment -- yes, we know that there's underemployment. There's always been underemployment not reflected in the actual unemployment statistics, and on average, underemployment typically adds an additional 10-12 percent to the broader unemployment/underemployment index -- as it has for years. It's also true that these figures tend to move together, being concurrently higher in bad economic times and concurrently lower in better economic times. And right now, any way you slice it, the economic picture is improving.
I know you guys are panicking like hell and scared sh*tless that Obama's gonna win another term, and you all have very good reason to be. Maybe instead of trotting out candidates who look more qualified to be committed to a psychiatric institution and holding a party primary process that resembles a reality television show more than it does a crucial part of the American democratic process, you guys might have stood a chance to be taken seriously. As it is now, it's purely going to be a referendum on Obama's performance as president and a question about whether the American voter is desperate enough to vote for a completely nutso alternative. I'm guessing not. Sorry, dude.
Only the left can be so crass and self-righteous at the same time. You guys win....by a mile. It si sad, really. Later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Nobody's arguing that it isn't personal to them; what is being argued is that the current statistics need some basis of comparison. What we're seeing here is a steady improvement of the economy, and yet conservatives and essentially those who just plain don't want Obama to be re-elected are now trying to argue that Obama's not really that successful because there's underemployment -- yes, we know that there's underemployment. There's always been underemployment not reflected in the actual unemployment statistics, and on average, underemployment typically adds an additional 10-12 percent to the broader unemployment/underemployment index -- as it has for years. It's also true that these figures tend to move together, being concurrently higher in bad economic times and concurrently lower in better economic times. And right now, any way you slice it, the economic picture is improving.
I know you guys are panicking like hell and scared sh*tless that Obama's gonna win another term, and you all have very good reason to be. Maybe instead of trotting out candidates who look more qualified to be committed to a psychiatric institution and holding a party primary process that resembles a reality television show more than it does a crucial part of the American democratic process, you guys might have stood a chance to be taken seriously. As it is now, it's purely going to be a referendum on Obama's performance as president and a question about whether the American voter is desperate enough to vote for a completely nutso alternative. I'm guessing not. Sorry, dude.
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.
