UE ticks up (middle east, how much, myths, abortion)

[Dale Cooper]

The real number is 15%.

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Right. That's why we need contraception. Wait, the Repugs don't want that either.

You'd be way, way wrong about that. We want it big time, especially for the entitlement sector. What we don't want is to pay for it.

If you want to play, you need to pay.

Yes, it really is that simple, even to the simple-minded.

[wxjay]

That's not what I said. I said that for us to make comparisons and test the hypothesis, we need a dynamic model of the economy, insert the 2008-2009 collapse, insert the European crisis, and run it forward with different scenarios. I didn't dismiss the study outright as 'wrong'. What they did is perfectly acceptable and not 'off' in calculations. I am arguing what is the best way to test the original conjecture that 'unemployment would be 5% today if government layoffs did not happen'?

That model says it would be 7%, not 5%. The OP's method states is just add back every single job lost by government layoffs or workers. Of course, if that happened, how do you account for a percentage of those laid-off workers who found work elsewhere, increasing private sector payrolls?

Bottom line - you cannot run an effective 'what-if' scenario with the economy or social outcomes. Hence, we have very tough times producing testable hypotheses and hence either side's claim of what it could have been if/if not this happened reduces to just a talking point.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Bottom line - you cannot run an effective 'what-if' scenario with the economy or social outcomes. Hence, we have very tough times producing testable hypotheses and hence either side's claim of what it could have been if/if not this happened reduces to just a talking point.

That makes all commentary (including yours) about the unemployment rate "a mere talking point". If the economy is like the weather - ultimately unpredictable because dynamic - then why are you participating in this thread? Seems like you are participating in a futile exercise. It also means that an 8.3% unemployment rate is neither good nor bad. It just IS.

[HurricaneDC]

No, an 8.3% UE rate IS bad. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Not when we've expected the 'natural' rate to be around 5%.

And when you realize that the real UE rate is closer to 11% (a lot of people have simply dropped out of the labor force all together), it is just awful.

[Broadrippleguy]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

Yep, 29, or is it 30, straight months of job growth is awful news.

Liberals like you and Obama need to stop using that stat.
#1 we could of gained just 500 jobs in a month and thats still a *net positive* in job growth.
Anyone that uses their brain sees we need to have 150,000 job growth per MONTH to keep up with POPULATION GROWTH!
#2 Unemployment has been above 8% for all of Obama's term and he hasnt put a serious dent in it. his policies have NOT HELPED THIS ECONOMY!
Liberals are extremely ignorant or blind it seems.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

So, without showing where the authors were off in their calculations, you just dismiss the study. You must know more than they do.

Authors:

Adam Looney • Policy Director, The Hamilton Project; Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Michael Greenstone • Director, The Hamilton Project; 3M Professor of Environmental Economics, MIT; Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

I'm amazed at the number of Economists and Political Science Majors who populate these forums.

[Kevroqs]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Job growth?

There are 380,000 Americans that enter the age of working class every week.
They do not get to be counted, as they have never worked to get unemployment insurance.
8.3% are just the population that is receiving UE benefits.

They only count the people who are looking for work.

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

That makes all commentary (including yours) about the unemployment rate "a mere talking point". If the economy is like the weather - ultimately unpredictable because dynamic - then why are you participating in this thread? Seems like you are participating in a futile exercise. It also means that an 8.3% unemployment rate is neither good nor bad. It just IS.

You seem not to understand what I mean, so it's best to just end it here.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by wxjay

You seem not to understand what I mean, so it's best to just end it here.

I understand what you meant. However, I don't think you understood what you meant.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Hold the phones folks! The UE rate barely moved! That's right, the Obama economic adviser, in ignoring all rules on measuring and significant figures, wants everyone to make absolutely sure that this jobless rate is 8.254%.

Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254%

une 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...situation-june)

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...-situation-may)

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...ituation-april)

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...ituation-march)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...ation-february)

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...uation-january)

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...ation-december)

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...ation-november)

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...uation-october)

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...tion-september)

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...tuation-august)

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...situation-july)

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...situation-june)

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...-situation-may)

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...ituation-april)

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...ituation-march)

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...ation-february)

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...uation-january)

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...ation-december)

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...ation-november)

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...uation-october)

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...tion-september)

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...situation-july)

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...tuation-august)

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...situation-june)

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...-situation-may)

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...ituation-april)

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...ituation-march)

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...uation-january)

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/...ation-november)

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Politically....

Mircea

Originally Posted by hamellr

I'm amazed at the number of Economists and Political Science Majors who populate these forums.

You should be even more amazed at the number who don't know their head from their full-point-of-contact.

Populating...

Mircea