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 03-10-2013, 12:19 PM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,353 posts, read 5,989,227 times
Reputation: 2279

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHouse9 View Post
For those doing a drive by viewing of the false unemployment numbers and jobs figures as devised by the current regime, some further investigation reveals some startling truths. Please do not take the time to bash the source, if you are going to respond, please provide some facts to dispute what you read.

Jobs Numbers: The Truth - Articles - The Sean Hannity Show


- According to CNSNews, the number of Americans designated as "not in the labor force" in February was 89,304,000, a record high, up from 89,008,000 in January, according to the Department of Labor. This means that the number of Americans not in the labor force increased 296,000 between January and February. The fact is that the labor participation rate in our country remains at a record low 63.5%. Just to put that into perspective, when Barack Obama took office, the labor participation rate was 65.7%.
You can't handle the truth, that's why you listen and watch Faux News and hannity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:28 PM
 
3,040 posts, read 2,186,203 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
You can't handle the truth, that's why you listen and watch Faux News and hannity.
The truth is, THE NUMBERS ARE PROPPED!!
When people run out of unemployment, they are no longer included in the unemployment figures.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Rand Paul 2016
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:44 PM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,353 posts, read 5,989,227 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71 View Post
The truth is, THE NUMBERS ARE PROPPED!!
When people run out of unemployment, they are no longer included in the unemployment figures.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Rand Paul 2016
Who watches or listens to Faux News other than right wing political hack jobs anyways?
I think that's the part I don't and never will understand, is why do people keep believing everything they hear from Faux? That's what's called, "brainwashing".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,717 posts, read 11,562,205 times
Reputation: 5613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600)---
Tell that to the 300k that quit looking for work. My issue with you moonbats is that you act as if Obama saved us when that is far from the truth. He has deepened the problem and proped it up with fake money.

When the pumping stops the axe drops. Period
How has Obama deepened the problem? When he took office the nation was hinged on depression. Obama passed a mild stimulus, loaned money to a collapsing auto industry and aided the banks but also extended UE benefits and passed health care reform. I don't know what "fake money" is but it sounds like monetary policy, which no president has control. That's the Federal Reserve.

The idea that Obama made it worse is contrary to every economic indicator that shows it's better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,717 posts, read 11,562,205 times
Reputation: 5613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71 View Post
Lol. Inflation is a lot higher than 1% genius.
Maybe 1% for this year so far...



Rand Paul 2016
Inflation is about the Fed's target of 2% annually.

I'd love Rand Paul to get the GOP nomination in 2016. That's a Democratic wet dream.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:35 PM
 
1,923 posts, read 2,070,465 times
Reputation: 1818
Almost 90 million people not in the labor force in a population of 300 million. I'm assuming this doesn't count people on the dole right? Add people on the dole and you get a scary picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:48 PM
 
3,040 posts, read 2,186,203 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
Who watches or listens to Faux News other than right wing political hack jobs anyways?
I think that's the part I don't and never will understand, is why do people keep believing everything they hear from Faux? That's what's called, "brainwashing".
What has Fox news got to do with it??

It's true. Nothing new. Been done for years. It's really not rocket science.

Brainwashing is MSNBC.

Rand Paul 2016
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:51 PM
 
3,040 posts, read 2,186,203 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Inflation is about the Fed's target of 2% annually.

I'd love Rand Paul to get the GOP nomination in 2016. That's a Democratic wet dream.
Apparently is your wet dream since you guys always have to mention something about him and can't stay in topic.

It's higher than 2% too.




Rand Paul 2016
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,465 posts, read 3,959,488 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71 View Post
The truth is, THE NUMBERS ARE PROPPED!!
When people run out of unemployment, they are no longer included in the unemployment figures.

Why is that so hard to understand?


Rand Paul 2016
They are included in the U6 broader measurement which is mention in the linked article in the OP. That article however doesn't point out that the broader measure which includes discouraged and underemployed workers is also improving with a decreasing trend line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,904 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71 View Post
The truth is, THE NUMBERS ARE PROPPED!!
When people run out of unemployment, they are no longer included in the unemployment figures.

Why is that so hard to understand?
It's hard to understand because the statement is untrue.

Unemployment in the US is (and has been for decades and decades) based entirely on a telephone survey and nothing more. At no time in the history of the US has unemployment ever been based on the number of persons collecting unemployment benefits.

Before listening to some retard wannabe on a some propaganda web-site, you might want to actually look and see how your government determines unemployment.

The first thing you need to know about unemployment is that the BLS uses a theoretical statistical model -- the Birth-Death Model (BDM) ---- to calculate the number of unemployed.

Many people (myself included) have known or suspected for a very long time that the BDM is heavily flawed. In fact, the more knowledge people here on C-D had a nice thread/discussion on that a few years go. Lo and behold, shortly thereafter, our suspicions were confirmed as BLS publicly admitted for the first time since 1994 that the BDM was statistically flawed.

You can find the analytical tables the BLS uses for "Seasonal Adjustment" (snicker) here...

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) Home Page

You can see the, uh, "validation" here...

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.tab1.txt

The longitudinal surveys (the numerical basis) are here...

National Longitudinal Surveys Home Page

The specific data utilized by the BLS comes from these two surveys...

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97)-- Survey of young men and women born in the years 1980-84; respondents were ages 12-17 when first interviewed in 1997.

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79)-- Survey of men and women born in the years 1957-64; respondents were ages 14-22 when first interviewed in 1979.

Note that the BDM --- Birth-Death Model -- has nothing to do with the birth/death of people, rather it models the birth/death of businesses in the US.

That is one reason it is flawed....

The other reason is the weighting system...

AE(p) = estimate of all employees for the previous month
i = the i-th sample unit
wi = the weight for the i-th sample unit
aec(i) = i-th sample unit that reports for the current month
aep(i) = i-th sample unit that reports for the previous month

...allowing you to tweak is the sample weight.

Just playing around, the jobs report can be +/- 200,000 jobs or so, meaning 236,000 jobs could be 436,000 jobs, or it could be 36,000 jobs, depending on the sample weight and other factors like seasonally adjusting.

It's effectively statistical manipulation based on idealism, and it uses Tautology --- a Circular Argument:

This data is messing up my graph, so we can exclude it, and we can exclude it, because it is a measurement error, and we know it is a measurement error, because this data is messing up my graph, so we can exclude it, and we can exclude it because it is a measurement error, and we know it is a measurement error, because this data is messing up my graph, so we can exclude it...

March 1996, Vol. 119, No. 3

Slower economic growth affects the 1995 labor market Jennifer M. Gardner and Howard V. Hayghe

Job growth slowed dramatically in 1995, but the unemployment rate remained little changed. This article reviews the important changes in the employment picture that occurred in 1995, as the economy was cooling down from 1994's robust expansion.


Let's look at the footnote....

The Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationwide sample survey conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census, collects information about the demographic characteristics and employment status of the noninstitutional population aged 16 and older. In January 1996, the CPS sample was reduced from about 60,000 households to approximately 50,000 households.


[Bold and Underlined emphasis mine]

Slower economic growth affects the 1995 labor market (ABSTRACT), Monthly Labor Review Online, Mar. 1996

Expansion of the Current Population Survey Sample Effective
July 2001
Ryan T. Helwig, Randy E. Ilg, and Sandra L. Mason

Effective with the release of July 2001 data, official labor force estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS) and Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program reflect the expansion of the monthly CPS sample from about 50,000 to about 60,000 eligible households.

[Bold and Underlined emphasis mine]

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/pu..._2000-2004.pdf

That's not propaganda.....those are federal government documents from federal government web-sites.

Reducing the household survey from 60,000 to 50,000 skews the weighting system and falsely makes the unemployment data look good.

Yet, the Census Bureau upped the survey numbers from 50,000 back to 60,000.

This expansion of the monthly CPS sample was one part of the Census Bureau's plan to meet the requirements of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation

Who on this forum would like to know why?

Spoiler
Increasing the sampling weight increases the number of children estimated to be the SCHIP thereby requiring more tax money


When the Census Bureau did their survey of "uninsured Americans" you can rest assured they used 60,000 households as the sample weight to inflate the numbers as high as possible, instead of using a lower number of households in the sample.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/pu..._2000-2004.pdf

Anyway, if you want to complain about the employment/unemployment figures, fine, but do it based on Reality™ and back it up with facts.

A salute and nod to Krazeekrewe for the links.

Understanding...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Instead of getting POed, complain about longstanding government policies that do not hinder outsourcing. Complain about Republicans in Congress who campaigned on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," then refused to pass Obama's jobs bill that would have added 1,000,000 jobs.
Outsourcing is a natural event that takes place in accordance with the Laws of Economics.

Attempting to violate the Laws of Economics by "hindering" that which happens naturally would only result in more job losses.

And Obama's jobs bill not have added 1 Million jobs.

Economically...

Mircea
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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