Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 11-21-2013, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,092,469 times
Reputation: 21738

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
That doesn't change the fact that you're trying to make an arbitrary distinction between the U3 rates over the years. It doesn't matter how it's calculated b/c the U3 rate is not supposed to measure all unemployed Americans.
It is not merely an arbitrary distinction.

Search the web for alternative measures of unemployment, and I don't mean blogs or newspaper articles. I'm talking about university websites where the Economics Department or a professor has displayed charts and graphs showing current UE Rates as they would appear during different Administrations. Shadowstats shows past U-3 definitions, but not by Administration.

The U-3 Rate as calculated during the Truman to Ford Administrations would show UE at 27.0+%

But that methodology was stupid.

Calculate U-3 as it was in November 1993, and your UE Rate is 16.0+%.

Why? Because you were unemployed if you had looked for work in the last 12 months. The 1994 change to the UE Rate changed that to you are unemployed if you had looked for work in the last 4 weeks.

I'm into what is reasonable, and someone who has only looked for work once in the last 12 months is not actively seeking work in my book. For the same reason, 4 weeks is unreasonable. I would set it at 12 weeks, but I'm willing to accept 8 weeks.

Why do you think I keep saying "When government starts to believe the lies it tells.....?" Because government policy and economic decisions are based upon what you call "arbitrary distinctions" and if they are wrong...meaning that the information does not reflect reality... then bad decisions are made, and bad policies enacted which only exacerbate the situation.

February 14, 2011

Recent labor markets developments, including mismatches in the skills of workers and jobs, extended unemployment benefits, and very high rates of long-term joblessness, may be impeding the return to “normal” unemployment rates of around 5%. An examination of alternative measures of labor market conditions suggests that the “normal” unemployment rate may have risen as much as 1.7 percentage points to about 6.7%, although much of this increase is likely to prove temporary. Even with such an increase, sizable labor market slack is expected to persist for years.


Source: Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | What Is the New Normal Unemployment Rate?

Except you have perennial unemployment of 10%.

Why do you think I slammed the CBO so hard? No rational sane person would forecast a UE Rate of 5% by October 2012.

It took the clowns at the Federal Reserve there 8 months to figure out what I already knew -- and told people here.

Anyway, bad data leads to bad decisions and policies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
This sounds more like an issue concerning specific workers in the Census Department who need to be disciplined for their actions, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Obama or his administration.
I'm more concerned about a potential culture of fear. Think USPS in days gone by. I'd heard stories of several military commands having that kind of culture, and same when I interned at OSHA about different federal agencies. You have an office director or agency director that is effectively a petty tyrant, and that creates an hostile work environment, which leads to problems....like this for example. The USPS, military and most government agencies have an Office of the Inspector General (IG) that would investigate complaints like this, and the government itself has its own IG.

Whatever is going on in the Census Bureau needs to be corrected.

Distinctively....


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2013, 07:18 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,925,180 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It is not merely an arbitrary distinction.

Search the web for alternative measures of unemployment, and I don't mean blogs or newspaper articles. I'm talking about university websites where the Economics Department or a professor has displayed charts and graphs showing current UE Rates as they would appear during different Administrations. Shadowstats shows past U-3 definitions, but not by Administration.

The U-3 Rate as calculated during the Truman to Ford Administrations would show UE at 27.0+%

But that methodology was stupid.

Calculate U-3 as it was in November 1993, and your UE Rate is 16.0+%.

Why? Because you were unemployed if you had looked for work in the last 12 months. The 1994 change to the UE Rate changed that to you are unemployed if you had looked for work in the last 4 weeks.

I'm into what is reasonable, and someone who has only looked for work once in the last 12 months is not actively seeking work in my book. For the same reason, 4 weeks is unreasonable. I would set it at 12 weeks, but I'm willing to accept 8 weeks.

Why do you think I keep saying "When government starts to believe the lies it tells.....?" Because government policy and economic decisions are based upon what you call "arbitrary distinctions" and if they are wrong...meaning that the information does not reflect reality... then bad decisions are made, and bad policies enacted which only exacerbate the situation.

February 14, 2011

Recent labor markets developments, including mismatches in the skills of workers and jobs, extended unemployment benefits, and very high rates of long-term joblessness, may be impeding the return to “normal” unemployment rates of around 5%. An examination of alternative measures of labor market conditions suggests that the “normal” unemployment rate may have risen as much as 1.7 percentage points to about 6.7%, although much of this increase is likely to prove temporary. Even with such an increase, sizable labor market slack is expected to persist for years.


Source: Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | What Is the New Normal Unemployment Rate?

Except you have perennial unemployment of 10%.

Why do you think I slammed the CBO so hard? No rational sane person would forecast a UE Rate of 5% by October 2012.

It took the clowns at the Federal Reserve there 8 months to figure out what I already knew -- and told people here.

Anyway, bad data leads to bad decisions and policies.




I'm more concerned about a potential culture of fear. Think USPS in days gone by. I'd heard stories of several military commands having that kind of culture, and same when I interned at OSHA about different federal agencies. You have an office director or agency director that is effectively a petty tyrant, and that creates an hostile work environment, which leads to problems....like this for example. The USPS, military and most government agencies have an Office of the Inspector General (IG) that would investigate complaints like this, and the government itself has its own IG.

Whatever is going on in the Census Bureau needs to be corrected.

Distinctively....


Mircea
Very good points! There are no such thing as "a few bad apples" or "rogue agents" in these agencies. They are doing what they believe (for whatever reason)their BOSS wants them to do. As evidence has shown throughout this administration you can't/won't be fired for doing the wrong,illegal,immoral thing but you WILL most certainly be fired and tossed under the bus for not doing what the higher ups want done.
Sounds a lot like contract hit men doesn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 08:15 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,469,571 times
Reputation: 18520
How was it figured up, to calculate unemployment during the 1930's and what they call The Great Depression?

What are today's figures, with the same calculations?


Now that would be an apples to apples comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2013, 08:23 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,925,180 times
Reputation: 15644
What did anyone think would happen when the Census dept was brought under the direct control of the White House?
Did anyone think it wouldn't become a political tool to be manipulated at will?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top