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.
Yes! Mitt Romney isn't on the list. That means Obama does have a shot at losing.
I have a hard time believing Southern Christian Conservatives are going to get fired up to vote for Mormon that endorsed universal heath care as governor of Massachusetts.
The fundamental problem of just about every Republican presidential hopeful falls into one of two categories. They are either so far to the Right they don't appeal to moderates or they are too moderate and won't capture the support of Republican base during the primary season.
I have a hard time believing Southern Christian Conservatives are going to get fired up to vote for Mormon that endorsed universal heath care as governor of Massachusetts.
The fundamental problem of just about every Republican presidential hopeful falls into one of two categories. They are either so far to the Right they don't appeal to moderates or they are too moderate and won't capture the support of Republican base during the primary season.
Thank you for explaining that to me. I wondered how the numbers were given. Wow!
Is it because of those losing their UE benefits from being on it too long?
I have a friend going through that now and she has been actively looking for 2 years. She found a p/t job just for some pocket $, but nothing even close to what she was getting. It's really sad....
If you're asking how is the UE rate declining while we are creating (essentially) no net jobs, then the answer is Yes. The Government manipulates the UE numbers in a variety of ways. One way is to not count millions of unemployed people as unemployed b/c they don't apply for benefits, have maxed out benefits, etc.
Earlier this year, I heard the BLS artificially lowered the UE rate through another means. I can't recally exactly, but think it was by adjusting the total number of jobs available. I think they lowered the total number of jobs in the US and then took out a group with a 100% UE rate. For example, going from (14,000,000/130,000,000) UE to (12,000,000/128,000,000) UE. Something like this; don't recall exactly, though.
If you're asking how is the UE rate declining while we are creating (essentially) no net jobs, then the answer is Yes. The Government manipulates the UE numbers in a variety of ways. One way is to not count millions of unemployed people as unemployed b/c they don't apply for benefits, have maxed out benefits, etc.
That's not manipulation - it's the DEFINITION OF THE INDEX. You might not agree it accurately represents the employment scenario, but it's not "manipulation." If people, politicians, and analysts want to over-interpret it, then that's their problem.
Sorry, but this is a common complaint about the unemployment index and it is simply not true. As a climate scientist, I deal with this issue of "manipulation" vs. "definition" everyday at work. For example, the definition of an El Nino event is when a certain temperature index exceeds 1.5 standard deviations off its normal. If the index measures 1 std dev., then it certainly means that the conditions are warm in the Pacific, but it is NOT an El Nino event. Does that mean I "manipulated" the data to make it not be an El Nino event?
That's not manipulation - it's the DEFINITION OF THE INDEX. You might not agree it accurately represents the employment scenario, but it's not "manipulation." If people, politicians, and analysts want to over-interpret it, then that's their problem.
Sorry, but this is a common complaint about the unemployment index and it is simply not true. As a climate scientist, I deal with this issue of "manipulation" vs. "definition" everyday at work. For example, the definition of an El Nino event is when a certain temperature index exceeds 1.5 standard deviations off its normal. If the index measures 1 std dev., then it certainly means that the conditions are warm in the Pacific, but it is NOT an El Nino event. Does that mean I "manipulated" the data to make it not be an El Nino event?
Bottom line - define another index and use that.
Yup.
The whole "the government manipulates the UE Rate" argument simply shows how incredibily ignorant some posters are. The fact is, the government statisticians do the best job they can at determining the number of unemployed - that's the reason for the different types of UE rates (U-6, U-3 etc). Furthermore these statisticians are the SAME folks who crunched the numbers under BOTH Democratic AND GOP Administrations and they crunch those those numbers essentially the same way no matter WHO is in charge.
That's not manipulation - it's the DEFINITION OF THE INDEX. You might not agree it accurately represents the employment scenario, but it's not "manipulation." If people, politicians, and analysts want to over-interpret it, then that's their problem.
Sorry, but this is a common complaint about the unemployment index and it is simply not true. As a climate scientist, I deal with this issue of "manipulation" vs. "definition" everyday at work. For example, the definition of an El Nino event is when a certain temperature index exceeds 1.5 standard deviations off its normal. If the index measures 1 std dev., then it certainly means that the conditions are warm in the Pacific, but it is NOT an El Nino event. Does that mean I "manipulated" the data to make it not be an El Nino event?
Bottom line - define another index and use that.
Then why are the numbers so wrong? How does the UE rate decline by 0.8% (a HUGE decrease) in 2-3 months when there are only 300,000 or so net jobs created over that time frame.
If we need 125,000 jobs/month just to maintain the UE rate, it would take a net of around 1,000,000 jobs to decrease the UE rate by 0.8%. I may call it manipulation, you may call it an index (that is not accurate whatsoever), but the information is still wrong. The name doesn't matter.
The numbers are total BS; whether they are intentionally doctored or based on silly indices/calculations, it doesn't matter. The real UE rate is FAR worse than 9% and most people know it!
Problem with your post - aside from the horrendous typing - is that Obama isn't really governing "from the left". It's only the rightwing lunatics who think that, the folks on the Left certainly don't think he's "governing from the left".
Then why are the numbers so wrong? How does the UE rate decline by 0.8% (a HUGE decrease) in 2-3 months when there are only 300,000 or so net jobs created over that time frame.
If we need 125,000 jobs/month just to maintain the UE rate, it would take a net of around 1,000,000 jobs to decrease the UE rate by 0.8%. I may call it manipulation, you may call it an index (that is not accurate whatsoever), but the information is still wrong. The name doesn't matter.
The numbers are total BS; whether they are intentionally doctored or based on silly indices/calculations, it doesn't matter. The real UE rate is FAR worse than 9% and most people know it!
Like most folks who throw around the accusation that that the government manipulates the UE rate you're clearly pretty ignorant of what the UE number represents & how it's generated.
First off - there is NOT just a SINGLE UE rate. The BLS calculates 6 different UE rate values each and every month. Betweens these 6 different rates the BLS is making it's best effort to calculate things like "how many people are unemployed, looking for a job & receiveing unemployment", "how many people are unemployed, looking for a job but no longer receiving unemployment", "how many people are unemployed, no longer receiving unemployment but no longer looking for a job because they are discouraged", etc, etc, etc. Determining these things are not always easy - particularly when you are looking at the category containing folks no longer receiving unemployment & possibly no longer even looking for a job. For example some folks out of work for a long period of time & no longer receiving unemployment do things like "go back to school" or "become pregnant and have a baby" or "start their own business". In cases like this folks who have dropped off the radar shouldn't really be counted as "unemployed" anymore since they are not really wanting to be part of the labor market at this precise moment - but how do you even determine how many of these there really are? In a country of 300,000,000+ people calculating the TRUE unemployment rate is pretty darned tricky & full of uncertainty no matter WHAT method you used to derive your numbers.
With that said, as I mentioned, the BLS generates 6 different UE numbers every single month in an effort to generate the best picture it can. These numbers are never meant to be 100% accurate (as there is NO WAY to do that). What they are meant to do is to give a picture over time that represents a series of relative snapshots of how today compares with times past so that the government can have an overall picture of the labor market and a "general" idea of how many people are unemployed. These 6 rates are as follows:
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force - currently 5.5%
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force - currently 5.6%
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force - currently 9% (this is the "traditional UE and the one most quoted)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers - currently 9.6%
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force - currently 10.7%
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
- currently 16.1%
With China edging toward not using the U.S. dollar in trade, I don't think the economy is going to be improving.
No way China is going to do that anytime soon.
Ken
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.
That means Obama does have a shot at losing. 
