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.
Mircea just destroyed LordBalfor. There is nothing worse than a sore loser. Ken, admit that you lost and move on. Adapt your future choices to reflect reality.
It's really nice of you to lend moral support like this but...he's only destroyed himself in this thread with his awful statistics.
He and a few others keep arguing that the non-seasonally adjusted rate is the ones to look at, forgetting that it's lower than the seasonally adjusted rate. Brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster
Worse, low oil prices will affect consumer's spending behavior, which will inevitably put them in more debt, which will be realized when oil prices rise again.
As wages continue to fall, people will realize how short sighted they were in their purchases and investments, as the economy, which is heavily interdependent suffers even further.
It appears this right-winger is in the bargaining stage of his grieving process. An improving economy is like a punch to the heart for your typical "patriotic" conservative.
Mircea just destroyed LordBalfor. There is nothing worse than a sore loser. Ken, admit that you lost and move on. Adapt your future choices to reflect reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster
Worse, low oil prices will affect consumer's spending behavior, which will inevitably put them in more debt, which will be realized when oil prices rise again.
As wages continue to fall, people will realize how short sighted they were in their purchases and investments, as the economy, which is heavily interdependent suffers even further.
Both your posts are utter nonsense, unrelated to reality in any way shape of form.
Manufacturing is practically dead in the United States. If I have to answer to shareholders, why wouldn't I take advantage of the lower labor rates abroad, and set up my manufacturing facilities? In some cases, the infrastructure is already there and I only have to lease the equipment, and pay far less for labor which is becoming an even more significant factor as health care costs add to the costs of employees in the US.
Additionally, even in industries that require coding or programming can be accomplished for far less money in developing nations. If I needed IT support or software development, I could create a performance based payment structure and outsource the development to India for example.
There are many avenues available for me to find the past performance history of some of these companies thanks to the internet, so I would have no qualms with doing that, assuming I did the right kind of market research. Are people under the illusion that Americans are smarter than foreigners?
Look at the requirements for entry into schools such as IIM-A. The minimum GMAT is 770! This is the American exceptionalism that Putin was talking about.
Ken exemplifies this. He cannot admit that he's wrong when he's clearly out of his league going against Mircea. Arrogance like Ken's will lead to his inevitable demise. People need to wake up to reality.
And yet "somehow" I "magically" accurately called the bottom of the stock market back in 2009, accurately noted the turnaround in the economy at roughly the same time, correctly predicted the election AND re-election of Obama, predicted the collapse of gold, accurately denied wingnut claims that the U.S. dollar was going to collapse, did the same for their idiotic claims that there would be hyperinflation, accurately predicted the that deficit would turn around, accurately predicted that the u-3 unemployment rate would drop below 6% by the end of 2014 (when even the government budget office predicted it wouldn't happen until 2015), etc, etc, etc - ALL of which are documented by posts by my ON THIS VERY BOARD over the last 6 years.
How many of those things did Mircea accurately predict here?
None that I recall.
Hmmmmmm
It's really nice of you to lend moral support like this but...he's only destroyed himself in this thread with his awful statistics.
They're only "awful" because you can't refute them, and they disprove your claims.
Aside from that, you have no justified criticisms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
He and a few others keep arguing that the non-seasonally adjusted rate is the ones to look at, forgetting that it's lower than the seasonally adjusted rate. Brilliant.
Seasonally Adjusted Workers do not pay taxes; they don't wear sweaters; they're not good dancers; and they don't play drums.
That's because Seasonally Adjusted Workers do not exist -- they're a figment of statistical data manipulation.
LNU02000000
(Unadj) Employment Level
147,666,000 November 2014
147,190,000 December 2014
---------------
476,000Americans lost their job between November and December.
That is what really happened in your economy, so naturally it's lower than the artificial Seasonally Adjusted rate.
To reveal your inner-Hypocrite, if a publicly traded US corporation took an unadjusted loss of $476 Million but reported Seasonally Adjusted profits of $230 Million, you'd be throwing a temper tantrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
An improving economy is like a punch to the heart for your typical "patriotic" conservative.
Your economy is not improving, and the effects of the "unexpected" job losses due to collapsing oil prices, is unknown at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein
Why do Republicans hate America?
Why do morons assume that anyone who is critical of Obama or the economy is a Republican?
They're only "awful" because you can't refute them, and they disprove your claims.
How so? There has been a negligible difference between the two rates over the years, and the non-seasonally adjusted rate is currently 5.4. There's no point in refuting numbers that help our side's argument.
Back in July Los Angeles technically lost 60,000 jobs for the month of July. Disastrous, until you looked closer and realized those losses came from schools that were on hiatus. Those "job losses" quickly returned the following month.
Only posters who desperately want this country to stay in 2008-2010 doldrums forever would fail to see the value of seasonally-adjusted numbers.
Yes, RELATIVE to the POPULATION - and not just the NUMBERS of people in that population, but the MAKEUP of that population as well. Do you really think a population with more old people is going to have the same LFPR as a population with few old people?
Really?
REALLY?
If you ever stop talking in circles, then you'd know that your point was refuted here...
1978 3.94%
1984 3.67%
1977 3.30%
1973 3.26%
1972 3.20%
1955 3.17%
1976 3.02%
1979 2.64%
1969 2.45%
1956 2.45%
1965 2.39%
2000 2.39%
1966 2.38%
1987 2.37%
1959 2.33%
1948 2.15%
1994 2.14%
1964 2.11%
1997 2.09%
1988 2.08%
1986 2.08%
1950 2.04%
1968 1.97%
1989 1.92%
1967 1.91%
1974 1.88%
1985 1.86%
2006 1.78%
1951 1.68%
2012 1.68%
2005 1.66%
1960 1.65%
2014 1.52%
That's the relationship between jobs created and the size of your labor force.....um, you know, which excludes elderly non-working people.
2000 2.39%
2006 1.78%
2012 1.68%
2005 1.66%
2014 1.52%
I presented your phony data in 3 different contexts:
1] 3 Million jobs as a percentage of your working age population;
2] 3 Million jobs relative to the increase in working age population from 2013-2014;
3] 3 Million jobs relative to the size of your labor force -- those people actually seeking work.
By any objective measure, it's a lack-luster performance.
When your economy is adding 5 Million workers per year for 3 consecutive years, then you can say your economy is turning around and perhaps even improving.
Until then, your economy is still stumbling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Now, in regards to your claim that "no government agency uses Seasonally Adjusted data in any of their subsequent calculations or projections" - well, that just shows once again that there is no way in H*LL that you are "trained in economics". First off the BLS does use seasonally adjusted data in subsequent calculations. Just look at Summary Table A:
And yet "somehow" I "magically" accurately called the bottom of the stock market back in 2009,....
So? Stock Markets are irrelevant -- they are not a requirement for any economy to function.
The stock market lost 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days, yet during that time the GDP was clocking in at 12.5% per quarter.
What's the relationship between economic performance and stock values? None.
The stock market sets continuous records over a period of 651 days, yet you were in the midst of the 1957-1961 Recession.
Note that the recession was the primary reason JFK reduced the 91% upper tax bracket.
What's the relationship between economic performance and stock values? None.
The stock market lost 45.1% of its value over a period of 694 days between January 1973 to December 1974, yet GDP grew at rates of 1.03% per quarter to as much as 3.77% per quarter, averaging 2.24% per quarter over those 8 quarters.
What's the relationship between economic performance and stock values? None.
Historically, the DJIA has performed best when the economy was not good.
You've proven yourself to be a bad investment adviser.
But, then, you're one of the Liberal Elite so you don't really give a damn about the common people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
... accurately noted the turnaround in the economy at roughly the same time,...
Your economy has not turned around.
BLS projected that through 2018 there would be 50.6 Million jobs, or 5.06 Million per year.
That breaks down to 421,666 jobs per month.
The BLS also projected that 67% of those jobs would be available because Boomers retired (or died).
That would be about 282,516 jobs per month.
Your job growth is so anemic, you aren't even replacing the Boomers who retire.
Need I remind you,....
New York Times August 8, 2003
Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, and job growth in August and September was stronger than the government initially estimated, the Labor Department reported yesterday. It was the greatest job growth over three months since late 2000. Still, the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long termand are far smaller than the average gain over the last 50 years when the economy was growing as rapidly as it has been recently. The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time.
San Fransisco Chronicle, April 3, 2004
Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the biggest monthly gain since March 2000, when the air was just beginning to rush out of the Internet bubble. Still, some experts cautioned that one month of roaring payroll growth doesn’t mean that the labor market has been restored to full health. "It’s a bit too early to celebrate," said Wells Fargo economist Sung Won Sohn. "If you look at the average for the last eight months, it’s been only 95, 000 jobs per month. That’s far below the 150,000 to 200,000 we need to absorb the new entrants to the labor force."
Washington Post, September 4, 2004 Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. The nation needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, according to economists.
Los Angeles Times September 4, 2004
U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4%. Employers need to add 125,000 to 150,000 net new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, economists estimate.It would take even more growth to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, which climbed from 3.8% in April 2000 to a post-recession peak of 6.3% in June 2003.
The Boston Globe January 8, 2005
US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, andjust enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.
Those articles are from 10+ years ago --- your population has increased since then, meaning you need even more jobs per month to absorb new and returning entrants, in addition to keeping pace with population growth.
As a point of fact, you are 13.4 Million workers short of where you need to be.
If your economy turned around as you claim it has, then you wouldn't be short 13.4 Million workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
... correctly predicted the election AND re-election of Obama,....
So? What's that got to do with Economics?
I did not make any predictions about elections.
I'm not a Republican, so I would have never voted for McCan't or Robamney....and didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
.... predicted the collapse of gold,...
So what?
Oh, I forgot....you're a Liberal Elitist.
The Common People have more important things on their mind....like corn prices....
09-07-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
A lot of people, myself included, believe the USDA will report lower corn yields in August -- and they will do that tomorrow/today (Thursday September 8). Corn is at historic highs and is now higher than wheat. Some ethanol plants are using wheat with corn, because wheat is $0.19/bushel cheaper. Tyson reported a 21% drop in earnings because of corn prices.
If the USDA reports low corn crop yields, I'd expect corn to get close to $7/bushel (it's $6.75+ right now).
Anyway, the price of gasoline has more to do with the switch from reformulated to conventional, and the price of corn which affects the price of ethanol.
Nice call, hope you had some money down on that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I don't do stocks or futures. Other people can, I don't have a problem with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
... accurately denied wingnut claims that the U.S. dollar was going to collapse, did the same for their idiotic claims that there would be hyperinflation,....
I did, too, but the difference is that I explained why that was so, whereas you just spouted the Party motto over and over, without any understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
.... accurately predicted the that deficit would turn around,...
And yet federal debt is growing faster than any agency projected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
... accurately predicted that the u-3 unemployment rate would drop below 6% by the end of 2014....
Meanwhile, 32+% of unemployed persons are unemployed for more than 27 Weeks (see LNU03025703).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
How many of those things did Mircea accurately predict here?
This thread isn't about predictions, it's about admitting that Seasonally Adjusted Workers aren't alive.
If you ever stop talking in circles, then you'd know that your point was refuted here...
1978 3.94%
1984 3.67%
1977 3.30%
1973 3.26%
1972 3.20%
1955 3.17%
1976 3.02%
1979 2.64%
1969 2.45%
1956 2.45%
1965 2.39%
2000 2.39%
1966 2.38%
1987 2.37%
1959 2.33%
1948 2.15%
1994 2.14%
1964 2.11%
1997 2.09%
1988 2.08%
1986 2.08%
1950 2.04%
1968 1.97%
1989 1.92%
1967 1.91%
1974 1.88%
1985 1.86%
2006 1.78%
1951 1.68%
2012 1.68%
2005 1.66%
1960 1.65%
2014 1.52%
That's the relationship between jobs created and the size of your labor force.....um, you know, which excludes elderly non-working people.
Bullsh*t. The labor force does NOT exclude elderly non-working people. There is NO upper boundary on the labor force. It is ANY 16+ who is not institutionalized and not in the military. They ONLY elderly people excluded are those who are in old-folks homes etc. Any elderly person who lives on their own no matter what their age is INCLUDED in the labor force.
2000 2.39%
2006 1.78%
2012 1.68%
2005 1.66%
2014 1.52%
I presented your phony data in 3 different contexts:
1] 3 Million jobs as a percentage of your working age population;
2] 3 Million jobs relative to the increase in working age population from 2013-2014;
3] 3 Million jobs relative to the size of your labor force -- those people actually seeking work.
By any objective measure, it's a lack-luster performance.
Again, comparisons to the labor force are not really relevant because your comparisions don't take into account the MAKEUP of the labor force.
When your economy is adding 5 Million workers per year for 3 consecutive years, then you can say your economy is turning around and perhaps even improving.
Until then, your economy is still stumbling.
Um, Ken, that table is Seasonally Adjusted data.
Objectively measuring....
With such a low percentage of the population actually in the labor force, we have an historically large pool of people who not working. So with so few people in the labor force I'm not surprised when we see a surge in new jobs, because there are so many people without jobs.
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/...1509343029.gif
Crowing about the jobs created in 2014 ignores the ugly side of our economy, we are bleeding businesses faster than we are creating new startup businesses. The horrible banking crash in 2008 saw a smaller percentage of new businesses which was smaller than the percentage of businesses that closed down that year. In other words the birth rate of jobs was less than the rate of death. We have not been able to reverse that trend since 2008.
Bullsh*t. The labor force does NOT exclude elderly non-working people. There is NO upper boundary on the labor force. It is ANY 16+ who is not institutionalized and not in the military. They ONLY elderly people excluded are those who are in old-folks homes etc. Any elderly person who lives on their own no matter what their age is INCLUDED in the labor force.
Ken
It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about and would quit misleading people. The labor force is:
"The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary."
Obviously if they're not in the labor force they're not employed or unemployed:
"Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching."
The civilian noninstitutional population is:
"Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces."
You keep conflating the two as if they're the same. You're either being purposefully dishonest or you have no clue wtf you're talking about.
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.
