Black Voters Put Up Or Shut Up

[owebo]

poor RW's .. and they wonder why they lose.

Poor fascists...they wonder why America and the world hates them.....

 

[pinqy]

I'm disappointed in you.

What that I'm not relying on false, skewed numbers?

I'm disappointed that you are playing that sad lame game.

The number ( formula ) that I use is the same one that we have used for decades when discussing the unemployment rate in this nation. It's the standard.

For some reason, you think using a different formula is better. Is it a need to try and convince yourself or others that the US economy is in shambles?

We are almost at what economists call "full employment".

I'm talking about reality not the feel good numbers the government has reported for decades, it's no game.

Dude.....what number do you want to use? Give it to me. Then list it for July of every year starting in 2000. Let's see how shitty we are doing today.

Thanks.

The reality is in areas that normally recover quickly have recovered, those areas that recover much more slowly are at level or just starting to recover, the unemployment rate is under-reported (as always). According to some economists we have till 2018 before the economy makes a full recovery and it won't be because of anything Obama did, it's just the natural process. Our real unemployment is somewhere around 10 to 12%

How are you defining "real unemployment" and what makes it real?

 

[Ringel05]

What that I'm not relying on false, skewed numbers?

I'm disappointed that you are playing that sad lame game.

The number ( formula ) that I use is the same one that we have used for decades when discussing the unemployment rate in this nation. It's the standard.

For some reason, you think using a different formula is better. Is it a need to try and convince yourself or others that the US economy is in shambles?

We are almost at what economists call "full employment".

I'm talking about reality not the feel good numbers the government has reported for decades, it's no game.

Dude.....what number do you want to use? Give it to me. Then list it for July of every year starting in 2000. Let's see how shitty we are doing today.

Thanks.

The reality is in areas that normally recover quickly have recovered, those areas that recover much more slowly are at level or just starting to recover, the unemployment rate is under-reported (as always). According to some economists we have till 2018 before the economy makes a full recovery and it won't be because of anything Obama did, it's just the natural process. Our real unemployment is somewhere around 10 to 12%

How are you defining "real unemployment" and what makes it real?

The government under-reports on a consistent basis, one of the primary reasons for that is sampling range and criteria plus the number of people who actually reply to government sampling surveys. So what happens? The government comes up with what they consider an "educated guess" based on the data they have plus then number of non respondents.
Jake was focusing specifically on those not actively looking for for in a failed attempt to discredit me, there are more criteria than that demographic and people on unemployment. There are those in that demographic who may have temporarily stopped looking for a week or a month, there are those who constantly looking but not receiving any unemployment compensation (not the only metric the government uses). Have you been looking for work lately? Have you been on the opposite side receiving hundreds (sometimes thousands) of resumes for one job?
Besides, my personal criteria includes underemployed, many of whom were once fully employed in higher paying jobs that no longer exist in the numbers they used to exist at.

 

[pinqy]

I'm disappointed that you are playing that sad lame game.

The number ( formula ) that I use is the same one that we have used for decades when discussing the unemployment rate in this nation. It's the standard.

For some reason, you think using a different formula is better. Is it a need to try and convince yourself or others that the US economy is in shambles?

We are almost at what economists call "full employment".

I'm talking about reality not the feel good numbers the government has reported for decades, it's no game.

Dude.....what number do you want to use? Give it to me. Then list it for July of every year starting in 2000. Let's see how shitty we are doing today.

Thanks.

The reality is in areas that normally recover quickly have recovered, those areas that recover much more slowly are at level or just starting to recover, the unemployment rate is under-reported (as always). According to some economists we have till 2018 before the economy makes a full recovery and it won't be because of anything Obama did, it's just the natural process. Our real unemployment is somewhere around 10 to 12%

How are you defining "real unemployment" and what makes it real?

The government under-reports on a consistent basis, one of the primary reasons for that is sampling range and criteria plus the number of people who actually reply to government sampling surveys.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. The response rate for the CPS is around 90%, which is fantastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of under-reporting.

So what happens? The government comes up with what they consider an "educated guess" based on the data they have plus then number of non respondents.

They impute based on the responses of similar households in the same area. What would you have them do?

Jake was focusing specifically on those not actively looking for for in a failed attempt to discredit me, there are more criteria than that demographic and people on unemployment. There are those in that demographic who may have temporarily stopped looking for a week or a month, there are those who constantly looking but not receiving any unemployment compensation (not the only metric the government uses).

The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment compensation..it's not a factor at all in the national statistics. Someone who stopped looking for anything under 4 weeks are still classified as Unemployed.

Interesting...I never thought about this before but since the reference week is the week that contains the 12th, and the search requirement is for the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, if someone looked for work on June 19th, and then not at all for the rest of June or July at all, he would be classified as unemployed for July. And then if he looked for work on August 13th, the last day of the August reference week, then he'd be Unemployed for August. So that's just short of 8 week without job search and still classified as unemployed.

But in any case, since the reports are for that month, someone not looking that month should not be considered unemployed for that month. They start looking again, and they're back in.

Besides, my personal criteria includes underemployed, many of whom were once fully employed in higher paying jobs that no longer exist in the numbers they used to exist at.

There's no way to measure that in any meaningful way.

 

[Ringel05]

I'm talking about reality not the feel good numbers the government has reported for decades, it's no game.

Dude.....what number do you want to use? Give it to me. Then list it for July of every year starting in 2000. Let's see how shitty we are doing today.

Thanks.

The reality is in areas that normally recover quickly have recovered, those areas that recover much more slowly are at level or just starting to recover, the unemployment rate is under-reported (as always). According to some economists we have till 2018 before the economy makes a full recovery and it won't be because of anything Obama did, it's just the natural process. Our real unemployment is somewhere around 10 to 12%

How are you defining "real unemployment" and what makes it real?

The government under-reports on a consistent basis, one of the primary reasons for that is sampling range and criteria plus the number of people who actually reply to government sampling surveys.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. The response rate for the CPS is around 90%, which is fantastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of under-reporting.

So what happens? The government comes up with what they consider an "educated guess" based on the data they have plus then number of non respondents.

They impute based on the responses of similar households in the same area. What would you have them do?

Jake was focusing specifically on those not actively looking for for in a failed attempt to discredit me, there are more criteria than that demographic and people on unemployment. There are those in that demographic who may have temporarily stopped looking for a week or a month, there are those who constantly looking but not receiving any unemployment compensation (not the only metric the government uses).

The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment compensation..it's not a factor at all in the national statistics. Someone who stopped looking for anything under 4 weeks are still classified as Unemployed.

Interesting...I never thought about this before but since the reference week is the week that contains the 12th, and the search requirement is for the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, if someone looked for work on June 19th, and then not at all for the rest of June or July at all, he would be classified as unemployed for July. And then if he looked for work on August 13th, the last day of the August reference week, then he'd be Unemployed for August. So that's just short of 8 week without job search and still classified as unemployed.

But in any case, since the reports are for that month, someone not looking that month should not be considered unemployed for that month. They start looking again, and they're back in.

Besides, my personal criteria includes underemployed, many of whom were once fully employed in higher paying jobs that no longer exist in the numbers they used to exist at.

There's no way to measure that in any meaningful way.

Under-reporting; Are you claiming the government is omnipresent and omnipotent?
Surveys; Go to the Department of Labor site, they list the number of methods they use to gather data to measure unemployment, different government surveys are one major source.
Underemployment; So since we can't meaningfully measure that we're just simply asked to ignore it?
Looking at other metrics, foreclosures, household spending, etc contributes to a much larger picture providing one a much more accurate view.

 

[amrchaos]

The unemployment rate for black males is not 58%.

Black voters are Americans. America's unemployment rate is under 5%.

Thanks Obama!

As usual, blacks are making things worse. AMERICA'S unemployment rate may be below 5% but for blacks it's over 8%. Whites and Asians are well below with Hispanics right at the overall percentage. Seems the blacks are dragging things down, again.

Thanks, blacks.

Wait
Would that also mean non-blacks would have a lower unemployment rate?

So if you are not black, the economy is better. So what is your complaint?

Stats are not as pretty as you like them? For the right, that is good politically!!

 

[pinqy]

Dude.....what number do you want to use? Give it to me. Then list it for July of every year starting in 2000. Let's see how shitty we are doing today.

Thanks.

The reality is in areas that normally recover quickly have recovered, those areas that recover much more slowly are at level or just starting to recover, the unemployment rate is under-reported (as always). According to some economists we have till 2018 before the economy makes a full recovery and it won't be because of anything Obama did, it's just the natural process. Our real unemployment is somewhere around 10 to 12%

How are you defining "real unemployment" and what makes it real?

The government under-reports on a consistent basis, one of the primary reasons for that is sampling range and criteria plus the number of people who actually reply to government sampling surveys.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. The response rate for the CPS is around 90%, which is fantastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of under-reporting.

So what happens? The government comes up with what they consider an "educated guess" based on the data they have plus then number of non respondents.

They impute based on the responses of similar households in the same area. What would you have them do?

Jake was focusing specifically on those not actively looking for for in a failed attempt to discredit me, there are more criteria than that demographic and people on unemployment. There are those in that demographic who may have temporarily stopped looking for a week or a month, there are those who constantly looking but not receiving any unemployment compensation (not the only metric the government uses).

The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment compensation..it's not a factor at all in the national statistics. Someone who stopped looking for anything under 4 weeks are still classified as Unemployed.

Interesting...I never thought about this before but since the reference week is the week that contains the 12th, and the search requirement is for the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, if someone looked for work on June 19th, and then not at all for the rest of June or July at all, he would be classified as unemployed for July. And then if he looked for work on August 13th, the last day of the August reference week, then he'd be Unemployed for August. So that's just short of 8 week without job search and still classified as unemployed.

But in any case, since the reports are for that month, someone not looking that month should not be considered unemployed for that month. They start looking again, and they're back in.

Besides, my personal criteria includes underemployed, many of whom were once fully employed in higher paying jobs that no longer exist in the numbers they used to exist at.

There's no way to measure that in any meaningful way.

Under-reporting; Are you claiming the government is omnipresent and omnipotent?

Of course not. But under-reporting is only an aspect of a count, not a survey. What is your evidence that the CPS consistently underestimates the number of unemployed rather than overestimates it?

Surveys; Go to the Department of Labor site, they list the number of methods they use to gather data to measure unemployment, different government surveys are one major source.

I worked at BLS for over a decade and I was one of the people to go to who would explain the methodology. The national unemployment rate comes solely from the Current Population Survey. For local area statistics, other sources, including UI claims are used to supplement the CPS, but eligibility or receipt for UI benefits has never ever been part of the classification as unemployed.

Underemployment; So since we can't meaningfully measure that we're just simply asked to ignore it?

It's not useful in measuring unemployment. Let's say you want to call someone who was a CPA, but is now a burger flipper at McDonalds for 30 hours a week "Unemployed" because he is underemployed. Now you have the situation where he is unemployed, but the teenager next to him working 20 hours/week is employed. That's a severe distortion. And let's say our accountant is no longer an accountant because he embezzled from his firm, got caught and went to jai. With his felony conviction is he really underemployed working at McDonalds?

Looking at other metrics, foreclosures, household spending, etc contributes to a much larger picture providing one a much more accurate view.

A broader view, not necessarily more accurate. And at what cost? The official unemployment rate gives the most accurate picture of how much actually available labor is not being used.

The U-6 doesn't tell us that. It tells us how much potentially available in the short term labor is not being used to its maximum. Useful...but tells a completely different story and can't be compared to the U-6.

 

[jknowgood]

The unemployment rate for black males is not 58%.

Black voters are Americans. America's unemployment rate is under 5%.

Thanks Obama!

Lol, if you believe that I got some land on the moon to sell you. So tell me since blm are only representing blacks. Are you stating they aren't Americans?

 

[Ringel05]

The reality is in areas that normally recover quickly have recovered, those areas that recover much more slowly are at level or just starting to recover, the unemployment rate is under-reported (as always). According to some economists we have till 2018 before the economy makes a full recovery and it won't be because of anything Obama did, it's just the natural process. Our real unemployment is somewhere around 10 to 12%

How are you defining "real unemployment" and what makes it real?

The government under-reports on a consistent basis, one of the primary reasons for that is sampling range and criteria plus the number of people who actually reply to government sampling surveys.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. The response rate for the CPS is around 90%, which is fantastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of under-reporting.

So what happens? The government comes up with what they consider an "educated guess" based on the data they have plus then number of non respondents.

They impute based on the responses of similar households in the same area. What would you have them do?

Jake was focusing specifically on those not actively looking for for in a failed attempt to discredit me, there are more criteria than that demographic and people on unemployment. There are those in that demographic who may have temporarily stopped looking for a week or a month, there are those who constantly looking but not receiving any unemployment compensation (not the only metric the government uses).

The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment compensation..it's not a factor at all in the national statistics. Someone who stopped looking for anything under 4 weeks are still classified as Unemployed.

Interesting...I never thought about this before but since the reference week is the week that contains the 12th, and the search requirement is for the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, if someone looked for work on June 19th, and then not at all for the rest of June or July at all, he would be classified as unemployed for July. And then if he looked for work on August 13th, the last day of the August reference week, then he'd be Unemployed for August. So that's just short of 8 week without job search and still classified as unemployed.

But in any case, since the reports are for that month, someone not looking that month should not be considered unemployed for that month. They start looking again, and they're back in.

Besides, my personal criteria includes underemployed, many of whom were once fully employed in higher paying jobs that no longer exist in the numbers they used to exist at.

There's no way to measure that in any meaningful way.

Under-reporting; Are you claiming the government is omnipresent and omnipotent?

Of course not. But under-reporting is only an aspect of a count, not a survey. What is your evidence that the CPS consistently underestimates the number of unemployed rather than overestimates it?

Surveys; Go to the Department of Labor site, they list the number of methods they use to gather data to measure unemployment, different government surveys are one major source.

I worked at BLS for over a decade and I was one of the people to go to who would explain the methodology. The national unemployment rate comes solely from the Current Population Survey. For local area statistics, other sources, including UI claims are used to supplement the CPS, but eligibility or receipt for UI benefits has never ever been part of the classification as unemployed.

Underemployment; So since we can't meaningfully measure that we're just simply asked to ignore it?

It's not useful in measuring unemployment. Let's say you want to call someone who was a CPA, but is now a burger flipper at McDonalds for 30 hours a week "Unemployed" because he is underemployed. Now you have the situation where he is unemployed, but the teenager next to him working 20 hours/week is employed. That's a severe distortion. And let's say our accountant is no longer an accountant because he embezzled from his firm, got caught and went to jai. With his felony conviction is he really underemployed working at McDonalds?

Looking at other metrics, foreclosures, household spending, etc contributes to a much larger picture providing one a much more accurate view.

A broader view, not necessarily more accurate. And at what cost? The official unemployment rate gives the most accurate picture of how much actually available labor is not being used.

The U-6 doesn't tell us that. It tells us how much potentially available in the short term labor is not being used to its maximum. Useful...but tells a completely different story and can't be compared to the U-6.

Well then we have to agree to disagree especially on the use of surveys but also on the rest of it, the DOL site even says so.

The government does not over report, politicians and pundits do for their own benefit, they also under report for their own benefit. (Lies, damn lies and statistics).

Oh and you're extrapolating to the nth degree with under-employed, Stick with the first example and we'll be good. Was the rest of it deflection?

 

[pinqy]

How are you defining "real unemployment" and what makes it real?

The government under-reports on a consistent basis, one of the primary reasons for that is sampling range and criteria plus the number of people who actually reply to government sampling surveys.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. The response rate for the CPS is around 90%, which is fantastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of under-reporting.

So what happens? The government comes up with what they consider an "educated guess" based on the data they have plus then number of non respondents.

They impute based on the responses of similar households in the same area. What would you have them do?

Jake was focusing specifically on those not actively looking for for in a failed attempt to discredit me, there are more criteria than that demographic and people on unemployment. There are those in that demographic who may have temporarily stopped looking for a week or a month, there are those who constantly looking but not receiving any unemployment compensation (not the only metric the government uses).

The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment compensation..it's not a factor at all in the national statistics. Someone who stopped looking for anything under 4 weeks are still classified as Unemployed.

Interesting...I never thought about this before but since the reference week is the week that contains the 12th, and the search requirement is for the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, if someone looked for work on June 19th, and then not at all for the rest of June or July at all, he would be classified as unemployed for July. And then if he looked for work on August 13th, the last day of the August reference week, then he'd be Unemployed for August. So that's just short of 8 week without job search and still classified as unemployed.

But in any case, since the reports are for that month, someone not looking that month should not be considered unemployed for that month. They start looking again, and they're back in.

Besides, my personal criteria includes underemployed, many of whom were once fully employed in higher paying jobs that no longer exist in the numbers they used to exist at.

There's no way to measure that in any meaningful way.

Under-reporting; Are you claiming the government is omnipresent and omnipotent?

Of course not. But under-reporting is only an aspect of a count, not a survey. What is your evidence that the CPS consistently underestimates the number of unemployed rather than overestimates it?

Surveys; Go to the Department of Labor site, they list the number of methods they use to gather data to measure unemployment, different government surveys are one major source.

I worked at BLS for over a decade and I was one of the people to go to who would explain the methodology. The national unemployment rate comes solely from the Current Population Survey. For local area statistics, other sources, including UI claims are used to supplement the CPS, but eligibility or receipt for UI benefits has never ever been part of the classification as unemployed.

Underemployment; So since we can't meaningfully measure that we're just simply asked to ignore it?

It's not useful in measuring unemployment. Let's say you want to call someone who was a CPA, but is now a burger flipper at McDonalds for 30 hours a week "Unemployed" because he is underemployed. Now you have the situation where he is unemployed, but the teenager next to him working 20 hours/week is employed. That's a severe distortion. And let's say our accountant is no longer an accountant because he embezzled from his firm, got caught and went to jai. With his felony conviction is he really underemployed working at McDonalds?

Looking at other metrics, foreclosures, household spending, etc contributes to a much larger picture providing one a much more accurate view.

A broader view, not necessarily more accurate. And at what cost? The official unemployment rate gives the most accurate picture of how much actually available labor is not being used.

The U-6 doesn't tell us that. It tells us how much potentially available in the short term labor is not being used to its maximum. Useful...but tells a completely different story and can't be compared to the U-6.

Well then we have to agree to disagree especially on the use of surveys but also on the rest of it, the DOL site even says so.

No, it does not say that the National Unemployment rate uses multiple sources. Nowhere.
From today's release: Employment Situation Technical Note
This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The government does not over report, politicians and pundits do for their own benefit, they also under report for their own benefit. (Lies, damn lies and statistics).

Do you not understand how a survey works? A survey can overestimate or underestimate, but it cannot overreport or underreport.

Oh and you're extrapolating to the nth degree with under-employed, Stick with the first example and we'll be good. Was the rest of it deflection?

Ok, stick with the first example. You're ok with someone working 30 hours a week in a low-paying job being classified as unemployed while the person next to him doing the same job for fewer hours and less pay is classified as employed. That's cool with you? It doesn't distort anything?

 

[Ringel05]

The government under-reports on a consistent basis, one of the primary reasons for that is sampling range and criteria plus the number of people who actually reply to government sampling surveys.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. The response rate for the CPS is around 90%, which is fantastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of under-reporting.

So what happens? The government comes up with what they consider an "educated guess" based on the data they have plus then number of non respondents.

They impute based on the responses of similar households in the same area. What would you have them do?

Jake was focusing specifically on those not actively looking for for in a failed attempt to discredit me, there are more criteria than that demographic and people on unemployment. There are those in that demographic who may have temporarily stopped looking for a week or a month, there are those who constantly looking but not receiving any unemployment compensation (not the only metric the government uses).

The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment compensation..it's not a factor at all in the national statistics. Someone who stopped looking for anything under 4 weeks are still classified as Unemployed.

Interesting...I never thought about this before but since the reference week is the week that contains the 12th, and the search requirement is for the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, if someone looked for work on June 19th, and then not at all for the rest of June or July at all, he would be classified as unemployed for July. And then if he looked for work on August 13th, the last day of the August reference week, then he'd be Unemployed for August. So that's just short of 8 week without job search and still classified as unemployed.

But in any case, since the reports are for that month, someone not looking that month should not be considered unemployed for that month. They start looking again, and they're back in.

Besides, my personal criteria includes underemployed, many of whom were once fully employed in higher paying jobs that no longer exist in the numbers they used to exist at.

There's no way to measure that in any meaningful way.

Under-reporting; Are you claiming the government is omnipresent and omnipotent?

Of course not. But under-reporting is only an aspect of a count, not a survey. What is your evidence that the CPS consistently underestimates the number of unemployed rather than overestimates it?

Surveys; Go to the Department of Labor site, they list the number of methods they use to gather data to measure unemployment, different government surveys are one major source.

I worked at BLS for over a decade and I was one of the people to go to who would explain the methodology. The national unemployment rate comes solely from the Current Population Survey. For local area statistics, other sources, including UI claims are used to supplement the CPS, but eligibility or receipt for UI benefits has never ever been part of the classification as unemployed.

Underemployment; So since we can't meaningfully measure that we're just simply asked to ignore it?

It's not useful in measuring unemployment. Let's say you want to call someone who was a CPA, but is now a burger flipper at McDonalds for 30 hours a week "Unemployed" because he is underemployed. Now you have the situation where he is unemployed, but the teenager next to him working 20 hours/week is employed. That's a severe distortion. And let's say our accountant is no longer an accountant because he embezzled from his firm, got caught and went to jai. With his felony conviction is he really underemployed working at McDonalds?

Looking at other metrics, foreclosures, household spending, etc contributes to a much larger picture providing one a much more accurate view.

A broader view, not necessarily more accurate. And at what cost? The official unemployment rate gives the most accurate picture of how much actually available labor is not being used.

The U-6 doesn't tell us that. It tells us how much potentially available in the short term labor is not being used to its maximum. Useful...but tells a completely different story and can't be compared to the U-6.

Well then we have to agree to disagree especially on the use of surveys but also on the rest of it, the DOL site even says so.

No, it does not say that the National Unemployment rate uses multiple sources. Nowhere.
From today's release: Employment Situation Technical Note
This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The government does not over report, politicians and pundits do for their own benefit, they also under report for their own benefit. (Lies, damn lies and statistics).

Do you not understand how a survey works? A survey can overestimate or underestimate, but it cannot overreport or underreport.

Oh and you're extrapolating to the nth degree with under-employed, Stick with the first example and we'll be good. Was the rest of it deflection?

Ok, stick with the first example. You're ok with someone working 30 hours a week in a low-paying job being classified as unemployed while the person next to him doing the same job for fewer hours and less pay is classified as employed. That's cool with you? It doesn't distort anything?

Like I said, we will not come to an agreement over this as we obviously see things differently.

 

[pinqy]

I'm sorry, that's just not true. The response rate for the CPS is around 90%, which is fantastic. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of under-reporting.


They impute based on the responses of similar households in the same area. What would you have them do?


The survey doesn't even ask about unemployment compensation..it's not a factor at all in the national statistics. Someone who stopped looking for anything under 4 weeks are still classified as Unemployed.

Interesting...I never thought about this before but since the reference week is the week that contains the 12th, and the search requirement is for the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, if someone looked for work on June 19th, and then not at all for the rest of June or July at all, he would be classified as unemployed for July. And then if he looked for work on August 13th, the last day of the August reference week, then he'd be Unemployed for August. So that's just short of 8 week without job search and still classified as unemployed.

But in any case, since the reports are for that month, someone not looking that month should not be considered unemployed for that month. They start looking again, and they're back in.


There's no way to measure that in any meaningful way.

Under-reporting; Are you claiming the government is omnipresent and omnipotent?

Of course not. But under-reporting is only an aspect of a count, not a survey. What is your evidence that the CPS consistently underestimates the number of unemployed rather than overestimates it?

Surveys; Go to the Department of Labor site, they list the number of methods they use to gather data to measure unemployment, different government surveys are one major source.

I worked at BLS for over a decade and I was one of the people to go to who would explain the methodology. The national unemployment rate comes solely from the Current Population Survey. For local area statistics, other sources, including UI claims are used to supplement the CPS, but eligibility or receipt for UI benefits has never ever been part of the classification as unemployed.

Underemployment; So since we can't meaningfully measure that we're just simply asked to ignore it?

It's not useful in measuring unemployment. Let's say you want to call someone who was a CPA, but is now a burger flipper at McDonalds for 30 hours a week "Unemployed" because he is underemployed. Now you have the situation where he is unemployed, but the teenager next to him working 20 hours/week is employed. That's a severe distortion. And let's say our accountant is no longer an accountant because he embezzled from his firm, got caught and went to jai. With his felony conviction is he really underemployed working at McDonalds?

Looking at other metrics, foreclosures, household spending, etc contributes to a much larger picture providing one a much more accurate view.

A broader view, not necessarily more accurate. And at what cost? The official unemployment rate gives the most accurate picture of how much actually available labor is not being used.

The U-6 doesn't tell us that. It tells us how much potentially available in the short term labor is not being used to its maximum. Useful...but tells a completely different story and can't be compared to the U-6.

Well then we have to agree to disagree especially on the use of surveys but also on the rest of it, the DOL site even says so.

No, it does not say that the National Unemployment rate uses multiple sources. Nowhere.
From today's release: Employment Situation Technical Note
This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The government does not over report, politicians and pundits do for their own benefit, they also under report for their own benefit. (Lies, damn lies and statistics).

Do you not understand how a survey works? A survey can overestimate or underestimate, but it cannot overreport or underreport.

Oh and you're extrapolating to the nth degree with under-employed, Stick with the first example and we'll be good. Was the rest of it deflection?

Ok, stick with the first example. You're ok with someone working 30 hours a week in a low-paying job being classified as unemployed while the person next to him doing the same job for fewer hours and less pay is classified as employed. That's cool with you? It doesn't distort anything?

Like I said, we will not come to an agreement over this as we obviously see things differently.

The source of the unemployment rate isn't a matter of opinion to be agreed or disagreed with....it's a factual question! There is only one source for the national rate and unemployment compensation is not and has never been a factor.

Same thing with your claim of under-reporting. It's a meaningless concept when it comes to statistical surveys. It's not whether or not we agree if it occurs...it CANNOT occur...factually and empirically.

 

[Ringel05]

Under-reporting; Are you claiming the government is omnipresent and omnipotent?

Of course not. But under-reporting is only an aspect of a count, not a survey. What is your evidence that the CPS consistently underestimates the number of unemployed rather than overestimates it?

Surveys; Go to the Department of Labor site, they list the number of methods they use to gather data to measure unemployment, different government surveys are one major source.

I worked at BLS for over a decade and I was one of the people to go to who would explain the methodology. The national unemployment rate comes solely from the Current Population Survey. For local area statistics, other sources, including UI claims are used to supplement the CPS, but eligibility or receipt for UI benefits has never ever been part of the classification as unemployed.

Underemployment; So since we can't meaningfully measure that we're just simply asked to ignore it?

It's not useful in measuring unemployment. Let's say you want to call someone who was a CPA, but is now a burger flipper at McDonalds for 30 hours a week "Unemployed" because he is underemployed. Now you have the situation where he is unemployed, but the teenager next to him working 20 hours/week is employed. That's a severe distortion. And let's say our accountant is no longer an accountant because he embezzled from his firm, got caught and went to jai. With his felony conviction is he really underemployed working at McDonalds?

Looking at other metrics, foreclosures, household spending, etc contributes to a much larger picture providing one a much more accurate view.

A broader view, not necessarily more accurate. And at what cost? The official unemployment rate gives the most accurate picture of how much actually available labor is not being used.

The U-6 doesn't tell us that. It tells us how much potentially available in the short term labor is not being used to its maximum. Useful...but tells a completely different story and can't be compared to the U-6.

Well then we have to agree to disagree especially on the use of surveys but also on the rest of it, the DOL site even says so.

No, it does not say that the National Unemployment rate uses multiple sources. Nowhere.
From today's release: Employment Situation Technical Note
This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The government does not over report, politicians and pundits do for their own benefit, they also under report for their own benefit. (Lies, damn lies and statistics).

Do you not understand how a survey works? A survey can overestimate or underestimate, but it cannot overreport or underreport.

Oh and you're extrapolating to the nth degree with under-employed, Stick with the first example and we'll be good. Was the rest of it deflection?

Ok, stick with the first example. You're ok with someone working 30 hours a week in a low-paying job being classified as unemployed while the person next to him doing the same job for fewer hours and less pay is classified as employed. That's cool with you? It doesn't distort anything?

Like I said, we will not come to an agreement over this as we obviously see things differently.

The source of the unemployment rate isn't a matter of opinion to be agreed or disagreed with....it's a factual question! There is only one source for the national rate and unemployment compensation is not and has never been a factor.

Same thing with your claim of under-reporting. It's a meaningless concept when it comes to statistical surveys. It's not whether or not we agree if it occurs...it CANNOT occur...factually and empirically.

Okie dokie...... I have a different perspective, taking multiple factors into consideration. Again: Lies, damn lies and statistics......

 

[pinqy]

Of course not. But under-reporting is only an aspect of a count, not a survey. What is your evidence that the CPS consistently underestimates the number of unemployed rather than overestimates it?



I worked at BLS for over a decade and I was one of the people to go to who would explain the methodology. The national unemployment rate comes solely from the Current Population Survey. For local area statistics, other sources, including UI claims are used to supplement the CPS, but eligibility or receipt for UI benefits has never ever been part of the classification as unemployed.


It's not useful in measuring unemployment. Let's say you want to call someone who was a CPA, but is now a burger flipper at McDonalds for 30 hours a week "Unemployed" because he is underemployed. Now you have the situation where he is unemployed, but the teenager next to him working 20 hours/week is employed. That's a severe distortion. And let's say our accountant is no longer an accountant because he embezzled from his firm, got caught and went to jai. With his felony conviction is he really underemployed working at McDonalds?


A broader view, not necessarily more accurate. And at what cost? The official unemployment rate gives the most accurate picture of how much actually available labor is not being used.

The U-6 doesn't tell us that. It tells us how much potentially available in the short term labor is not being used to its maximum. Useful...but tells a completely different story and can't be compared to the U-6.

Well then we have to agree to disagree especially on the use of surveys but also on the rest of it, the DOL site even says so.

No, it does not say that the National Unemployment rate uses multiple sources. Nowhere.
From today's release: Employment Situation Technical Note
This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
...
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The government does not over report, politicians and pundits do for their own benefit, they also under report for their own benefit. (Lies, damn lies and statistics).

Do you not understand how a survey works? A survey can overestimate or underestimate, but it cannot overreport or underreport.

Oh and you're extrapolating to the nth degree with under-employed, Stick with the first example and we'll be good. Was the rest of it deflection?

Ok, stick with the first example. You're ok with someone working 30 hours a week in a low-paying job being classified as unemployed while the person next to him doing the same job for fewer hours and less pay is classified as employed. That's cool with you? It doesn't distort anything?

Like I said, we will not come to an agreement over this as we obviously see things differently.

The source of the unemployment rate isn't a matter of opinion to be agreed or disagreed with....it's a factual question! There is only one source for the national rate and unemployment compensation is not and has never been a factor.

Same thing with your claim of under-reporting. It's a meaningless concept when it comes to statistical surveys. It's not whether or not we agree if it occurs...it CANNOT occur...factually and empirically.

Okie dokie...... I have a different perspective, taking multiple factors into consideration. Again: Lies, damn lies and statistics......

How? How can you have a "different perspective" on simple matters of fact? I showed you a direct quote from the BLS that shows they don't use compensation as a factor and they state their only source.

Nor can you explain how you can have under-reporting in a sample survey.