Employment Report

[JDzBrain]

You know what guys, I give up. I'm called a liar by a MORON who made an ABSURD statement that even the most rudimentary application of common sense puts lie to and challenged using the minutia of fuzzy government figures to argue about a fraction of a fraction of a percent as though it CHANGES EVERYTHING...when in fact, the simplest of math is all that is required to prove the point.

You guys are even worse than typical liberal useful idiots, you are simple contrarians. Your argument amongst yourselves over how retirees are counted amounts to a FACTION OF A FRACTION of the overall work force and you would spend so many words groping to make sense of the nonsense that you can't even keep up with what you really think.

This one quote from pingy posted to me

So for Labor Force Participation, the relevant people are those that retired (or became disabled) do not do any kind of work or look for work, and are not in any kind of institution. You can't measure those from either the Social Security records or the Current Population survey.

when compared to this quote by pingy posted to Ed

Why do you think they can't be tracked? They're still in the population. When someone retires, they're leaving the labor force. They were employed but now they're not, and since they're not looking for work, they're not unemployed either and therefore now in the category of Not in the Labor Force.

shows the absolute INSANITY of the circle jerk you are engaging in. You can count retirees...but I can't or I can but Ed can't...just exactly how's this work?

And that IS a rhetorical question!

I already know what you will waste a thousand words explaining about applying to different statistical groups. But if they have the figures for on, they have them for BOTH!

Now you guys can argue the point all you want, but you're wrong and you'll always be wrong, because you don't use your brain!

Unemployment figures are based on fuzzy government math that uses POLLS to obtain the numbers of people looking for work. Why in the HELL do you think the figures for new jobs created has been revised downward for more than 40 straight months...for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY I might add. Is it because the math no longer works or because the system is being FUCKED WITH for political purposes?

Retirees ARE counted in the Labor Participation Rate by the BLS , but NOT in the Labor Forces statistics. That is a FACT that is explained in liked PDF files on the BLS site if you care to open and read that nonsense.

However, you MIGHT want to ask yourself WHY that is and see if you can't determine a way to figure this crap out that does NOT rely on arbitrary numbers, collected and collated by political appointees!

Figures lie and liars figure!

Oh, and Ed, about the conservafacist crack. Just so you have a CHANCE to escape the cycle of liberal insanity that repeating the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result represents. In political science, the logical conclusion of conservatism taken to it's extreme is ANARCHY! The logical conclusion of liberalism taken to it's extreme is FASCISM! Do NOT call me any of your family names...GENIUS!

Look it up some time!

 

[pinqy]

This one quote from pingy posted to me

So for Labor Force Participation, the relevant people are those that retired (or became disabled) do not do any kind of work or look for work, and are not in any kind of institution. You can't measure those from either the Social Security records or the Current Population survey.

when compared to this quote by pingy posted to Ed

Why do you think they can't be tracked? They're still in the population. When someone retires, they're leaving the labor force. They were employed but now they're not, and since they're not looking for work, they're not unemployed either and therefore now in the category of Not in the Labor Force.

shows the absolute INSANITY of the circle jerk you are engaging in. You can count retirees...but I can't or I can but Ed can't...just exactly how's this work?

And that IS a rhetorical question!

Rhetorical or not, I'm not sure what you're not understanding. In month A someone is working and therefore in the Labor Force. When they're interviewed again in month B, they have retired (and not doing any post-retirement work) in between the two interviews so now they are Not in the Labor Force (but still in the Population). So that's one less person in the Labor Force and one more person Not in the Labor Force. But there is no way to measure exactly how many people have done that or how much of the change is due to that (at least not with published data).

See, that wasn't too wordy or difficult.

Unemployment figures are based on fuzzy government math that uses POLLS to obtain the numbers of people looking for work.

A large sample survey like the CPS is way different from a random digit dialing poll. And the math is not at all fuzzy. But how would you suggest the data be collected if not by survey?

Why in the HELL do you think the figures for new jobs created has been revised downward for more than 40 straight months...for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY I might add. Is it because the math no longer works or because the system is being FUCKED WITH for political purposes?

Or is it because you don't know what you're talking about? Looking at the CES revisions we see that in the last 40 months (since April 2009), the final revision from the first report was an upward revision 23 times, downward revision 14 times and no revision 3 times. No idea where you got the idea it was revised downward more than 40 straight months.

Retirees ARE counted in the Labor Participation Rate by the BLS , but NOT in the Labor Forces statistics. That is a FACT that is explained in liked PDF files on the BLS site if you care to open and read that nonsense.

Well, as I pointed out to Ed, some retirees are in the Labor Force. Someone can be officially retired but still work a part time job or look for a job, in which case they are Employed or Unemployed and therefore in the Labor Force. Anyone, not just retirees, who in neither working nor looking for work is Not in the Labor Force.

I'm not sure why you keep harping on that point. Someone retiring (and not looking for or starting any post-retirement work) has left the Labor Force. You seem to be arguing that's not the case, it's hard to tell exactly what you mean.

However, you MIGHT want to ask yourself WHY that is and see if you can't determine a way to figure this crap out that does NOT rely on arbitrary numbers, collected and collated by political appointees!

BLS currently has no political appointees. They have an Acting Commissioner now who is a career civil servant. The last Commissioner, Dr. Keith Hall, who retired in January, was appointed by President Bush. Obama has nominated a new Commissioner, but she has not been confirmed by the Senate (and won't be until after Nov if Obama wins, and probably not at all if he loses).