Half a Million a week are still filing for Unemployment Insurance.

[Neubarth]

If you look at the real numbers as reported by the states, you will see that they were all the way down to almost 400,000 in September. The Federal Numbers as reported to the public in brazen news releases were claiming that UI claims at that time were close to 600,000. Why were they doing that nonsense? Simple, they wanted to stage a pretend recovery by having a long series of decreases in UI claims. So, they ran the imaginary numbers up and up and then started their pretend recovery run down. News release after news release claimed improvement when the reality was that things were getting worse and worse. All part of Obama's plan to get people to think all is well so they will put their life savings back into mutual funds so they can be ripped off again. Obama has to do that to get the Banks to financially support him at election and reelection time.

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 449,375 in the week ending Oct. 3, an increase of 3,757 from the previous week.

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 443,694 in the week ending Sept. 26, an increase of 5,878 from the previous week.

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 434,358 in the week ending Sept. 19, an increase of 21,966 from the previous week.

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 407,869 in the week ending Sept. 12

 

[pinqy]

I have never said that the UI claims have to match up with the Survey.

And I never said you did. I said you expect the Survey should match up with UI claims. Because it doesn't, you dismiss the Survey. You even said this in this very thread:

Half a million workers who feel they are qualified to receive their unemployment insurance file each and every week for that money. That adds up to two million people a month.

Yet the government will tell you that only one tenth of that number are actually unemployed at the end of the month. Supposedly all those people who filed for UI were not really out of employment after six months to a year of former steady employment, or were just demented delusional people because they never show up in the actual unemployment numbers.

Now how else is that to be interpreted except that you think that in order for the monthly UE report to be accurate it would have to match up to the initial UI claims and that because it doesn't, you reject the Survey? You continually dismiss the monthly survey as bogus because it doesn't reflect the same downturn as UI claims.

MY beef with the UI claims is that the government uses their artificial data that has no correlation with reality to say week after week that UI claims have been going down for months, when, in reality they have been going up and up and UP and UP and UP. The government has lied brazenly about the so called economic revival, and it starts with the phony Unemployment Insurance numbers.

Ah, so you should be happy with the current unadjusted figures for initial and continuing UI claims. They're much better than the officially reported seasonally adjusted numbers.
SA has initial claims going down by 5,000 and continuing claims going up by 28,000
NSA has initial claims going down 78,263 and continuing claims going down by 296,052
So by what you've been saying about seasonal adjustment and only trusting the unadjusted numbers, things are much better than the government is saying.

As for lies:

Yet the government will tell you that only one tenth of that number are actually unemployed at the end of the month.

Show me your figures to back up that statement. I bet that you will not show figures that have any relation to each other.
(Oh, he won't actually answer...just call me a liar, and other names, and assert without proof that the government figures are rigged and everyone should know it)

 

[Neubarth]

Lie after lie after lie after lie exactly like I said. Knowing that you are lying, you say that I will just accuse you of lying again. Of course I will. You are a damned liar and it is there for everybody to see.

The government claims that unemployment went down in November. Ha. Again, I will tell everybody to look at the layoffs in the factories, and look at the UI claims. The real direction is towards strongly increasing unemployment. The only valid numbers that we get are from the states, and the government screws with them all of the time.

Remember, as I have said a thousand times. It is not the number that matters as those are totally bogus. It is the direction. The Direction. The government will say DOWN to delude the investors. I point out that the only valid numbers are going up. AND, you lie like hell about it.

 

[pinqy]

Lie after lie after lie after lie exactly like I said. Knowing that you are lying, you say that I will just accuse you of lying again. Of course I will. You are a damned liar and it is there for everybody to see.

And yet you don't say that I'm lying or point out how I've misreprepresented your position.

The government claims that unemployment went down in November.

It did...sort of. If you can do the math, none of the changes in the Household data are significantly different from zero. The Unemployment level, for example, at 90% confidence changed anywhere from -708,614 to +58,614 Even accepting the point number, it's clear that many of the people no longer unemployed dropped out of the labor force.
But even the fact that the numbers are ambiguous is hopeful, because they haven't been ambiguous lately.

The only valid numbers that we get are from the states, and the government screws with them all of the time.

Which numbers are those? Do you mean the UI claims? Those improved this week, and the unadjusted numbers a lot more than the adjusted.

I point out that the only valid numbers are going up. AND, you lie like hell about it.

Now you're contradicting yourself...The most recent unadjusted UI initial claims and contnuing claims both went DOWN...a lot.

 

[Limey]

None of the data that the government puts out has any validity. They are so far off that they do not even try to pretend that their numbers have any real basis behind them. They just post shit because that is what their job is. Nobody takes that crap seriously and everybody who looks at the numbers knows from the get go that they are totally bogus. Survey, What Survey?

The use of survey data to estimate unemployment figures is quite valid. Indeed, given straight-forward economic definitions such as "actively seeking work", they are an integral data source for all nations. Potential biases are very specific (e.g. the skewing of perceptions, as seen in Britain, by the replacement of unemployment benefit with sickness benefit). Those biases are advertised by published analysis, given the datasets are available to all independent researchers.

 

[pinqy]

You don't get it...Neubarth doesn't believe there really is a survey.

 

[Neubarth]

You don't get it...Neubarth doesn't believe there really is a survey.

Not exactly a lie this time. I do not believe that there is a valid survey. Consider the fact that for years I have asked the people in the California Central Valley farming towns to let me know if anybody ever received a call from the DOL asking the questions that are supposed to be on that survey. Nobody has ever heard of anybody getting a call.

I wonder how many poor people who don't have a phone get called to participate in the survey?

 

[Neubarth]

...The most recent unadjusted UI initial claims and contnuing claims both went DOWN...a lot.

I have already addressed that. Shortened week and shortened stats with many of the states not fully reporting. Remember, I am not interested in the numbers, only the trend. The government likes to make up phony trends. That is wrong.

I am interested in the direction of the economic indicators. UI claims are not valuable for the specific number they report as nobody remembers the numbers. The average American needs to be told what to think. Tell them that things are gettin' better, and most of them believe it. To me the only important issue is if the numbers are increasing or decreasing as I have said a thousand times before. If they are rapidly increasing it should reflect in other reports.

If UI claims are rapidly increasing we have a problem. If they are consistently decreasing things are starting to get better. You do not understand that, but it is true. You see no fault in the government when they play games with the numbers and add a fifth of a million people to the weekly numbers and claim that it was "seasonally adjusted." I say that is fraud, especially when they use that artificial crap to fool the public by claiming that the UI numbers have gone down three months in a row when they have been going UP during that time.

 

[Limey]

Not exactly a lie this time. I do not believe that there is a valid survey.

Given my consultancy work I have to use these surveys frequently. There is no conspiracy theory. There is only valid random sampling techniques that, given the army of academics that use the data in their empirical research, are checked time after time

 

[JW Frogen]

Not exactly a lie this time. I do not believe that there is a valid survey.

Given my consultancy work I have to use these surveys frequently. There is no conspiracy theory. There is only valid random sampling techniques that, given the army of academics that use the data in their empirical research, are checked time after time

Most academics have agendas.

Just like the rest of us, and when it comes to the soft sceinces those agendas are much easier to conceal as objectivity.

 

[Limey]

Most academics have agendas.

All we need is for non-homogeneity. The empirical process will then naturally reveal any bias problems in the data

 

[JW Frogen]

Most academics have agendas.

All we need is for non-homogeneity. The empirical process will then naturally reveal any bias problems in the data

Yes and butterflies will fly out of Karl Marx ass creating the perfect economic equilibrium.

Shit, I might as well be talking to a Catholic Priest about whether this Shiraz is the blood of Christ.

 

[Limey]

Yes and butterflies will fly out of Karl Marx ass creating the perfect economic equilibrium.

I have no problem with your innocence of the empirical process. I wouldn't be bothering with it myself if they weren't paying me. However, I cannot deny reality. The heterogeneity in the academic base, coupled with the need to use the hypothesis testing methodology to ensure publication, leads to a plethora of robustness checks. With basic economic variables such as unemployment, that will include comparison of different data sources

 

[JW Frogen]

Yes and butterflies will fly out of Karl Marx ass creating the perfect economic equilibrium.

I have no problem with your innocence of the empirical process. I wouldn't be bothering with it myself if they weren't paying me. However, I cannot deny reality. The heterogeneity in the academic base, coupled with the need to use the hypothesis testing methodology to ensure publication, leads to a plethora of robustness checks. With basic economic variables such as unemployment, that will include comparison of different data sources

See, maybe I am confused, but empirical process is observing conditions with no ideological preconditions, and from your posts one can safely conclude, you are not really interested in that.

Now to the larger question, why is it different University faculties or economic think tanks can review a supposedly objective economic study, or macro data and come up with diametrically opposed viewpoints on what it means?

You think there might be some human subjectivity involved?

Just a hunch.

 

[JW Frogen]

And before you answer, if you believe you are not positing a subjective opinion in what is some of the worse prose I have ever read on a horribly prose crippled Internet, then perhaps you should take a basic literature course along with basic human psychology before you think you can explain how humans act writ large in the world of greed, hope and fear.

Otherwise known as an economy.

 

[Limey]

See, maybe I am confused, but empirical process is observing conditions with no ideological preconditions, and from your posts one can safely conclude, you are not really interested in that.

The empirical process will typically involve an ideological stance is taken. This is used to construct the empirical specification required to test the resulting hypothesis from that stance. This approach ensures that data mining techniques are avoided, reducing the threat of spurious conclusions. The tests for robustness, requirements to meet the quality control measures in the publication process, will ensure bias issues are studied.

Now to the larger question, why is it different University faculties or economic think tanks can review a supposedly objective economic study, or macro data and come up with diametrically opposed viewpoints on what it means?

There are certainly methods to support one's bias. For example, if one supported the death penalty, one could choose a specific form of execution and empirical specification (i.e. restrict the regression analysis to a sub-set of economic variables consistent with a simple understanding of rationality) to maximise the estimated deterrence effects. However, this only describes the need to undertake literature review techniques. It also has no relevance to this thread. We merely have a simple reality: those robustness checks would lead to full disclosure of any survey limitations

 

[JW Frogen]

Have you studied you biases?

Notice how you never present any empirical evidence for your rather dull and rhetorical, rather than empirical, conclusions?

 

[Limey]

Have you studied you biases?

Notice how you never present any empirical evidence for your rather dull and rhetorical, rather than empirical, conclusions?

The empirical evidence for this thread would require references to academic journals that describe the data flaws in the survey data. Those journal articles do not exist. Whilst plucking out make-believe information might be a joy for some, its not something that I could tolerate

 

[JW Frogen]

Have you studied you biases?

Notice how you never present any empirical evidence for your rather dull and rhetorical, rather than empirical, conclusions?

The empirical evidence for this thread would require references to academic journals that describe the data flaws in the survey data. Those journal articles do not exist. Whilst plucking out make-believe information might be a joy for some, its not something that I could tolerate

Which you do not have because you are not concerned with the empirical, you are concerned with some of the worst prose, the double speak 'I will jargon you into submission idiot shit', I have ever read.

You are pretending to think.

If I were you I would look up Socrates.

He can save you.

 

[Limey]

Which you do not have because you are not concerned with the empirical, you are concerned with some of the worst prose, the double speak 'I will jargon you into submission idiot shit', I have ever read.

I've stated a slice of obviousness: the data is used by a wide ranging bunch of researchers and, given the standard use of robustness checks in the empirical process, this will ensure that data problems are revealed. You haven't responded with anything of note. I have no problem with that. Arguing against obviousness isn't an easy exercise. I recognise the difficulties you face