Obama Should Be applauded On The Economy

[Oldstyle]

Ummm, there has been only one definitional change for Labor Force between Reagan and Obama: Under Reagan, people who had been hired but had not yet started work were considered Unemployed regardless of whether or not they had looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. Since 1994, that exception was dropped and even if someone had been hired (but not yet employed), they were still required to have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks to be considered Unemployed. This change did not have a significant effect on the Unemployment numbers.

No one in the Labor Force has been "ignored."

I know it's difficult for you to admit that numbers are being manipulated under this administration.

Because they're not. The methodology has not changed. If you have evidence of manipulation, please present it. But there is none. The Obama administration has made no changes that would effect the UE rate or levels etc. More data has been added, and collection of duration of unemployment has improved, but the methodology hasn't changed.

The administration doesn't even have access to the data until the night before release, when the report has already been written.

But please TRY to look at unbiased sources, that don't support your preconceived conclusion, for some honest information.

I have. I've looked at the unbiased sources, and there is no manipulation. Stop reading bloggers who have never studied labor statistics and read the actual methodolgy yourself.

With all due respect, Pinqy...you don't invent a new statistic "jobs saved" unless the existing statistics were god awful which is exactly what this Administration did. If that's not an attempt to manipulate numbers, I don't know what is.

 

[pinqy]

...No one in the Labor Force has been "ignored."

The hell you say.

Please feel free to present your evidence that people who should properly have been classified as in the Labor Force were not. The definitions haven't changed.

Think about how many times Obama's bragged about all the jobs he's created. The fact is that since he took office there are fewer employees and this means jobs have been destroyed not created. Contrast that to Reagan's soaring employment levels:

Your chart is a little off. Ok, a lot off. The Obama Employment levels have never been below 100 thousand. It looks like you're using two different scales.

But in any case, yes, the Employment level is lower now than Jan 09. In Jan 2009 there were 133,561,000 non-farm pay roll jobs. By Feb 2010 it dropped to 129,244,000. And in May 2012, it's back up to 133,009,000. Still below the level when he took office, but 3.8 million higher than its lowest. So then it becomes spin, with Democrats saying it's a gain of 3.8 million while ignoring that it's still a net loss since he took office, and Republicans saying it's a loss since he took office and ignoring that it has been going up.

Not that that has anything to do with your claim of ignoring people in the workforce. Nice attempt at distraction, though.

 

[pinqy]

I know it's difficult for you to admit that numbers are being manipulated under this administration.

Because they're not. The methodology has not changed. If you have evidence of manipulation, please present it. But there is none. The Obama administration has made no changes that would effect the UE rate or levels etc. More data has been added, and collection of duration of unemployment has improved, but the methodology hasn't changed.

The administration doesn't even have access to the data until the night before release, when the report has already been written.

But please TRY to look at unbiased sources, that don't support your preconceived conclusion, for some honest information.

I have. I've looked at the unbiased sources, and there is no manipulation. Stop reading bloggers who have never studied labor statistics and read the actual methodolgy yourself.

With all due respect, Pinqy...you don't invent a new statistic "jobs saved" unless the existing statistics were god awful which is exactly what this Administration did. If that's not an attempt to manipulate numbers, I don't know what is.

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

 

[expat_panama]

...Your chart is a little off...

LOL!!

OK, it's been fun and thanks for the ride but it sounds like we're reaching our limit here. I'm kind of stuck on economics with hard numbers here and I'll confess that I'm just not very good at political banter. Don't get me wrong, America needs politics, but it's a field that I do well to leave to experienced professionals. Besides, for me making money on what's happening in the economy is so much more rewarding...

Cheers!

 

[pinqy]

...Your chart is a little off...

LOL!!

OK, it's been fun and thanks for the ride but it sounds like we're reaching our limit here. I'm kind of stuck on economics with hard numbers here

And where have I discussed anything but hard numbers? The numbers you are showing on your chart are NOT the BLS numbers you claim. Here are the most recent numbers Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail and unless you're mislabeling your Y axis, your chart is incorrect.

and I'll confess that I'm just not very good at political banter.

good thing I haven't engaged in it then.

You on the other hand, did make the entirely political claim that people are being "ignored" in the Labor Force data, but you haven't even tried to support that claim. I have not defended or supported any policy, but have talked ONLY about the hard facts.

Cheers![/QUOTE]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because they're not. The methodology has not changed. If you have evidence of manipulation, please present it. But there is none. The Obama administration has made no changes that would effect the UE rate or levels etc. More data has been added, and collection of duration of unemployment has improved, but the methodology hasn't changed.

The administration doesn't even have access to the data until the night before release, when the report has already been written.


I have. I've looked at the unbiased sources, and there is no manipulation. Stop reading bloggers who have never studied labor statistics and read the actual methodolgy yourself.

With all due respect, Pinqy...you don't invent a new statistic "jobs saved" unless the existing statistics were god awful which is exactly what this Administration did. If that's not an attempt to manipulate numbers, I don't know what is.

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

Its really very simple: 25 million are unemployed; we are in a depression; liberals must pay!

George Will keeps saying there are 4 million fewer jobs now than when BO took over.

 

[pinqy]

With all due respect, Pinqy...you don't invent a new statistic "jobs saved" unless the existing statistics were god awful which is exactly what this Administration did. If that's not an attempt to manipulate numbers, I don't know what is.

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

Its really very simple: 25 million are unemployed; we are in a depression; liberals must pay!

George Will keeps saying there are 4 million fewer jobs now than when BO took over.

Please stop including people who have jabs as unemployed. It's dishonest. Please stop including people not trying to find a job as unemployed. It's misleading.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

Its really very simple: 25 million are unemployed; we are in a depression; liberals must pay!

George Will keeps saying there are 4 million fewer jobs now than when BO took over.

Please stop including people who have jabs as unemployed. It's dishonest. Please stop including people not trying to find a job as unemployed. It's misleading.

Yes it matters not to a liberal that an engineer is working part time at Wal Mart. He's employed to a liberal seeking to support a liberal socialist president who had two communist parents.

 

[pinqy]

Its really very simple: 25 million are unemployed; we are in a depression; liberals must pay!

George Will keeps saying there are 4 million fewer jobs now than when BO took over.

Please stop including people who have jabs as unemployed. It's dishonest. Please stop including people not trying to find a job as unemployed. It's misleading.

Yes it matters not to a liberal that an engineer is working part time at Wal Mart.

It's not about liberal or conservative, or are to going to say Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes are liberals? It's a matter of common fucking sense that if you have a job, you're not unemployed.
And definitions would make no sense. You'd call a person working 5 hours a week by choice Employed and someone working 34 hours a week because they had 1 hour cut that week, unemployed. That would make sense to you?

 

[Oldstyle]

Because they're not. The methodology has not changed. If you have evidence of manipulation, please present it. But there is none. The Obama administration has made no changes that would effect the UE rate or levels etc. More data has been added, and collection of duration of unemployment has improved, but the methodology hasn't changed.

The administration doesn't even have access to the data until the night before release, when the report has already been written.


I have. I've looked at the unbiased sources, and there is no manipulation. Stop reading bloggers who have never studied labor statistics and read the actual methodolgy yourself.

With all due respect, Pinqy...you don't invent a new statistic "jobs saved" unless the existing statistics were god awful which is exactly what this Administration did. If that's not an attempt to manipulate numbers, I don't know what is.

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

Just the fact that they felt the need to USE an "unsupportable claim" is showing that they were trying to manipulate numbers, Pinqy! You know I'm right on that. The whole "jobs saved" number that we were given by this White House for month after month was essentialy just something that they made up out of thin air. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that it is virtually impossible to quantify, meaning you can plug just about any number you like in there.

 

[pinqy]

With all due respect, Pinqy...you don't invent a new statistic "jobs saved" unless the existing statistics were god awful which is exactly what this Administration did. If that's not an attempt to manipulate numbers, I don't know what is.

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

Just the fact that they felt the need to USE an "unsupportable claim" is showing that they were trying to manipulate numbers, Pinqy! You know I'm right on that.

I think we're using the word "manipulate" in different ways. I take the claims of "manipulation" as meaning fiddling with the raw data for a manipulated official release. Taking the publically released numbers and spinning them by selectively emphasizing or deemphasizing different aspects or coming up with some hypothetical figure like "jobs saved" is spin...not manipulation of the real data.

The whole "jobs saved" number that we were given by this White House for month after month was essentialy just something that they made up out of thin air. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that it is virtually impossible to quantify, meaning you can plug just about any number you like in there.

I completely agree. But that shouldn't be confused with manipulating the real data.

 

[hortysir]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan. And businesses are making record profits.

lol

Strange how they have to go as far back as Reagan to make a weak comparison.
Guess the blame-Bush mantra finally died off.

Now they've started looking for the worst of the worst of numbers to point at and say, "At least we're not THAT bad"!

 

[hortysir]

Please stop including people who have jabs as unemployed. It's dishonest. Please stop including people not trying to find a job as unemployed. It's misleading.

Yes it matters not to a liberal that an engineer is working part time at Wal Mart.

It's not about liberal or conservative, or are to going to say Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes are liberals? It's a matter of common fucking sense that if you have a job, you're not unemployed.
And definitions would make no sense. You'd call a person working 5 hours a week by choice Employed and someone working 34 hours a week because they had 1 hour cut that week, unemployed. That would make sense to you?

So they have a job?

Drawing an UEI check counts as employment?
Exhausting your UEI benefits counts as a job?

 

[pinqy]

Yes it matters not to a liberal that an engineer is working part time at Wal Mart.

It's not about liberal or conservative, or are to going to say Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes are liberals? It's a matter of common fucking sense that if you have a job, you're not unemployed.
And definitions would make no sense. You'd call a person working 5 hours a week by choice Employed and someone working 34 hours a week because they had 1 hour cut that week, unemployed. That would make sense to you?

So they have a job?

Unemployed does not mean "does not have a job." My 6 year old doesn't have a job is he unemployed? My father is retired, is he unemployed? People in prison or a mental institute don't have jobs, are they unemployed? Unemployed means no job, could take a job if offered, and trying to find work.

Drawing an UEI check counts as employment?

Nope.

Exhausting your UEI benefits counts as a job?

Nope.

But of course I'm sure you know that the government doesn't consider UI benefits in any way when calculating unemployment. It's not even asked in the survey. If you can take a job if offered and if you're doing something to find work, you're unemployed...doesn't matter if you've ever applied for benefits, doesn't matter if you ran out, doesn't matter if you've never worked a day in your life...you're unemployed.

If someone looks for a job, and doesn't get one, that tells us something about the economy.

If someone does not look for a job and doesn't get one, that tells us nothing.
If someone doesn't want a job, or wouldn't take a job if handed to them, and doesn't get a job, that tells us nothing.

 

[AquaAthena]

Obama took over the worst economic disaster from Bush in the history since the Great Depression and only had 1 month of double digit unemployment compared to 10 months of double digit unemployment under Reagan. And businesses are making record profits.

I wonder then, why Mayor Michael Bloomberg feels Romney would be better at running the economy???

SNIP:

Mr. Bloomberg said that he believed Mr. Romney would probably be better at running the country than Mr. Obama, according to two guests.

But Mr. Bloomberg said he could not support Mr. Romney because he disagreed with him on so many social issues, these two people said.

The mayor mentioned two such issues: abortion rights and gun control.

As a result, Mr. Bloomberg said, he intended to remain neutral, said one guest.

The mayor’s office declined to comment on the conversation.

At Party, Bloomberg Tips Hand on Endorsement - NYTimes.com

 

[Oldstyle]

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

Just the fact that they felt the need to USE an "unsupportable claim" is showing that they were trying to manipulate numbers, Pinqy! You know I'm right on that.

I think we're using the word "manipulate" in different ways. I take the claims of "manipulation" as meaning fiddling with the raw data for a manipulated official release. Taking the publically released numbers and spinning them by selectively emphasizing or deemphasizing different aspects or coming up with some hypothetical figure like "jobs saved" is spin...not manipulation of the real data.

The whole "jobs saved" number that we were given by this White House for month after month was essentialy just something that they made up out of thin air. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that it is virtually impossible to quantify, meaning you can plug just about any number you like in there.

I completely agree. But that shouldn't be confused with manipulating the real data.

Again, Pinqy...if you're making up numbers...which I think you agree with me that they were...then you're manipulating the real data. This whole "jobs saved" thing is a rather transparent attempt by the Obama White House to NOT use the regular unemployment numbers because those numbers looked so abysmal.

 

[pinqy]

Just the fact that they felt the need to USE an "unsupportable claim" is showing that they were trying to manipulate numbers, Pinqy! You know I'm right on that.

I think we're using the word "manipulate" in different ways. I take the claims of "manipulation" as meaning fiddling with the raw data for a manipulated official release. Taking the publically released numbers and spinning them by selectively emphasizing or deemphasizing different aspects or coming up with some hypothetical figure like "jobs saved" is spin...not manipulation of the real data.

The whole "jobs saved" number that we were given by this White House for month after month was essentialy just something that they made up out of thin air. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that it is virtually impossible to quantify, meaning you can plug just about any number you like in there.

I completely agree. But that shouldn't be confused with manipulating the real data.

Again, Pinqy...if you're making up numbers...which I think you agree with me that they were...then you're manipulating the real data.

What I'm saying is that there is a distinct and important difference between taking objective, published data and twisting it or coming up with some bogus number off of it (which is routinely done by politicians and "commentators" and "analysts") and taking raw data for official publication and manipulating it for a false official release (which is not done in the US or most of the world). We can agree the former is done, but people are claiming the latter is done as well and that the official published data is questionable.

This whole "jobs saved" thing is a rather transparent attempt by the Obama White House to NOT use the regular unemployment numbers because those numbers looked so abysmal.

Right, but some are claiming the regular unemployment numbers have also been manipulated to appear better than they really are...which is false.

 

[expat_panama]

LOL!! OK, it's been fun and thanks for the ride but it sounds like we're reaching our limit here. I'm kind of stuck on economics with hard numbers here

And where have I discussed anything but hard numbers? ...

If it'll get us to move drop the personal bit in favor of numbers I'd be willing to stipulate that you're really wonderful and horribly mistreated on these threads.

Just like me

...the most recent numbers Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail...

This is good, we're both on the same page (so to speak). That page shows payrolls from May 2011 and to get the rest going back to '81, just use the Databases & Tools tab and then click T o p P i c k s . After selecting Total Nonfarm Employment - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0000000001 with [Retrieve data] a page comes up were the start date can be set at From: 1981 and a check can be added to [] include graphs.

Clicking 'GO' pops up

--and then it's a matter of comparing the past 30 months of Obama's term w/ Reagan's. One way is fudging with Microsoft Paint--

--but a cleaner way is to download the levels to excel, divide the numbers in each column by the first, and plot both new columns together.

Not being a teacher it's hard to tell if this rant is too slow and annoying, or too fast and muddled.

 

[pinqy]

This is good, we're both on the same page (so to speak). That page shows payrolls from May 2011 and to get the rest going back to '81, just use the Databases & Tools tab and then click T o p P i c k s . After selecting Total Nonfarm Employment - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0000000001 with [Retrieve data] a page comes up were the start date can be set at From: 1981 and a check can be added to [] include graphs.

Clicking 'GO' pops up

Ok, stop right there Look at the Y axes. In the BLS graph, Employment under Reagan goes from just under 90 million to just over 110 million and Obama's goes from just under 140 million to just over 130 million. Now compare that image to

where you have Obama's numbers down at the same level as Reagan's. That's misleading. If you did a chart comparing change or in comparing % of the population, that would be fine, but your chart is falsely representing the level of employment. You're obviously not trying to be deceptive, but the result of the chart is misleading and inaccurate.

--but a cleaner way is to download the levels to excel, divide the numbers in each column by the first, and plot both new columns together.

And that's inaccurate.
I've attached a bar chart with the actual levels and set as Year 1, 2, etc and month.

Note that it doesn't distort the changes as yours did.

 

[itfitzme]

"Jobs saved" is not an official statistic and is not produced by any statistical agency. That's pure Administration spin.

Pointing out an unsupportable claim of "jobs saved," is not showing that any of the official statistics are manipulated.

Just the fact that they felt the need to USE an "unsupportable claim" is showing that they were trying to manipulate numbers, Pinqy! You know I'm right on that.

I think we're using the word "manipulate" in different ways. I take the claims of "manipulation" as meaning fiddling with the raw data for a manipulated official release. Taking the publically released numbers and spinning them by selectively emphasizing or deemphasizing different aspects or coming up with some hypothetical figure like "jobs saved" is spin...not manipulation of the real data.

The whole "jobs saved" number that we were given by this White House for month after month was essentialy just something that they made up out of thin air. The great thing about a statistic like "jobs saved" is that it is virtually impossible to quantify, meaning you can plug just about any number you like in there.

I completely agree. But that shouldn't be confused with manipulating the real data.

Clearly, he conceded the point, admitting that the BLS CPS data is not manipulated, when he switched to a completely different "statistic".

He is, though, unwilling to actually admit to it or change his mind because he is basically, just being argumentative. He wants to still be able to use the bullshit "unemployment statistics are being manipulated" argument with someone else.