Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Toro do you realize how ignorant you sound right now? because someone has a MA or a PHD makes them honest and non agenda motivated?
obama has a degree doesn't he?
Having worked and been around economists with MAs and PhDs, and having been around highly partisan people like yourself, the MAs and PhDs are much more knowledgeable and intellectually honest about their own profession. They might be more boring, but they are certainly more intellectually honest than extremely partisan people with a political axe to grind.
I'm sorry just because someone has a piece of paper doesn't make them non agenda, or honest.
If what they say doesn't match reality It's all bull shit.
Why do you assume those MAs and PhDs aren't extremely partisan and don't have a political axe to grind?Or, rather than a massive coverup by thousands of employees - which is what you're implying since the numbers are known by many people within the agency - highly biased partisans engage in confirmation bias and refuse to accept numbers which contradict their own beliefs and make things up regardless of the data, which they don't understand anyways.
I'll choose the latter.
Not true not every BLS personal is in the loop. They would only have information on their data they collected.
No, not everyone is in the loop. But the data is being complied and assessed by MAs and PhDs along the way, and if the input being compiled by highly intelligent professionals does not jive with the output, you'll hear about it soon enough.
So I'll believe the MAs and PhDs over extremely partisan people who don't understand the process and have a political axe to grind.
Temporary jobs, and jobs for which they're overqualified.No one said they are lying... They are being dishonest. When the UE number goes down due to people falling off the ass end for months and months and months because of the way you count UE, that's a dishonest, it misrepresents the reality that we actually live under. People, the number who are UEed is more around 14-18% and going up.
Except that's not what has been happening.
People are finding jobs.
Why do you assume those MAs and PhDs aren't extremely partisan and don't have a political axe to grind?Not true not every BLS personal is in the loop. They would only have information on their data they collected.
No, not everyone is in the loop. But the data is being complied and assessed by MAs and PhDs along the way, and if the input being compiled by highly intelligent professionals does not jive with the output, you'll hear about it soon enough.
So I'll believe the MAs and PhDs over extremely partisan people who don't understand the process and have a political axe to grind.
Having worked and been around economists with MAs and PhDs, and having been around highly partisan people like yourself, the MAs and PhDs are much more knowledgeable and intellectually honest about their own profession. They might be more boring, but they are certainly more intellectually honest than extremely partisan people with a political axe to grind.
I'm sorry just because someone has a piece of paper doesn't make them non agenda, or honest.
If what they say doesn't match reality It's all bull shit.
A piece of paper doesn't mean they aren't biased, but when this conspiracy involves many people in a large organization whose livelihoods depend on their reputation, it becomes on par with twoofers and birfers. Doesn't mean the methodology isn't flawed, but conservatives and Republicans whining and bitching that the numbers are fixed look like idiots to anyone who has even an inkling of how this is done. And if Democrats and liberals did the same thing, they'd look like dumbass morons too.
Maybe they had a ax to grind do we have to continue doing the same thing over and over and over?Why do you assume those MAs and PhDs aren't extremely partisan and don't have a political axe to grind?No, not everyone is in the loop. But the data is being complied and assessed by MAs and PhDs along the way, and if the input being compiled by highly intelligent professionals does not jive with the output, you'll hear about it soon enough.
So I'll believe the MAs and PhDs over extremely partisan people who don't understand the process and have a political axe to grind.
You mean the same MAs and PhDs who estimated that 700k jobs had been created according to the household survey but 140k jobs were lost in the establishment survey in one month under Bush in 2002? Those economists?
Are they the same?Why do you assume those MAs and PhDs aren't extremely partisan and don't have a political axe to grind?No, not everyone is in the loop. But the data is being complied and assessed by MAs and PhDs along the way, and if the input being compiled by highly intelligent professionals does not jive with the output, you'll hear about it soon enough.
So I'll believe the MAs and PhDs over extremely partisan people who don't understand the process and have a political axe to grind.
You mean the same MAs and PhDs who estimated that 700k jobs had been created according to the household survey but 140k jobs were lost in the establishment survey in one month under Bush in 2002? Those economists?
I'm sorry just because someone has a piece of paper doesn't make them non agenda, or honest.
If what they say doesn't match reality It's all bull shit.
A piece of paper doesn't mean they aren't biased, but when this conspiracy involves many people in a large organization whose livelihoods depend on their reputation, it becomes on par with twoofers and birfers. Doesn't mean the methodology isn't flawed, but conservatives and Republicans whining and bitching that the numbers are fixed look like idiots to anyone who has even an inkling of how this is done. And if Democrats and liberals did the same thing, they'd look like dumbass morons too.
Why is it that when someone doesn't agree with something it's a fucking conspiracy?
When reality doesn't match with the data their is not such thing as a conspiracy but foul play.
Are they the same?Why do you assume those MAs and PhDs aren't extremely partisan and don't have a political axe to grind?
You mean the same MAs and PhDs who estimated that 700k jobs had been created according to the household survey but 140k jobs were lost in the establishment survey in one month under Bush in 2002? Those economists?
Look at the AGW fraud. Lots of people with PhDs all committing bad science to further an agenda.
"Educated" does not mean "non-partisan". Period.
A piece of paper doesn't mean they aren't biased, but when this conspiracy involves many people in a large organization whose livelihoods depend on their reputation, it becomes on par with twoofers and birfers. Doesn't mean the methodology isn't flawed, but conservatives and Republicans whining and bitching that the numbers are fixed look like idiots to anyone who has even an inkling of how this is done. And if Democrats and liberals did the same thing, they'd look like dumbass morons too.
Why is it that when someone doesn't agree with something it's a fucking conspiracy?
When reality doesn't match with the data their is not such thing as a conspiracy but foul play.
Because it has to be a conspiracy if you are saying its foul play.
And why do you assume it's foul play because the numbers don't match up? Instead, why don't you try to understand the methodologies and how the numbers are constructed. If you understand this, you can understand why there can be a wide variation in the numbers, and then you can make legitimate criticisms of the data.
Are they the same?You mean the same MAs and PhDs who estimated that 700k jobs had been created according to the household survey but 140k jobs were lost in the establishment survey in one month under Bush in 2002? Those economists?
Look at the AGW fraud. Lots of people with PhDs all committing bad science to further an agenda.
"Educated" does not mean "non-partisan". Period.
No, but most conservatives and Republicans ARE highly partisan, and engage in confirmation bias to rationalize why something they believe in isn't correct. The experts aren't always right, but I'd rather trust the experts than those who scream at the top of their lungs that the fix is in about a topic they know little about simply because it contradicts their political worldview.
All this jobs report was intended to do was stop everyone from talking about how Obama got clobbered.
Why is it that when someone doesn't agree with something it's a fucking conspiracy?
When reality doesn't match with the data their is not such thing as a conspiracy but foul play.
Because it has to be a conspiracy if you are saying its foul play.
And why do you assume it's foul play because the numbers don't match up? Instead, why don't you try to understand the methodologies and how the numbers are constructed. If you understand this, you can understand why there can be a wide variation in the numbers, and then you can make legitimate criticisms of the data.
My criticism of the data is legitimate, when that data does not match reality. I even said the unemployment would be down below 8% come election time.
Guess what they will go back up in December and January. How will you explain that when it happens?
Are they the same?
Look at the AGW fraud. Lots of people with PhDs all committing bad science to further an agenda.
"Educated" does not mean "non-partisan". Period.
No, but most conservatives and Republicans ARE highly partisan, and engage in confirmation bias to rationalize why something they believe in isn't correct. The experts aren't always right, but I'd rather trust the experts than those who scream at the top of their lungs that the fix is in about a topic they know little about simply because it contradicts their political worldview.
Democrats are known for voting for the D no matter what.
Because it has to be a conspiracy if you are saying its foul play.
And why do you assume it's foul play because the numbers don't match up? Instead, why don't you try to understand the methodologies and how the numbers are constructed. If you understand this, you can understand why there can be a wide variation in the numbers, and then you can make legitimate criticisms of the data.
My criticism of the data is legitimate, when that data does not match reality. I even said the unemployment would be down below 8% come election time.
Guess what they will go back up in December and January. How will you explain that when it happens?
It's not legitimate if you don't understand the methodologies and accuse the government of a cover-up. There are legitimate criticisms of how this data is constructed, and they don't have anything to do with political motivation.
We predicted that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over Egypt as soon as they ousted Mubarak and we predicted that Obama would figure out a way to get the unemployment rate below 8% by October 2012.
