The unemployment rate DID NOT FALL / ITS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS PEOPLE

[Skull Pilot]

Everything the government tells us is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Was this nonsense really necessary?

Apparently it was, since he couldn't seem to read it after reading it the first time.

 

[pinqy]

So who decides who is stay at home and who just gave up???

Seriously? If you have to ask this, then you didn't read. So let's see if you can read this:

THE BLS DETERMINES UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS USING A SAMPLE SURVEYS EVERY MONTH. THROUGH THESE SURVEYS THEY ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED, UNEMPLOYED BUT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, PART TIME WORKERS SEEKING FULL TIME, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO WORK, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK, ETC.

Using a "sample" sometimes can be manipulated, and often is.

Here's the Technical Documentation. Tell me how the sample could be manipulated.

Every person that loses their benefits should be asked what their current status is, not just a sampling if you want to be accurate.

That would be LESS accurate as you'd be ignoring all the people who never received benefits.

There are 13,303,000 unemployed (7,005,495 receiving benefits*).
1,401,000 people who completed temp jobs,
1,007,000 people who quit,
3,366,000 re entering the labor force after an absence,
1,276,000 people looking for their first job.
SOURCE
That's about 7 million people you wouldn't count if we used your method.

*Some of the people receiving benefits are employed and on partial benefits.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Using a "sample" sometimes can be manipulated, and often is.

And what goal is it that you think the manipulation is going to accomplish? Really, now you're venturing into Truther and Birther territory. It's all a government conspiracy to make the numbers look one way or the other. Let me ask you this, if there was going to be any "manipulation" don't you think they would come out with some better fabrications than 8.6% UE?

Every person that loses their benefits should be asked what their current status is, not just a sampling if you want to be accurate.

Now you're making irrational demands, based on irrational beliefs.

 

[Zander]

Why do so many Progressives lack the ability to think things through? Here are more "progressive" solutions to ponder.....

If Obama can shrink the work force by a few million more- the unemployment problem is solved!!
If we raise the DUI limit we can solve the drunk driving problem!!
If we lower the standards for a passing grade at school, we can solve the education problem!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

After your lie about what I said in the first sentence I stopped reading.

Translation: Your arguments are presented for their flaws, and you don't want to go any farther because you can't handle it.

I never said that government creates jobs. They merely make conditions conducive to job creation or hostile to job creation.

Okay, so let's take this, then. This would mean that the government can do all the "right" things, and still there might be no jobs being created. And that the government could do all the "wrong" things and that jobs could still be created, just maybe not as well.

The truth is that it's the MARKET that dictates job creation. When demand out paces production capacity, businesses create jobs. If not, they won't create jobs. Even if it's "difficult" to create jobs because of whatever reason. They'd still rather make more money than less money.

Government can create jobs inside the government, but they always result in a net loss. The reason Democrats love this scenario is because they love control. Not to mention the power over government workers. Democrats prefer public-sector jobs over private because it means a certain amount of control is inherent in the system and they just love raising taxes, which means more power, whereas private-sector is essentially freedom.

Listen, if you can't put forth an argument unless it's based on blind partisan hackery, then don't say anything at all. You sound like one of those guys standing on a street corner shouting "The end is nigh!"

Translation....cut your responses down to something that won't cause me to fall asleep reading.

What if the aim of the Administration is reduce demand because of their Green ideology? Saving the planet means the use of less resources.

That is the primary reason a tree-hugger like Obama is dangerous in the Oval Office. He's trying to curb consumption in selected areas of the marketplace. If the consumer buys less stuff then the demand for stuff reduces and jobs are lost. A fair trade for saving the planet they think.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm guessing that 10% rise in home sales is smoke and mirrors also