Unemployment rate drops to 7.4%

[LoneLaugher]

how not odd that you now decided this is the time to make an emotional, and frankly dumb statement...

I was responding to a post. Eat shit. Did you see the reply to my. Dumb statement? Not so dumb after all, huh? Being jealous of people who need EBT cards is a fucking disease.

so sarcasm works for you but not anyone else? and theres no shit left you've bought it all with your EBT...

Oh! Good one! Ziiiiiiiing!

 

[Trajan]

How odd that so many nutters are fucking jealous of our nation's poor.

how not odd that you now decided this is the time to make an emotional, and frankly dumb statement...

You may be right about the rigged EBT system. Government is full of corruption regardless of party. I am all for feeding the poor especially when only 58% US citizens have a job & most of those are crappy part time ones. Many run out of money by the end of the month. I am fine with increasing SNAP to those people. But then there are able bodied people on every government program that refuse to work. If we give them food & a phone, we should be able to call them when we need them to work. If they refuse the work & are not gainfully employed, take their phone away.

Bill Simon, CEO of Wal-Mart's U.S. business on conference call to Goldman Sachs.

"you need not go further than one of our stores on midnight at the end of the month. And it’s real interesting to watch, about 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items, baby formula, milk, bread, eggs,and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight, when electronic — government electronic benefits cards get activated and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher.

“And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they’ve been waiting for it. Otherwise, we are open 24 hours — come at 5 a.m., come at 7 a.m., come at 10 a.m. But if you are there at midnight, you are there for a reason.”

Yes. There are some. And EVERYONE wants to bring them to justice. But......how many are there?

It is weird that "Conservatives" think that they are in front of liberals when it comes to cracking down on fraud and abuse. They are not.

I don't think the proggie gov. apparatchiks really care once they have made themselves feel good buy just shoving more stuff out the door willy nilly, its not so much the programs, its the management, note to you- gov. manages horribly. example-

August 1, 2013 4:00 AM
Me and My Obamaphones
Not on welfare or below the poverty line? Never mind — here’s your free phone.
By Jillian Kay Melchior

Me and My Obamaphones | National Review Online



its crony capitalism and that charge you see on a cell phone bill ala universal fee helps pay for this, now I don't have an issue in principal with this program but they don't need a data plan and we need to manage this program.

 

[AmazonTania]

Interesting bit of data people should see: The JOLTS data is inconsistent with the Establishment Survey for 6 consecutive months. Which means the average M/M job creation should be 40% lower than 200,000 a month.

 

[pinqy]

Interesting bit of data people should see: The JOLTS data is inconsistent with the Establishment Survey for 6 consecutive months. Which means the average M/M job creation should be 40% lower than 200,000 a month.

Monthly changes in JOLTS and the CES have always been inconsistant and always will be. CES samples 557,000 establishments and uses the pay period that contains the 12th as its reference period, so monthly changes are from middle of the month pay period to middle of the month pay period.
JOLTS samples 16,400 establishments and uses hires and separations over the entire month. JOLTS uses the CES data as a benchmark for employment.

So with completely different time periods involved (May to June change for CES will be the pay period that contains the 12th of May to the pay period that contains the 12th of June while JOLTS looks at hires minus separations for all of May and for all of June) of course they will never match up.

 

[Rshermr]

Interesting bit of data people should see: The JOLTS data is inconsistent with the Establishment Survey for 6 consecutive months. Which means the average M/M job creation should be 40% lower than 200,000 a month.

Monthly changes in JOLTS and the CES have always been inconsistant and always will be. CES samples 557,000 establishments and uses the pay period that contains the 12th as its reference period, so monthly changes are from middle of the month pay period to middle of the month pay period.
JOLTS samples 16,400 establishments and uses hires and separations over the entire month. JOLTS uses the CES data as a benchmark for employment.

So with completely different time periods involved (May to June change for CES will be the pay period that contains the 12th of May to the pay period that contains the 12th of June while JOLTS looks at hires minus separations for all of May and for all of June) of course they will never match up.

There is always an effort to make these sorts of things look like a gov conspiracy. Which could not be further from the truth. Just differences in methodologies, as you mentioned.

But there are always those on the other side of the aisle from the party in charge that brings this sort of thing up, trying to make their adversaries look bad. This bit of drivel has been all over the right wing web sites. Data is real, but the implications are garbage. Here is a BLS doc that discusses the differences. After reading it, looks like we should not all have to slit our wrists:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf

 

[pinqy]

There is always an effort to make these sorts of things look like a gov conspiracy. Which could not be further from the truth. Just differences in methodologies, as you mentioned.

But there are always those on the other side of the aisle from the party in charge that brings this sort of thing up, trying to make their adversaries look bad. This bit of drivel has been all over the right wing web sites. Data is real, but the implications are garbage. Here is a BLS doc that discusses the differences. After reading it, looks like we should not all have to slit our wrists:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf

Thanks, I knew there had to be a paper, but couldn't find it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Interesting bit of data people should see: The JOLTS data is inconsistent with the Establishment Survey for 6 consecutive months. Which means the average M/M job creation should be 40% lower than 200,000 a month.

Monthly changes in JOLTS and the CES have always been inconsistant and always will be. CES samples 557,000 establishments and uses the pay period that contains the 12th as its reference period, so monthly changes are from middle of the month pay period to middle of the month pay period.
JOLTS samples 16,400 establishments and uses hires and separations over the entire month. JOLTS uses the CES data as a benchmark for employment.

So with completely different time periods involved (May to June change for CES will be the pay period that contains the 12th of May to the pay period that contains the 12th of June while JOLTS looks at hires minus separations for all of May and for all of June) of course they will never match up.

LMAO, don't make me laugh. No one disputes that JOLTS and CES has divergence issues. When your Establishment survey has 6 consequential months of overstating, THAT is an issue. For the past 7 months have seen a dramatic imbalance in data benefiting the algo-headline scanner moving NFP data. There is a three month trailing basis which is wider than any point than it's been in 5 years. This means that either the JOLTS survey is substantially under-representing the net turnover of workers.

I am not wrong, and I am not the only one who caught this. Bill Gross has also caught on and he is the largest investor of US Securities. So when he speaks, his input weighs heavily.

https://twitter.com/PIMCO/status/364770934139256834

 

[AmazonTania]

Interesting bit of data people should see: The JOLTS data is inconsistent with the Establishment Survey for 6 consecutive months. Which means the average M/M job creation should be 40% lower than 200,000 a month.

Monthly changes in JOLTS and the CES have always been inconsistant and always will be. CES samples 557,000 establishments and uses the pay period that contains the 12th as its reference period, so monthly changes are from middle of the month pay period to middle of the month pay period.
JOLTS samples 16,400 establishments and uses hires and separations over the entire month. JOLTS uses the CES data as a benchmark for employment.

So with completely different time periods involved (May to June change for CES will be the pay period that contains the 12th of May to the pay period that contains the 12th of June while JOLTS looks at hires minus separations for all of May and for all of June) of course they will never match up.

There is always an effort to make these sorts of things look like a gov conspiracy. Which could not be further from the truth. Just differences in methodologies, as you mentioned.

But there are always those on the other side of the aisle from the party in charge that brings this sort of thing up, trying to make their adversaries look bad. This bit of drivel has been all over the right wing web sites. Data is real, but the implications are garbage. Here is a BLS doc that discusses the differences. After reading it, looks like we should not all have to slit our wrists:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf

I don't have a right wing blog (not that I ever do), but I do have the President of the Largest Bond Fund in the world who caught the discrepancy. And I do have former BLS Commission who admits that BLS statistics are BS.

Post: Labor statistics expert bemoans our double-digit jobless rate - NYPOST.com

Credentials: BLS Commissioners' History: Keith Hall

What do you have? A document? Yeah, very convincing...

 

[Rshermr]

Monthly changes in JOLTS and the CES have always been inconsistant and always will be. CES samples 557,000 establishments and uses the pay period that contains the 12th as its reference period, so monthly changes are from middle of the month pay period to middle of the month pay period.
JOLTS samples 16,400 establishments and uses hires and separations over the entire month. JOLTS uses the CES data as a benchmark for employment.

So with completely different time periods involved (May to June change for CES will be the pay period that contains the 12th of May to the pay period that contains the 12th of June while JOLTS looks at hires minus separations for all of May and for all of June) of course they will never match up.

There is always an effort to make these sorts of things look like a gov conspiracy. Which could not be further from the truth. Just differences in methodologies, as you mentioned.

But there are always those on the other side of the aisle from the party in charge that brings this sort of thing up, trying to make their adversaries look bad. This bit of drivel has been all over the right wing web sites. Data is real, but the implications are garbage. Here is a BLS doc that discusses the differences. After reading it, looks like we should not all have to slit our wrists:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf

I don't have a right wing blog (not that I ever do), but I do have the President of the Largest Bond Fund in the world who caught the discrepancy. And I do have former BLS Commission who admits that BLS statistics are BS.

Post: Labor statistics expert bemoans our double-digit jobless rate - NYPOST.com

Credentials: BLS Commissioners' History: Keith Hall

What do you have? A document? Yeah, very convincing...

Uh, did you notice that you are quoting a piece from the NY POST. The equivalent of the right wing bat shit crazy con site?? Jesus. You do truly like impartial sources. The NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who owns fox. Not exactly known as an impartial source. In fact, known as quite the opposite.
Thanks for proving my point.

 

[AmazonTania]

There is always an effort to make these sorts of things look like a gov conspiracy. Which could not be further from the truth. Just differences in methodologies, as you mentioned.

But there are always those on the other side of the aisle from the party in charge that brings this sort of thing up, trying to make their adversaries look bad. This bit of drivel has been all over the right wing web sites. Data is real, but the implications are garbage. Here is a BLS doc that discusses the differences. After reading it, looks like we should not all have to slit our wrists:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf

I don't have a right wing blog (not that I ever do), but I do have the President of the Largest Bond Fund in the world who caught the discrepancy. And I do have former BLS Commission who admits that BLS statistics are BS.

Post: Labor statistics expert bemoans our double-digit jobless rate - NYPOST.com

Credentials: BLS Commissioners' History: Keith Hall

What do you have? A document? Yeah, very convincing...

Uh, did you notice that you are quoting a piece from the NY POST. The equivalent of the right wing bat shit crazy con site?? Jesus. You do truly like impartial sources.
Thanks for proving my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What forum the information is presented on is irrelevant. All that matters is the substance and message portrayed by a former BLS Commissioner: Keith Hall.

 

[Rshermr]

I don't have a right wing blog (not that I ever do), but I do have the President of the Largest Bond Fund in the world who caught the discrepancy. And I do have former BLS Commission who admits that BLS statistics are BS.

Post: Labor statistics expert bemoans our double-digit jobless rate - NYPOST.com

Credentials: BLS Commissioners' History: Keith Hall

What do you have? A document? Yeah, very convincing...

Uh, did you notice that you are quoting a piece from the NY POST. The equivalent of the right wing bat shit crazy con site?? Jesus. You do truly like impartial sources.
Thanks for proving my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What forum the information is presented on is irrelevant. All that matters is the substance and message portrayed by a former BLS Commissioner: Keith Hall.

I am sure that sentence makes sense to you. But most do not like to have to vet data as hard as you would if it came from the ny post, or from, say, moveon.org. People with integrity tend to use more impartial sources. It the data is true, it will be available from an impartial source. Always is.

 

[AmazonTania]

Uh, did you notice that you are quoting a piece from the NY POST. The equivalent of the right wing bat shit crazy con site?? Jesus. You do truly like impartial sources.
Thanks for proving my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What forum the information is presented on is irrelevant. All that matters is the substance and message portrayed by a former BLS Commissioner: Keith Hall.

I am sure that sentence makes sense to you. But most do not like to have to vet data as hard as you would if it came from the ny post, or from, say, moveon.org. People with integrity tend to use more impartial sources. It the data is true, it will be available from an impartial source. Always is.

If someone wants to use a moveon.org article, they could. I don't care what anyone uses. I never complained about anyone using an article as a source. My only problem is someone using an article as a primary source/data, which is not what I did. I used an article to reference the thoughts of another. That's all. Are you that much of a partisan hack that nothing can be sure especially if your opposition points it out?

As far as using data, I have used data and Keith Hall statements regarding unemployment being 'misleadingly low.' All the data points to consistent massaging of NFP numbers.

 

[Rshermr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What forum the information is presented on is irrelevant. All that matters is the substance and message portrayed by a former BLS Commissioner: Keith Hall.

I am sure that sentence makes sense to you. But most do not like to have to vet data as hard as you would if it came from the ny post, or from, say, moveon.org. People with integrity tend to use more impartial sources. It the data is true, it will be available from an impartial source. Always is.

If someone wants to use a moveon.org article, they could. I don't care what anyone uses. I never complained about anyone using an article as a source. My only problem is someone using an article as a primary source/data, which is not what I did. I used an article to reference the thoughts of another. That's all. Are you that much of a partisan hack that nothing can be sure especially if your opposition points it out?

As far as using data, I have used data and Keith Hall statements regarding unemployment being 'misleadingly low.' All the data points to consistent massaging of NFP numbers.

Funny. You do not believe in studies proving, say, austerity is used heavily in europe are meaningless. Many, many impartial sources. But you find a single source in a right wing rag, and use it as proof of your hypotheses. Funny. You really do like authoritative sources when they fit your agenda. But not when they do not. Got it.

 

[AmazonTania]

I am sure that sentence makes sense to you. But most do not like to have to vet data as hard as you would if it came from the ny post, or from, say, moveon.org. People with integrity tend to use more impartial sources. It the data is true, it will be available from an impartial source. Always is.

If someone wants to use a moveon.org article, they could. I don't care what anyone uses. I never complained about anyone using an article as a source. My only problem is someone using an article as a primary source/data, which is not what I did. I used an article to reference the thoughts of another. That's all. Are you that much of a partisan hack that nothing can be sure especially if your opposition points it out?

As far as using data, I have used data and Keith Hall statements regarding unemployment being 'misleadingly low.' All the data points to consistent massaging of NFP numbers.

Funny. You do not believe in studies proving, say, austerity is used heavily in europe are meaningless. Many, many impartial sources.

I never said I didn't believe in a study. I said one was not necessary. You really do not need a study for that, as the concept behind it is quite clear. I cannot imagine an economist of financial analyst wasting his or her time and money to commission a study about this. The government, sure. A private individual, never...

But you find a single source in a right wing rag, and use it as proof of your hypotheses. Funny. You really do like authoritative sources when they fit your agenda. But not when they do not. Got it.

Bill Gross from PIMCO and Keith Hall are not part of authority. I did not use them for my hypothesis, I used them to point out that I am not alone in pointing out government inaccuracies.

All the data I used to prove this has come from a primary source. If you don't like it, tough.

 

[Rshermr]

If someone wants to use a moveon.org article, they could. I don't care what anyone uses. I never complained about anyone using an article as a source. My only problem is someone using an article as a primary source/data, which is not what I did. I used an article to reference the thoughts of another. That's all. Are you that much of a partisan hack that nothing can be sure especially if your opposition points it out?

As far as using data, I have used data and Keith Hall statements regarding unemployment being 'misleadingly low.' All the data points to consistent massaging of NFP numbers.

Funny. You do not believe in studies proving, say, austerity is used heavily in europe are meaningless. Many, many impartial sources.

I never said I didn't believe in a study. I said one was not necessary. You really do not need a study for that, as the concept behind it is quite clear. I cannot imagine an economist of financial analyst wasting his or her time and money to commission a study about this. The government, sure. A private individual, never...

But you find a single source in a right wing rag, and use it as proof of your hypotheses. Funny. You really do like authoritative sources when they fit your agenda. But not when they do not. Got it.

Bill Gross from PIMCO and Keith Hall are not part of authority. I did not use them for my hypothesis, I used them to point out that I am not alone in pointing out government inaccuracies.

All the data I used to prove this has come from a primary source. If you don't like it, tough.

Have you taken any college economics classes? What you just said is really, really ignorant. Studies are accomplished commonly by folks with college doctorates. You know, actual knowledge of how to do a study. And if you think that austerity is not worth studying, then maybe you should walk around the streets of some of the cities in europe. You will quickly get a very different understanding. If your mind is open to anything new. Then you will find that some of the larger news sources will spend a few bucks working with those doing studies, to put out the findings of those studies. Then, of course, you could read what the officials of OECD are learning through their studies. No studies????? PLEASE. And no, private companies pretty much never spend a lot of money on studies. But they are major consumers of the information that comes from those studies.
You see, if you study economics at all, you will find that economies of countries are very dependent. So, you can be sure that officials in all countries, including our own, are quite interested in data from studies of austerity. OBVIOUSLY.

Relative to your source for your data, it simply says what you think of those looking at what you write. If you use the ny post, the findings will be doubted by many. And they will want to spend time vetting the information. Which is just plain poor form, me dear. If the information is true, it is available in impartial sources. And you will find no reason to use the ny post.

 

[AmazonTania]

Funny. You do not believe in studies proving, say, austerity is used heavily in europe are meaningless. Many, many impartial sources.

I never said I didn't believe in a study. I said one was not necessary. You really do not need a study for that, as the concept behind it is quite clear. I cannot imagine an economist of financial analyst wasting his or her time and money to commission a study about this. The government, sure. A private individual, never...

But you find a single source in a right wing rag, and use it as proof of your hypotheses. Funny. You really do like authoritative sources when they fit your agenda. But not when they do not. Got it.

Bill Gross from PIMCO and Keith Hall are not part of authority. I did not use them for my hypothesis, I used them to point out that I am not alone in pointing out government inaccuracies.

All the data I used to prove this has come from a primary source. If you don't like it, tough.

Have you taken any college economics classes? What you just said is really, really ignorant. Studies are accomplished commonly by folks with college doctorates. You know, actual knowledge of how to do a study. And if you think that austerity is not worth studying, then maybe you should walk around the streets of some of the cities in europe. You will quickly get a very different understanding. If your mind is open to anything new.

That's... Nice... And... All... but you will never (or rarely, as never is a strong word) find an economist or financial analyst using their own money (or the money from their employer) to commission a study about the painfully obvious. It's a waste of time, resources and money. I really cannot imagine someone wasting their time, money and effort on a study to determine whether or not austerity is occurring.

This would the same shit as the US Government commissioning a study to figure out if the Government commissioned too many studies. LMAO, maybe you should advise them on your downtime.

This Is Not a Joke: Government Issues Study of a Study About Studies - ABC News

See, an ABC news article, just for you...

Then you will find that some of the larger news sources will spend a few bucks working with those doing studies, to put out the findings of those studies. Then, of course, you could read what the officials of OECD are learning through their studies. No studies????? PLEASE. And no, private companies pretty much never spend a lot of money on studies. But they are major consumers of the information that comes from those studies.

Private companies spend a lot of money on studies? Have you ever heard of a bank? Have you ever heard of a hedge fund? Have you ever heard of a pharmaceutical company? Have you ever heard of a tech company. These sectors thrive on market research, so I'm pretty sure they spend a great deal of resources on studies.

You see, if you study economics at all, you will find that economies of countries are very dependent. So, you can be sure that officials in all countries, including our own, are quite interested in data from studies of austerity. OBVIOUSLY.

Okay. So why weren't you able to find a single study commissioned by the government? And I don't deny that a government official would commission such a study. They've commissioned studies about a ton of worthless other things.

Relative to your source for your data, it simply says what you think of those looking at what you write. If you use the ny post, the findings will be doubted by many. And they will want to spend time vetting the information. Which is just plain poor form, me dear. If the information is true, it is available in impartial sources. And you will find no reason to use the ny post.

I've used the NY Post for a quote. It's really not that big of a deal. Again, if something of substance was side and it has credibility, then it really does not matter which forum it's presented on.

 

[Rshermr]

I never said I didn't believe in a study. I said one was not necessary. You really do not need a study for that, as the concept behind it is quite clear. I cannot imagine an economist of financial analyst wasting his or her time and money to commission a study about this. The government, sure. A private individual, never...



Bill Gross from PIMCO and Keith Hall are not part of authority. I did not use them for my hypothesis, I used them to point out that I am not alone in pointing out government inaccuracies.

All the data I used to prove this has come from a primary source. If you don't like it, tough.

Have you taken any college economics classes? What you just said is really, really ignorant. Studies are accomplished commonly by folks with college doctorates. You know, actual knowledge of how to do a study. And if you think that austerity is not worth studying, then maybe you should walk around the streets of some of the cities in europe. You will quickly get a very different understanding. If your mind is open to anything new.

That's... Nice... And... All... but you will never (or rarely, as never is a strong word) find an economist or financial analyst using their own money (or the money from their employer) to commission a study about the painfully obvious. It's a waste of time, resources and money. I really cannot imagine someone wasting their time, money and effort on a study to determine whether or not austerity is occurring.

This would the same shit as the US Government commissioning a study to figure out if the Government commissioned too many studies. LMAO, maybe you should advise them on your downtime.

This Is Not a Joke: Government Issues Study of a Study About Studies - ABC News

See, an ABC news article, just for you...



Private companies spend a lot of money on studies? Have you ever heard of a bank? Have you ever heard of a hedge fund? Have you ever heard of a pharmaceutical company? Have you ever heard of a tech company. These sectors thrive on market research, so I'm pretty sure they spend a great deal of resources on studies.

You see, if you study economics at all, you will find that economies of countries are very dependent. So, you can be sure that officials in all countries, including our own, are quite interested in data from studies of austerity. OBVIOUSLY.

Okay. So why weren't you able to find a single study commissioned by the government? And I don't deny that a government official would commission such a study. They've commissioned studies about a ton of worthless other things.

Relative to your source for your data, it simply says what you think of those looking at what you write. If you use the ny post, the findings will be doubted by many. And they will want to spend time vetting the information. Which is just plain poor form, me dear. If the information is true, it is available in impartial sources. And you will find no reason to use the ny post.

I've used the NY Post for a quote. It's really not that big of a deal. Again, if something of substance was side and it has credibility, then it really does not matter which forum it's presented on.

Uh, amazon. A couple of things. then I am putting you on ignore. First, the list I provided was not a list of studies, but a list of articles about studies. And yes, should you care to know, you will find gov studies, and others there. I did not see, nor would I expect to see, a private study. Which, by the way, is all I said. The rest of the drivel about financial institutions, etc. doing research, and studies, has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about a general economic study, as in a study on austerity. I have no idea if any private companies participated in studies.
Relative to the rest, just more of your drivel. No intent to be honest. No concern with impartiality. And that was a real profound statement letting us all know that companies do market research. Jesus.
Maybe when you get a chance you can explain why unemployment has nothing to do with austerity......

 

[AmazonTania]

Have you taken any college economics classes? What you just said is really, really ignorant. Studies are accomplished commonly by folks with college doctorates. You know, actual knowledge of how to do a study. And if you think that austerity is not worth studying, then maybe you should walk around the streets of some of the cities in europe. You will quickly get a very different understanding. If your mind is open to anything new.

That's... Nice... And... All... but you will never (or rarely, as never is a strong word) find an economist or financial analyst using their own money (or the money from their employer) to commission a study about the painfully obvious. It's a waste of time, resources and money. I really cannot imagine someone wasting their time, money and effort on a study to determine whether or not austerity is occurring.

This would the same shit as the US Government commissioning a study to figure out if the Government commissioned too many studies. LMAO, maybe you should advise them on your downtime.

This Is Not a Joke: Government Issues Study of a Study About Studies - ABC News

See, an ABC news article, just for you...



Private companies spend a lot of money on studies? Have you ever heard of a bank? Have you ever heard of a hedge fund? Have you ever heard of a pharmaceutical company? Have you ever heard of a tech company. These sectors thrive on market research, so I'm pretty sure they spend a great deal of resources on studies.



Okay. So why weren't you able to find a single study commissioned by the government? And I don't deny that a government official would commission such a study. They've commissioned studies about a ton of worthless other things.

Relative to your source for your data, it simply says what you think of those looking at what you write. If you use the ny post, the findings will be doubted by many. And they will want to spend time vetting the information. Which is just plain poor form, me dear. If the information is true, it is available in impartial sources. And you will find no reason to use the ny post.

I've used the NY Post for a quote. It's really not that big of a deal. Again, if something of substance was side and it has credibility, then it really does not matter which forum it's presented on.

Uh, amazon. A couple of things. then I am putting you on ignore.

You start a confrontation with me in another forum, and then you put me on ignore? Hahahahahahahahahaha....

I'm sorry, but that is funny...

First, the list I provided was not a list of studies, but a list of articles about studies.

Actually, only about two of your sources were articles about studies. The rest were just plan articles. One of your sources didn't even work, and two of your sources orginated from a blog.

Again, I do not care what you use for your sources, but do not claim your sources are one thing when it's really something else.

And yes, should you care to know, you will find gov studies, and others there.

Yes, I believe you. No, I don't care.

I did not see, nor would I expect to see, a private study.

Me neither! Which is exactly my point. See, we can agree...

Which, by the way, is all I said. The rest of the drivel about financial institutions, etc. doing research, and studies, has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about a general economic study, as in a study on austerity. I have no idea if any private companies participated in studies.

They commision studies relating to their particular industry all the time. Banks and Hedge Funds conduct their studies about financial markets and the global macroeconomy. Every financial quarter the conduct their GDP forecast, for developing nations as well as advanced economies; however, I doubt they will ever waste their time, money and resources conducting a worthless study. Argo, I do not see the point in presenting such a study in as my evidence.

Relative to the rest, just more of your drivel. No intent to be honest. No concern with impartiality. And that was a real profound statement letting us all know that companies do market research. Jesus.

I'm glad you liked it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Apologies to those who were learning something before the intellectual lightweight sidetracked me. As I was pointing out that there was no way that the amount of jobs created justifies 200K on average. This is real easy to see, especially for anyone who believes these month to month JOLTS under-reporting is a mere coincidence.

Year 2010:

JOLTS averages 82.1K net hires a month. CES averages 85K NFP a month. That's a 3.5% divergence.

Year 2011:

JOLTS averages 176K net hires a month. CES averages 175K NFP a month. That's a 0.5% divergence.

Year 2012:

JOLTS averages 175K net hires a month. CES averages 183K NFP a month. That's a 4% divergence.

First 6 months of 2013:

JOLTS averages 139K net hires a month. CES averages 198K NFP a month. A 42% divergence

Either these fudgey gimmicks started in 2012 or much later during that month. Over the past 7 months there has been a dramatic imbalances with NFP data reporting.

 

[pinqy]

Apologies to those who were learning something before the intellectual lightweight sidetracked me. As I was pointing out that there was no way that the amount of jobs created justifies 200K on average. This is real easy to see, especially for anyone who believes these month to month JOLTS under-reporting is a mere coincidence.

Year 2010:

JOLTS averages 82.1K net hires a month. CES averages 85K NFP a month. That's a 3.5% divergence.

Year 2011:

JOLTS averages 176K net hires a month. CES averages 175K NFP a month. That's a 0.5% divergence.

Year 2012:

JOLTS averages 175K net hires a month. CES averages 183K NFP a month. That's a 4% divergence.

First 6 months of 2013:

JOLTS averages 139K net hires a month. CES averages 198K NFP a month. A 42% divergence

Either these fudgey gimmicks started in 2012 or much later during that month. Over the past 7 months there has been a dramatic imbalances with NFP data reporting.

Why do you think the issue is with the CES rather than JOLTS?
It makes no sense to think JOLTS is a more accurate indicator.