Unemployment rate to 8.8%

[bigrebnc1775]

What he was trying to say is that no one is "counted." No one is "no longer counted," people are asked in the survey what their current status is, and they in turn represent hundreds of others to compile the national figures.

Whats to keep them from lying?

Nothing. But there's no reason for them to lie either. It's not really an issue. Why do you think it would be?

shame, embarassment nothing to gain from giving the facts.

 

[pinqy]

Really you are a true moron. You even said people ran out of unemployment benefits. What is the next step people take when they have no more money or limited money? FOOD STAMPS STUPID. You need to redefine your options, you're failing to impress me.

I said no DIRECT relation. You cannot tell from looking at food stamp receipients how many people are unemployed or vice versa. Many, many people who have jobs receive food stamps. There are also many in the military who recieve food stamps, but they are excluded from the employment/unemployment data.

At best you can see the general trend, but mostly it's useless. Nobody working with labor market stats looks at food stamps except if they specifically want to look at food stamp receipients in particular or to judge income effects. NOBODY uses food stamp receipients to determine unemployment.

It's a factor in the equation

Cite? It's not a factor in the equation, it's not asked on the survey.

 

[pinqy]

Whats to keep them from lying?

Nothing. But there's no reason for them to lie either. It's not really an issue. Why do you think it would be?

shame, embarassment nothing to gain from giving the facts.

Possibly true when talking about Discouragement and Marginally Attached, where people who aren't looking for work are probably more likely to claim they really do want a job but aren't looking because there aren't any. Those have a greater error rate too. But otherwise, it's not much of a concern and it's covered under the margin of error anyway. I just don't see many people claiming they worked when they didn't, especially when they're asked specific follow up questions.

People tend to be honest about these things or simply refuse to answer. It is completely voluntary.

 

[pinqy]

The sampling method outdates too quickly.

please elaborate.

There is no definition of UE that is going to capture distress.

So? why does it need to? What kind of "distress" are you trying to measure and why?

Being a sample (UE) based on a sample (labor force participation) of a sample (potential labor force) of an actual count the census.

Where on earth did you get that idea? It's not true. It's a completely seperate survey from the census and done on a monthly basis.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nothing. But there's no reason for them to lie either. It's not really an issue. Why do you think it would be?

shame, embarassment nothing to gain from giving the facts.

Possibly true when talking about Discouragement and Marginally Attached, where people who aren't looking for work are probably more likely to claim they really do want a job but aren't looking because there aren't any. Those have a greater error rate too. But otherwise, it's not much of a concern and it's covered under the margin of error anyway. I just don't see many people claiming they worked when they didn't, especially when they're asked specific follow up questions.

People tend to be honest about these things or simply refuse to answer. It is completely voluntary.

There's to much error to take 8.9% as the true numbers.
You can base the numbers on harder facts such as:
people who recieve unemploymnent checks
number of new people recieving food stamps
how many new people are seeking government help
number of new jobs in the private sector
how many housing foreclosers

But to believe a poll is not the best way to look at the numbers of unemployed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I said no DIRECT relation. You cannot tell from looking at food stamp receipients how many people are unemployed or vice versa. Many, many people who have jobs receive food stamps. There are also many in the military who recieve food stamps, but they are excluded from the employment/unemployment data.

At best you can see the general trend, but mostly it's useless. Nobody working with labor market stats looks at food stamps except if they specifically want to look at food stamp receipients in particular or to judge income effects. NOBODY uses food stamp receipients to determine unemployment.

It's a factor in the equation

Cite? It's not a factor in the equation, it's not asked on the survey.

Where's your cite showing it isn't? When people are in need they will seek help from food stamps losing a job with no money would be a good indicator of that. Human nature is my cite.

 

[pinqy]

shame, embarassment nothing to gain from giving the facts.

Possibly true when talking about Discouragement and Marginally Attached, where people who aren't looking for work are probably more likely to claim they really do want a job but aren't looking because there aren't any. Those have a greater error rate too. But otherwise, it's not much of a concern and it's covered under the margin of error anyway. I just don't see many people claiming they worked when they didn't, especially when they're asked specific follow up questions.

People tend to be honest about these things or simply refuse to answer. It is completely voluntary.

There's to much error to take 8.9% as the true numbers.

It's +-.2 So the "true" percentage is between 8.6 and 9%. Perfectly adequate.

You can base the numbers on harder facts such as:
people who recieve unemploymnent checks

For the week ending march 12th, there were 8,770,443 people receiving checks. There were 13,542,000 unemployed. You'd be missing all the people who aren't eligible, haven't filed yet, new entrants and re-entrants.

number of new people recieving food stamps
how many new people are seeking government help
how many housing foreclosers

Those don't tell us anything about employment status. You can be employed and receive gov't aid.

number of new jobs in the private sector

Also collected in a survey. Useless because some people hold more than one job and it also ignores the self-employed.

But to believe a poll is not the best way to look at the numbers of unemployed.

There's no better way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Possibly true when talking about Discouragement and Marginally Attached, where people who aren't looking for work are probably more likely to claim they really do want a job but aren't looking because there aren't any. Those have a greater error rate too. But otherwise, it's not much of a concern and it's covered under the margin of error anyway. I just don't see many people claiming they worked when they didn't, especially when they're asked specific follow up questions.

People tend to be honest about these things or simply refuse to answer. It is completely voluntary.

There's to much error to take 8.9% as the true numbers.

It's +-.2 So the "true" percentage is between 8.6 and 9%. Perfectly adequate.



For the week ending march 12th, there were 8,770,443 people receiving checks. There were 13,542,000 unemployed. You'd be missing all the people who aren't eligible, haven't filed yet, new entrants and re-entrants.



Those don't tell us anything about employment status. You can be employed and receive gov't aid.

number of new jobs in the private sector

Also collected in a survey. Useless because some people hold more than one job and it also ignores the self-employed.

But to believe a poll is not the best way to look at the numbers of unemployed.

There's no better way.

It's +-.2 So the "true" percentage is between 8.6 and 9%. Perfectly adequate.

So you believe in the easter bunny? The tooth Fairy? Would you bet the life of a family member?

For the week ending march 12th, there were 8,770,443 people receiving checks. There were 13,542,000 unemployed. You'd be missing all the people who aren't eligible, haven't filed yet, new entrants and re-entrants.

Those numbers can be found the government keeps them. People who have applied for unemployment and those who have run out of benefits, and those who have lost them due to false claims. They keep those numbers on record. If they didn't the government would never know who was disqualifed and who has run out of time, they would continue sending checks out.

 

[pinqy]

It's a factor in the equation

Cite? It's not a factor in the equation, it's not asked on the survey.

Where's your cite showing it isn't?

BLS Handbook of Methods Technical Paper 66
You will find no mention of using food stamp receipients as part of any equation calculating unemployment.

When people are in need they will seek help from food stamps losing a job with no money would be a good indicator of that. Human nature is my cite.

The program is now called SNAP and provides assistance to approx 28 million people. How many of them are unemployed and how many are just low income? The only way to tell would be to look at the individual records (possibly...still might not work for families where one person is unemployed and another not) and you cannot possibly put out that kind of information every month and certainly not have all the details of why they're unemployed or how long, or race or any of the demographics.

Plus many unemployed people aren't eligible. If your spouse makes $80,000/year, you lose your job and are looking for another, you are unemployed, but you're not eligible for government assistance.

If you're a 17 year old high school student who wants a part time job for pocket money, you're unemployed as well.

NOBODY has ever used food stamp receipt as part of any equation to measure unemployment. You're making things up out of your ass to claim they are.

 

[pinqy]

Those numbers can be found the government keeps them.

No, they don't.

People who have applied for unemployment and those who have run out of benefits, and those who have lost them due to false claims.

Are not kept track of in any meaningful way. Do you have any idea the amount of work it would require to use all that? Duplicates, people changing states, etc etc. And let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?

They keep those numbers on record. If they didn't the government would never know who was disqualifed and who has run out of time, they would continue sending checks out.

But that's an individual basis. You can't check and cross check every single individual every month. And again, that would only tell you who is currently receiving or who was just denied benefits.

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Those numbers can be found the government keeps them.

No, they don't.

People who have applied for unemployment and those who have run out of benefits, and those who have lost them due to false claims.

Are not kept track of in any meaningful way. Do you have any idea the amount of work it would require to use all that? Duplicates, people changing states, etc etc. And let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?

They keep those numbers on record. If they didn't the government would never know who was disqualifed and who has run out of time, they would continue sending checks out.

But that's an individual basis. You can't check and cross check every single individual every month. And again, that would only tell you who is currently receiving or who was just denied benefits.

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits.

Stop being stupid. They do keep record of all people who are on unemployment and who has run out of benefits and who has been disqualified, if they did not keep a record how would the government keep track of the money?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Cite? It's not a factor in the equation, it's not asked on the survey.

Where's your cite showing it isn't?

BLS Handbook of Methods Technical Paper 66
You will find no mention of using food stamp receipients as part of any equation calculating unemployment.

When people are in need they will seek help from food stamps losing a job with no money would be a good indicator of that. Human nature is my cite.

The program is now called SNAP and provides assistance to approx 28 million people. How many of them are unemployed and how many are just low income? The only way to tell would be to look at the individual records (possibly...still might not work for families where one person is unemployed and another not) and you cannot possibly put out that kind of information every month and certainly not have all the details of why they're unemployed or how long, or race or any of the demographics.

Plus many unemployed people aren't eligible. If your spouse makes $80,000/year, you lose your job and are looking for another, you are unemployed, but you're not eligible for government assistance.

If you're a 17 year old high school student who wants a part time job for pocket money, you're unemployed as well.

NOBODY has ever used food stamp receipt as part of any equation to measure unemployment. You're making things up out of your ass to claim they are.

I have posted the numbers in another reply I made in this thread. NYTIMES said the numbers were 42 million.

 

[pinqy]

Those numbers can be found the government keeps them.

No, they don't.

Are not kept track of in any meaningful way. Do you have any idea the amount of work it would require to use all that? Duplicates, people changing states, etc etc. And let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?

They keep those numbers on record. If they didn't the government would never know who was disqualifed and who has run out of time, they would continue sending checks out.

But that's an individual basis. You can't check and cross check every single individual every month. And again, that would only tell you who is currently receiving or who was just denied benefits.

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits.

Stop being stupid. They do keep record of all people who are on unemployment and who has run out of benefits and who has been disqualified, if they did not keep a record how would the government keep track of the money?

let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?
Are you claiming records are kept of that: what happens after a person has had a claim denied?

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits
Where are the records for these?

And more, take a look at the details of age, race, sex, veterans' status, disability, reason for unemployment etc from the Employment situation. How will you get those?

 

[pinqy]

Where's your cite showing it isn't?

BLS Handbook of Methods Technical Paper 66
You will find no mention of using food stamp receipients as part of any equation calculating unemployment.

When people are in need they will seek help from food stamps losing a job with no money would be a good indicator of that. Human nature is my cite.

The program is now called SNAP and provides assistance to approx 28 million people. How many of them are unemployed and how many are just low income? The only way to tell would be to look at the individual records (possibly...still might not work for families where one person is unemployed and another not) and you cannot possibly put out that kind of information every month and certainly not have all the details of why they're unemployed or how long, or race or any of the demographics.

Plus many unemployed people aren't eligible. If your spouse makes $80,000/year, you lose your job and are looking for another, you are unemployed, but you're not eligible for government assistance.

If you're a 17 year old high school student who wants a part time job for pocket money, you're unemployed as well.

NOBODY has ever used food stamp receipt as part of any equation to measure unemployment. You're making things up out of your ass to claim they are.

I have posted the numbers in another reply I made in this thread. NYTIMES said the numbers were 42 million.

I like how you nitpick over the numbers and ignore the fact that you can't use the numbers to tell how many people are unemployed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BLS Handbook of Methods Technical Paper 66
You will find no mention of using food stamp receipients as part of any equation calculating unemployment.


The program is now called SNAP and provides assistance to approx 28 million people. How many of them are unemployed and how many are just low income? The only way to tell would be to look at the individual records (possibly...still might not work for families where one person is unemployed and another not) and you cannot possibly put out that kind of information every month and certainly not have all the details of why they're unemployed or how long, or race or any of the demographics.

Plus many unemployed people aren't eligible. If your spouse makes $80,000/year, you lose your job and are looking for another, you are unemployed, but you're not eligible for government assistance.

If you're a 17 year old high school student who wants a part time job for pocket money, you're unemployed as well.

NOBODY has ever used food stamp receipt as part of any equation to measure unemployment. You're making things up out of your ass to claim they are.

I have posted the numbers in another reply I made in this thread. NYTIMES said the numbers were 42 million.

I like how you nitpick over the numbers and ignore the fact that you can't use the numbers to tell how many people are unemployed.

Stating the facts is nit picking? 22 million is no where near 42 million. Try again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, they don't.

Are not kept track of in any meaningful way. Do you have any idea the amount of work it would require to use all that? Duplicates, people changing states, etc etc. And let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?



But that's an individual basis. You can't check and cross check every single individual every month. And again, that would only tell you who is currently receiving or who was just denied benefits.

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits.

Stop being stupid. They do keep record of all people who are on unemployment and who has run out of benefits and who has been disqualified, if they did not keep a record how would the government keep track of the money?

let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?
Are you claiming records are kept of that: what happens after a person has had a claim denied?

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits
Where are the records for these?

And more, take a look at the details of age, race, sex, veterans' status, disability, reason for unemployment etc from the Employment situation. How will you get those?

This is one time I will not allow you to slide with your twisted dance.
Clear and simple they have to keep up with the racords of who is on unemployment who has lost their unemployment or who has been disquialfied from unemployment.
So those numbers are counted and kept on file. They must account for the money or the would continue sending checks to poeople who should not be getting unemployment checks.

 

[pinqy]

Stop being stupid. They do keep record of all people who are on unemployment and who has run out of benefits and who has been disqualified, if they did not keep a record how would the government keep track of the money?

let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?
Are you claiming records are kept of that: what happens after a person has had a claim denied?

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits
Where are the records for these?

And more, take a look at the details of age, race, sex, veterans' status, disability, reason for unemployment etc from the Employment situation. How will you get those?

This is one time I will not allow you to slide with your twisted dance.
Clear and simple they have to keep up with the racords of who is on unemployment who has lost their unemployment or who has been disquialfied from unemployment.
So those numbers are counted and kept on file. They must account for the money or the would continue sending checks to poeople who should not be getting unemployment checks.

Answer the fucking questions or quit wasting my time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

let's say we know that in Feb, person X had their claim denied. What's their status in March? Someone ran out of benefits in Jan. What's their status in March?
Are you claiming records are kept of that: what happens after a person has had a claim denied?

And again, you keep ignoring people who don't apply because they know they're not eligible:
People who quit, people who retired and want a part time job, people who never had a job and are starting to look for one, people who worked years ago, stayed home to look after the kids, and are looking again, people who went back to school, or prison, and are now trying to find a job again. All unemployed, none would apply for UI benefits
Where are the records for these?

And more, take a look at the details of age, race, sex, veterans' status, disability, reason for unemployment etc from the Employment situation. How will you get those?

This is one time I will not allow you to slide with your twisted dance.
Clear and simple they have to keep up with the racords of who is on unemployment who has lost their unemployment or who has been disquialfied from unemployment.
So those numbers are counted and kept on file. They must account for the money or the would continue sending checks to poeople who should not be getting unemployment checks.

Answer the fucking questions or quit wasting my time.

I answered you those who have recieved or are recieving or who have be denied unemployment are on a record that is on file. They are kept track of. Which brings us back to the original post of 8.9 percent being incorrect. Your argument has failed.

 

[pinqy]

This is one time I will not allow you to slide with your twisted dance.
Clear and simple they have to keep up with the racords of who is on unemployment who has lost their unemployment or who has been disquialfied from unemployment.
So those numbers are counted and kept on file. They must account for the money or the would continue sending checks to poeople who should not be getting unemployment checks.

Answer the fucking questions or quit wasting my time.

I answered you those who have recieved or are recieving or who have be denied unemployment are on a record that is on file. They are kept track of. Which brings us back to the original post of 8.9 percent being incorrect. Your argument has failed.

Try again: A person was denied benefits in November last year. There is a record of that, sure, but what's their employment status NOW??????

Where are the records for people WHO NEVER APPLIED FOR BENEFITS?

How will you get any DEMOGRAPHICS?

Yes, there are records of how many people are currently recieving UI benefits, and the offices will have records of denying claims and ending claims, but there's no tracking before or after that.

And did you not notice that the number of unemployed under the survey is much higher than the number of people receiving benefits?

You keep ignoring all this

 

[william the wie]

The sampling method outdates too quickly.

please elaborate.

There is no definition of UE that is going to capture distress.

So? why does it need to? What kind of "distress" are you trying to measure and why?

Being a sample (UE) based on a sample (labor force participation) of a sample (potential labor force) of an actual count the census.

Where on earth did you get that idea? It's not true. It's a completely seperate survey from the census and done on a monthly basis.

Do you know enough probability theory to figure out the odds on getting a hand in a game you have never played before? Where do you think the sample errors come from? It comes from probability theory.

The size of the sample vs. accuracy is all based on either census data or extrapolations there from vs. sample size plus data on response rates or it is totally useless. For example landline households with or without caller ID, being on or not being on the do not call list have different response rates and if not adjusted for those rates the results are not worth compiling because of sample self selection error. That is covered in every Stat 101 course that is worth taking.

Then there is respondent error, does the respondent have accurate and up to date information on all household members? How well are the survey questions tested for reliability of response? In each and every post of yours on this subject you have ignored error generators. You are either an undergrad or else someone who never earned a paycheck based on statistical analysis.