Unemployment rate to 8.8%

[8537]

Care to try again faily? If unemployment numbers are going down, why are the recievers of unemployment checks going up?

Because the two numbers are not directly related.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Care to try again faily? If unemployment numbers are going down, why are the recievers of unemployment checks going up?

Because the two numbers are not directly related.

Care to explain that pipe dream with something other than your mistaken opinion?
If the recievers of unemployment checks goes up, how can the unemployment numbers go down?

 

[pinqy]

Care to try again faily? If unemployment numbers are going down, why are the recievers of unemployment checks going up?

Because the two numbers are not directly related.

Care to explain that pipe dream with something other than your mistaken opinion?
If the recievers of unemployment checks goes up, how can the unemployment numbers go down?

I already answered and you ignored it. Besides which, the number of people receivig benefits has gone DOWN, not up. You are only looking at intial claims, not continuing benefits. I already showed that for January, more people gained jobs than laid off.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because the two numbers are not directly related.

Care to explain that pipe dream with something other than your mistaken opinion?
If the recievers of unemployment checks goes up, how can the unemployment numbers go down?

I already answered and you ignored it. Besides which, the number of people receivig benefits has gone DOWN, not up. You are only looking at intial claims, not continuing benefits. I already showed that for January, more people gained jobs than laid off.

And I answered your chickenshit reply. I said try again.
Here chew on this for a while

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2011-03-10-weekly-unemployment-claims_N.htm

 

[pinqy]

Care to explain that pipe dream with something other than your mistaken opinion?
If the recievers of unemployment checks goes up, how can the unemployment numbers go down?

I already answered and you ignored it. Besides which, the number of people receivig benefits has gone DOWN, not up. You are only looking at intial claims, not continuing benefits. I already showed that for January, more people gained jobs than laid off.

And I answered your chickenshit reply. I said try again.
Here chew on this for a while

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

CLAIMS, versus CONTINUING. If 400,000 people make claims, and 420,000 stop receiving benefits (for whatever reason), then that's 20,000 fewer people receiving benefits. And that's what's been happening. For the week ending March 20th, 2010, there were 4,681,000 people receiving state benefits. For the week ending March 19th 2011, there were 3,714,000 people receiving state benefits. Every week in between there was an average of 443,596 new claims. By your math, that should be 23 million more people receiving benefits.

You keep talking like 400,000 new claims means 400,000 more people receiving benefits, which is inaccurate, it's 400,000 new people, and is not in any way taling about people no longer recieving benefits.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I already answered and you ignored it. Besides which, the number of people receivig benefits has gone DOWN, not up. You are only looking at intial claims, not continuing benefits. I already showed that for January, more people gained jobs than laid off.

And I answered your chickenshit reply. I said try again.
Here chew on this for a while

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

CLAIMS, versus COTINUING. If 400,000 people make claims, and 420,000 stop receiving benefits (for whatever reason), then that's 20,000 fewer people receiving benefits. And that's what's been happening. For the week ending March 20th, 2010, there were 4,681,000 people receiving state benefits. For the week ending March 19th 2011, there were 3,714,000 people receiving state benefits. Every week in between there was an average of 443,596 new claims. By your math, that should be 23 million more people receiving benefits.

You keep talking like 400,000 new claims means 400,000 more people receiving benefits, which is inaccurate, it's 400,000 new people, and is not in any way taling about people no longer recieving benefits.

CLAIMS, versus COTINUING. If 400,000 people make claims, and 420,000 stop receiving benefits (for whatever reason), then that's 20,000 fewer people receiving benefits.

FOR WHAT EVER REASON? lIKE THEIR BENIFITS HAVE ENDED? 400,000 additional claims added to the additional claims. Your math isno adding up. Liberal math is always fuzzy and never adds up.
TO add more people would be the same as new people. dumb you are a stupid fuck.

 

[pinqy]

FOR WHAT EVER REASON? lIKE THEIR BENIFITS HAVE ENDED?

One possible reason, sure. There are others, and no way to tell why someone stopped receiving benefits.

TO add more people would be the same as new people.

Not if you're subtracting people as well. Persons A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are reciving benefits at the beginning of the week. During the week, K, L, and M apply for benefits, A finds a job, and B runs out of benefits. New claims would be 3. Continuing claims would be 11 (+3, -2). So 3 new people, but only 1 person more than before.

Next week, N, O, P, and Q apply for benefits, so 4 initial claims, while C finds a job, D dies, E runs out of benefits, F becomes ineligible, G finds a job. Continuing claims is now 10.

So in the two weeks we've added 7 new people, but the number of people receiving benefits is still 10.

 

[8537]

Care to try again faily? If unemployment numbers are going down, why are the recievers of unemployment checks going up?

Because the two numbers are not directly related.

Care to explain that pipe dream with something other than your mistaken opinion?
If the recievers of unemployment checks goes up, how can the unemployment numbers go down?

It's not a pipe-dream or a mistaken opinion, it's realiity.
The number of people who actually receive unemployment payments is the number of people who actually file for unemployment insurance minus those whose applications are denied.

The unemployment rate is based on a household survey, and the results are not based on whether one collects unemployment insurance.

That's the facts. you can deny them, but it just makes you look silly.

 

[boedicca]

Look, IF the Labor Force had increased from 153,895,000 to 155,111,000 (1.2 million), then the LF participation rate would have stayed the same. But you can't consider the 1.2 million a loss to the labor force or say that that's 1.2 million more that should be counted as unemployed....that's just bad methodology. The loss to the labor force was only half a million. It's not good that the Labor Force has gone down (though it's going back up finally), but it's not as bad as you're painting it.

It's ridiculous that you think because I'm saying things aren't as bad as you're claiming that I''m saying things are all peachy keen. You're claiming the patient lost an arm, and I'm saying he only lost a finger, not that he's in perfect health.

What I'm saying, is that the labor force SHOULD have increased to 155.1M. The decline in the participation rate is a negative employment indicator.

This is not a good trend:

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000


And the decline in the participation rate IS WHY THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE has declined. The decline is not due to job creation well above the 130-150K needed just to keep up with population growth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

FOR WHAT EVER REASON? lIKE THEIR BENIFITS HAVE ENDED?

One possible reason, sure. There are others, and no way to tell why someone stopped receiving benefits.

TO add more people would be the same as new people.

Not if you're subtracting people as well. Persons A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are reciving benefits at the beginning of the week. During the week, K, L, and M apply for benefits, A finds a job, and B runs out of benefits. New claims would be 3. Continuing claims would be 11 (+3, -2). So 3 new people, but only 1 person more than before.

Next week, N, O, P, and Q apply for benefits, so 4 initial claims, while C finds a job, D dies, E runs out of benefits, F becomes ineligible, G finds a job. Continuing claims is now 10.

So in the two weeks we've added 7 new people, but the number of people receiving benefits is still 10.

no way to tell why someone stopped receiving benefits.

Yes there is either they went back to work or their benifits ended.

 

[pinqy]

What I'm saying, is that the labor force SHOULD have increased to 155.1M.

Yes and no. To remain at the same LF participation rate, yes, it would have needed to go up to 155 mil. BUT, the LF participation rate can change for reasons that have nothing to do with the economy. If college became cheaper (there's a pipe dream), then more kids would go to college and fewer would try to get part time jobs, so the LF participation would drop without it being a bad thing.

And there are also reasons that are secondary to the labor market. Many spouses, students, retirees have part time jobs for extra income. During tough times like now, they get pushed out of jobs and not really needing the money, don't look for new jobs. That also lowers the rate, but isn't directly showing a problem with the labor market..they were only loosely attached.

The decline in the participation rate is negative employment indicator.

In the current circumstances, yes, but that's not always true.

And the decline in the participation rate IS WHY THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE has declined.

This WAS true until this year. Since January the UE rate has gone down because the Labor Force has gone up and unemployment has gone down....more people are getting jobs than losing them. Since January, Employment has gone up 541,000, most of it full time jobs (419,000). Unemployment has gone down 321,000. Note that because Employment has gone up more than Unemployment has gone down, the Labor Force has (slightly) increased. Layoffs have gone down.

Trickier to tell, unemployed re-entrants has gone down. I don't know know if it's because more are getting jobs (which would be good) or if it's becuase they're discouraged (which would be bad). But discouraged workers have (barely) gone down too.

Don't get me wrong, things are still bad, but they are starting, slowly, slowly, to improve.

 

[pinqy]

Yes there is either they went back to work or their benifits ended.

Or they died. But like I said, there is no way to tell which. If you know where that's published, give us the link. But it's not published anywhere, just the net changes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes there is either they went back to work or their benifits ended.

Or they died. But like I said, there is no way to tell which. If you know where that's published, give us the link. But it's not published anywhere, just the net changes.

Slim minority still does not match your numbers.

 

[pinqy]

Yes there is either they went back to work or their benifits ended.

Or they died. But like I said, there is no way to tell which. If you know where that's published, give us the link. But it's not published anywhere, just the net changes.

Slim minority still does not match your numbers.

slim minority of what doesn't match what numbers? UI cliams will not match up with UE levels or changes because not everyone who is unemployed receives benefits, so they'll show up as Unemployed in the household survey but won't appear in continuing claims. No survey will exactly match up with any other survey because of different samples, collection, time periods, definitions, etc.

Initial claims is only good for looking at the number of layoffs around the particular week. Tells us nothing about anything else.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Or they died. But like I said, there is no way to tell which. If you know where that's published, give us the link. But it's not published anywhere, just the net changes.

Slim minority still does not match your numbers.

slim minority of what doesn't match what numbers? UI cliams will not match up with UE levels or changes because not everyone who is unemployed receives benefits, so they'll show up as Unemployed in the household survey but won't appear in continuing claims. No survey will exactly match up with any other survey because of different samples, collection, time periods, definitions, etc.

Initial claims is only good for looking at the number of layoffs around the particular week. Tells us nothing about anything else.

OK let's take a look at the rising numbers of NEW food stamp recievers. With those numbers it makes your argument flawed.

 

[boedicca]

pinqy is living, breathing proof (I know, a bit of a leap of faith on the living, breathing bit) that politicians can fool Some Of The People All Of The Time.

 

[pinqy]

Slim minority still does not match your numbers.

slim minority of what doesn't match what numbers? UI cliams will not match up with UE levels or changes because not everyone who is unemployed receives benefits, so they'll show up as Unemployed in the household survey but won't appear in continuing claims. No survey will exactly match up with any other survey because of different samples, collection, time periods, definitions, etc.

Initial claims is only good for looking at the number of layoffs around the particular week. Tells us nothing about anything else.

OK let's take a look at the rising numbers of NEW food stamp recievers. With those numbers it makes your argument flawed.

Food stamp receipients have nothing to do with UE calculations. There's no direct relation between the two.

 

[editec]

You are wrong, but you do get 10 Points For Consistency.

The BLS provides the stats that an intelligent person can use to connect the dots.

Labor Force participation declines are not a good economic indicator. People have given up looking for jobs because the economy is not creating enough of them.

That, in a nutshell, is the effect of Obamanomics Big Government Borrow from the Future to pay for Current Consumption policies (on top of decades of equally misguided Big Government agendas enacted by both parties).

What am I wrong about, Boed?

That the BLS determines employment based on a survey?

So when somebody tells us that they are "counting" numbers you KNOW they do not understand where these STATS are coming from.

The government doesw NOT keep track of new hires or recent fires.

That is NOT where the unemployment numbers are coming from.

They come from surveys where BLS pollsters ASK people if they're unemployed and looking for work.

You do know that, right?

If not look it up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

slim minority of what doesn't match what numbers? UI cliams will not match up with UE levels or changes because not everyone who is unemployed receives benefits, so they'll show up as Unemployed in the household survey but won't appear in continuing claims. No survey will exactly match up with any other survey because of different samples, collection, time periods, definitions, etc.

Initial claims is only good for looking at the number of layoffs around the particular week. Tells us nothing about anything else.

OK let's take a look at the rising numbers of NEW food stamp recievers. With those numbers it makes your argument flawed.

Food stamp receipients have nothing to do with UE calculations. There's no direct relation between the two.

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfRpVYLDrxk&feature=feedlik]YouTube - Collapse Crisis Accelerating[/ame]