Beware Of Liberal Election Internet Tactic: Thread Titles That Are A 100% Lie

[pinqy]

And unemployment is now under 6%. Statistical fact.

When you color in your unicorn coloring-book,what is your favorite color?

Statistics are funny things. Every time someone's unemployment coverage expires, they are no longer unemployed, according to the government. Every part timer that finds he needs a second job is counted twice or maybe even 3 times.

So yes. If you add up the numbers the way obama does, we have under 6% unemployment. BUT if you count each person only once and those who's coverage has lapsed, it's more like 12%. Some estimate even higher.

Do some reading here: Shadow Government Statistics - Home Page

So, this means we also had like 13% unemployment under Reagan, right? For this is the very same BLS that did the statistics back then....

Really, weak sauce, very, very weak.

Actually, no The way unemployment is calculated was changed in 1994. As I remember, bill clinton was President then.

You recall incorrectly. The changes were a revamp of the survey to make things more computerized, and one minor change in definition of unemployed (regarding people hired but not yet working). Oh, and military were dropped from the survey.

 

[EconChick]

Explain to me how we can have record numbers of none working Americans and yet have a 5.9 unemployment rate?

Number of Americans in workforce hits 36-year low. Unemployment Rate at 5.9 percent

There are idiot Libs who don't want to see.

Nobody likes to admit they were duped. Even when faced with undeniable evidence and they still cling to the messiahs word.
Pathetic.

News
Flash!

Nobody is duped....we just happen to know how to read and analyze statistical charts...it's YOU that is trying to twist things here....

Unemployment is measured the same way it has measured unemployment for the past few decades....the Workforce participation rate has been measured the same way for the past few decades as well, NOTHING has changed to DUPE us....

Yes, the workforce participation rate has gone down, and LESS people are looking for work....and this is a concern that they have DECIDED ON THEIR OWN, not to continue to look for a job, and to do something else....

These people could have easily said, yes, I am looking for a job, and then they would have been counted as "unemployed".....but they CHOSE not to say such, they CHOSE to not look for a job....

Why is this happening? Who knows for certain other than their hair dressers? But it would be great to find out and figure it out....

I am certain it is made up of a variety of people with a variety of reasons.... I left the work force for my own reasons, after being unemployed, and others have chosen to do the same......

It could be the wife, who has children under the age of 5, who lost a good paying job, where she could afford paying for day care for her children...that has decided now, if she cant get a job with the same level of salary, it is NOT WORTH FINANCIALLY for her to go back to work....and pay these daycare costs.

Could be someone who is older, and nearing retirement, that does not want to start a new job or new career that late in life....

I wonder, do they separate the participation rate by gender? Is it MORE females deciding to drop out vs males? Is it those approaching retirement verses middle aged? Is it the very young right out of college, deciding just not to enter the workforce due to the sparsity of jobs available in their careers? Or the young with no college education at all?

It's GOOD that the participation rate is separated from the U/E rate and not included in it....it gives us the opportunity to evaluate it on its own.

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about. You're talking to someone with a partial doctorate in economics. Stop telling me what I know about econ stats. You sound like an idiot.


As for your quote below:

Why is this happening? Who knows for certain other than their hair dressers? But it would be great to find out and figure it out....



There are tons of stats. Everyone knows that. Stop participating in a discussion you don't know shit about.

You might be a sweet propagandist, but you're still a damn propagandist.

You liars lied this idiot into office.

We're putting a stop to you liars.

Get it?
Got it?

Good.

 

[TooTall]

Obama did drop the gas prices for us

Was that by allowing the Keystone pipeline, continuing the OK to drill offshore that Bush put in place or issuing many more permits to drill on federal land? Sounds good to me!

With these low prices it looks like we did not need the Keystone Pipeline after all

If the Keystone Pipeline had been built, these low prices could have happened several years ago.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, this means we also had like 13% unemployment under Reagan, right? For this is the very same BLS that did the statistics back then....

Really, weak sauce, very, very weak.

So Statist, you claim that the percentage of the workforce in part time status was the same under Reagan as it is under your GLORIOUS ruler Obama?

You are claiming the Labor Participation Rate is the same now as it was under Reagan?

Lie much, Statist?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama has the highest ratings of any branch of government. The public is rightfully outraged at all government with most of their wrath directed at Congress

So did Bush, shitflinger.

 

[Uncensored2008]

With these low prices it looks like we did not need the Keystone Pipeline after all

Do you grasp that oil is a global market, shitflinger? What is it you think (rather, the hate sites train you to think) Keystone XL is about? What do you think extending it to the Gulf will accomplish?

 

[rightwinger]

With these low prices it looks like we did not need the Keystone Pipeline after all

Do you grasp that oil is a global market, shitflinger? What is it you think (rather, the hate sites train you to think) Keystone XL is about? What do you think extending it to the Gulf will accomplish?

Just reminding that when gas prices went up, Conservatives used it as an excuse for why Keystone was urgently needed

Extending it to the Gulf will make oil interests richer but will have no impact on the rest of us

 

[rightwinger]

Obama has the highest ratings of any branch of government. The public is rightfully outraged at all government with most of their wrath directed at Congress

So did Bush, shitflinger.

Congress had a higher approval rating than Bush

But again, that was not hard to do

 

[Ernie S.]

And unemployment is now under 6%. Statistical fact.

When you color in your unicorn coloring-book,what is your favorite color?

Statistics are funny things. Every time someone's unemployment coverage expires, they are no longer unemployed, according to the government. Every part timer that finds he needs a second job is counted twice or maybe even 3 times.

So yes. If you add up the numbers the way obama does, we have under 6% unemployment. BUT if you count each person only once and those who's coverage has lapsed, it's more like 12%. Some estimate even higher.

Do some reading here: Shadow Government Statistics - Home Page

So, this means we also had like 13% unemployment under Reagan, right? For this is the very same BLS that did the statistics back then....

Really, weak sauce, very, very weak.

Actually, no The way unemployment is calculated was changed in 1994. As I remember, bill clinton was President then.

You recall incorrectly. The changes were a revamp of the survey to make things more computerized, and one minor change in definition of unemployed (regarding people hired but not yet working). Oh, and military were dropped from the survey.

Nope. I remember just fine

In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force. A smaller denominator with the same number employed leads to a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate. Ask yourself how much sense this makes in today’s world where the average unemployment duration is 40 weeks and there have been several years where unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks.

 

[pinqy]

And unemployment is now under 6%. Statistical fact.

When you color in your unicorn coloring-book,what is your favorite color?

Statistics are funny things. Every time someone's unemployment coverage expires, they are no longer unemployed, according to the government. Every part timer that finds he needs a second job is counted twice or maybe even 3 times.

So yes. If you add up the numbers the way obama does, we have under 6% unemployment. BUT if you count each person only once and those who's coverage has lapsed, it's more like 12%. Some estimate even higher.

Do some reading here: Shadow Government Statistics - Home Page

So, this means we also had like 13% unemployment under Reagan, right? For this is the very same BLS that did the statistics back then....

Really, weak sauce, very, very weak.

Actually, no The way unemployment is calculated was changed in 1994. As I remember, bill clinton was President then.

You recall incorrectly. The changes were a revamp of the survey to make things more computerized, and one minor change in definition of unemployed (regarding people hired but not yet working). Oh, and military were dropped from the survey.

Nope. I remember just fine

In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index.

The definition of Discouraged was changed, but Discouraged were never in the U-3 (which was called the U-5 prior to 1994). They were only included in the then U-7

If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force.

Absolutely false. And easily shown wrong: Table A-35 Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment which shows around 2 million unemployed 52 weeks or longer.


Definition of Unemployed before 1994:

Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/employment/1960s/empl_021967.pdf

What do you see in that definition that could be considered Discouraged?

Definition of Unemployed 1994 to present:

Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What in there exludes those unemployed more than a year?

.

 

[Ernie S.]

Read the linked article. Perhaps you will be able to grasp the concept.

 

[pinqy]

Statistics are funny things. Every time someone's unemployment coverage expires, they are no longer unemployed, according to the government.

If you're saying "according to the government," shouldn't you have a government source for that? Here, I'll help:
Employment Situation Technical Note

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Oh, wait....that doesn't support your point at all.

Every part timer that finds he needs a second job is counted twice or maybe even 3 times.

That's actually true for the Establishment Survey (the official jobs report) because it's a survey of businesses, not people, so people on multiple payrolls will show up for each payroll.

But for the Household survey, which is what is used for the unemployment data:

Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. For purposes of occupation and industry classification, multiple jobholders are counted in the job at which they worked the greatest number of hoursduring the reference week
http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

 

[pinqy]

Read the linked article. Perhaps you will be able to grasp the concept.

I've read it many times. He never actually claims that discouraged were in the official rate. He skirts the fact that the U-6 includes people who are employed in the numerator. He ignores the Marginally Attached which was not even a category before 1994 and for which no prior data exists. And his math is ridiculous. He's claiming there are 23 million people who want to work, are available to work, previously looked for work but stopped looking more than a year ago because they believed there were no jobs, they lacked the right skills/education, or would be discriminated against. The problem is that there are only 3.2 million people who want a job but didn't look in the last year. And that includes those who have never looked for work and those that quit looking for reasons other than discouragement and those who couldn't take a job if offered.

Do you need me to walk you through the math?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words the Labor Participation Rate...which shows up in U-6, not U-3....is at its worst since 1978.

Worst in 30 years because of Obama.

U6 peaked in 2009.

 

[EconChick]

In other words the Labor Participation Rate...which shows up in U-6, not U-3....is at its worst since 1978.

The Labor Force Participation Rate does not show up in the U-6. No idea how you could say that. Do you have any idea what goes into the U-6 and why no economist who actually deals with these numbers would ever refer to it as an unemployment rate?

Wow, how did I miss THIS gem? Do you really have to have it spelled out with 3rd grade precision?

We keep explaining to you liberal idiots that U-3 is a superficial number.....that it's incomplete.

When talking the U-3 Rate found in the press, people don't take into account the realities of a NUMBER OF THINGS including the Labor Force Participation rate

but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons - See more at:

In other words the Labor Participation Rate...which shows up in U-6, not U-3....is at its worst since 1978.

The Labor Force Participation Rate does not show up in the U-6. No idea how you could say that. Do you have any idea what goes into the U-6 and why no economist who actually deals with these numbers would ever refer to it as an unemployment rate?

Wow, how did I miss THIS gem? Do you really have to have it spelled out with 3rd grade precision?

We keep explaining to you liberal idiots that U-3 is a superficial number.....that it's incomplete.

When talking the U-3 Rate found in the press, people don't take into account the realities of a NUMBER OF THINGS including the Labor Force Participation rate....that are better reflected in the category where for example, part time or marginally attached workers are counted ----->U-6.

Is there anything else you'd like me to hold your hand with?

 

[EconChick]

Read the linked article. Perhaps you will be able to grasp the concept.

I've read it many times. He never actually claims that discouraged were in the official rate. He skirts the fact that the U-6 includes people who are employed in the numerator. He ignores the Marginally Attached which was not even a category before 1994 and for which no prior data exists. And his math is ridiculous. He's claiming there are 23 million people who want to work, are available to work, previously looked for work but stopped looking more than a year ago because they believed there were no jobs, they lacked the right skills/education, or would be discriminated against. The problem is that there are only 3.2 million people who want a job but didn't look in the last year. And that includes those who have never looked for work and those that quit looking for reasons other than discouragement and those who couldn't take a job if offered.

Do you need me to walk you through the math?

Ummm, duh....marginally attached is a nebulous word. Duh

 

[Ernie S.]

I think you should repeat 1st grade, is what I think.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There were 144,270,000 Americans working in September 2013. There are 146,600,000 working now.

That's an increase of 2.3 million.

 

[EconChick]

They've typically run relatively parallel in the past, even though U-6 is higher, but that has changed under Obama. They are no longer relatively parallel.

A bit odd to say the U-6 is higher since it could never be anything but higher.

In other words, you have to look BENEATH the superficial U-3 number which economists have never used. .

You're being misleading. Labor economists never use ONLY the U-3, but it is the baseline number used for the direction of the labor market. Other factors are then looked at.

Wow that went completely over your head, LOL

Actually, it was far below me. I did this for a living.

"Actually, it was far below me. I did this for a living"





And we see how much BS you dish out. And people wonder why no one trusts the damn Unemployment stats.

 

[EconChick]

Explain to me how we can have record numbers of none working Americans and yet have a 5.9 unemployment rate?

Number of Americans in workforce hits 36-year low. Unemployment Rate at 5.9 percent

There are idiot Libs who don't want to see.

Nobody likes to admit they were duped. Even when faced with undeniable evidence and they still cling to the messiahs word.
Pathetic.

News
Flash!

Nobody is duped....we just happen to know how to read and analyze statistical charts...it's YOU that is trying to twist things here....

Unemployment is measured the same way it has measured unemployment for the past few decades....the Workforce participation rate has been measured the same way for the past few decades as well, NOTHING has changed to DUPE us....

Yes, the workforce participation rate has gone down, and LESS people are looking for work....and this is a concern that they have DECIDED ON THEIR OWN, not to continue to look for a job, and to do something else....

These people could have easily said, yes, I am looking for a job, and then they would have been counted as "unemployed".....but they CHOSE not to say such, they CHOSE to not look for a job....

Why is this happening? Who knows for certain other than their hair dressers? But it would be great to find out and figure it out....

I am certain it is made up of a variety of people with a variety of reasons.... I left the work force for my own reasons, after being unemployed, and others have chosen to do the same......

It could be the wife, who has children under the age of 5, who lost a good paying job, where she could afford paying for day care for her children...that has decided now, if she cant get a job with the same level of salary, it is NOT WORTH FINANCIALLY for her to go back to work....and pay these daycare costs.

Could be someone who is older, and nearing retirement, that does not want to start a new job or new career that late in life....

I wonder, do they separate the participation rate by gender? Is it MORE females deciding to drop out vs males? Is it those approaching retirement verses middle aged? Is it the very young right out of college, deciding just not to enter the workforce due to the sparsity of jobs available in their careers? Or the young with no college education at all?

It's GOOD that the participation rate is separated from the U/E rate and not included in it....it gives us the opportunity to evaluate it on its own.

Explain to me how we can have record numbers of none working Americans and yet have a 5.9 unemployment rate?

Number of Americans in workforce hits 36-year low. Unemployment Rate at 5.9 percent

There are idiot Libs who don't want to see.

Nobody likes to admit they were duped. Even when faced with undeniable evidence and they still cling to the messiahs word.
Pathetic.

News
Flash!

Nobody is duped....we just happen to know how to read and analyze statistical charts...it's YOU that is trying to twist things here....

Unemployment is measured the same way it has measured unemployment for the past few decades....the Workforce participation rate has been measured the same way for the past few decades as well, NOTHING has changed to DUPE us....

Yes, the workforce participation rate has gone down, and LESS people are looking for work....and this is a concern that they have DECIDED ON THEIR OWN, not to continue to look for a job, and to do something else....

These people could have easily said, yes, I am looking for a job, and then they would have been counted as "unemployed".....but they CHOSE not to say such, they CHOSE to not look for a job....

Why is this happening? Who knows for certain other than their hair dressers? But it would be great to find out and figure it out....

I am certain it is made up of a variety of people with a variety of reasons.... I left the work force for my own reasons, after being unemployed, and others have chosen to do the same......

It could be the wife, who has children under the age of 5, who lost a good paying job, where she could afford paying for day care for her children...that has decided now, if she cant get a job with the same level of salary, it is NOT WORTH FINANCIALLY for her to go back to work....and pay these daycare costs.

Could be someone who is older, and nearing retirement, that does not want to start a new job or new career that late in life....

I wonder, do they separate the participation rate by gender? Is it MORE females deciding to drop out vs males? Is it those approaching retirement verses middle aged? Is it the very young right out of college, deciding just not to enter the workforce due to the sparsity of jobs available in their careers? Or the young with no college education at all?

It's GOOD that the participation rate is separated from the U/E rate and not included in it....it gives us the opportunity to evaluate it on its own.

Great! Than I dont want to hear anymore whining about the lack of good jobs or having to work two part time jobs.

Your favorite network has a different opinion as well...
More of the jobless are giving up on finding work - Jan. 10 2014

Not sure why you would want to post a long drawn out bunch of bullshit when you could just do a simple google search then admit you're wrong.

Yep.