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

[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.

"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"


So you see absolutely NO overlap between the two, huh?????

Neither does the dum dum, pingy.

 

[pinqy]

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.

No, it measures precisely what it's supposed to measure...the percent of unemployed in the labor force. That's not a complete picture of the total labor situation, but it's not supposed to be.

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.

Which is it? "Included" or "better reflected?" And including part time for economic reasons does not in any way reflect the labor force participation. Marginally attached is a small subset of those not in the labor force and does not reflect the total changes in the participation rate.

 

[EconChick]

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.

No, it measures precisely what it's supposed to measure...the percent of unemployed in the labor force. That's not a complete picture of the total labor situation, but it's not supposed to be.

[qutoe]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.

Which is it? "Included" or "better reflected?" And including part time for economic reasons does not in any way reflect the labor force participation. Marginally attached is a small subset of those not in the labor force and does not reflect the total changes in the participation rate.[/QUOTE]


GEEEEZE, IT'S NOT PRECISE.............AND THERE IS OVERLAP. UR a real genius, aren't ya?

 

[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?

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

No, it's precisely defined as those who want to work, could have started work during the survey reference week, actively looked for work in the 12 months ending with the reference week but did not actively look in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. Nothing nebulous about it.

But do you need me to walk you through the math as to why shadowstats is clearly making things up?

 

[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

No, it's precisely defined as those who want to work, could have started work during the survey reference week, actively looked for work in the 12 months ending with the reference week but did not actively look in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. Nothing nebulous about it.

But do you need me to walk you through the math as to why shadowstats is clearly making things up?

It is to the ditch digger or cement truck driver getting surveyed, genius. Ask them what you mean by "ACTIVELY LOOKED" .....

it doesn't get any MORE nebulous.

 

[pinqy]

GEEEEZE, IT'S NOT PRECISE.............AND THERE IS OVERLAP. UR a real genius, aren't ya?

Overlap between what and what? The marginally attached are part of those not in the labor force, but the change in marginally attached is not necessarily correlated with any changes in the participation rate. You cannot look at the number of marginally attached and know what any changes in the participation rate are.

 

[deltex1]

Advertisers use a very basic subliminal psychology to make you buy products. It's by putting a message in your face over and over.

Democrats have been using the internet to spin lies for two elections now.

You can see Candy Man and others use them here.

Type a completely false statement in a title and let the dissenters reply away. Truth and debate don't matter, but replies to the thread serve the goal; bump the lie over and over so undecided voters see the lie over and over. Most people don't read threads, but they see the titles every day.


You don't believe me? Just read how Candy states her FALSE thread title that Obama dropped gas prices, then admits he didn't, then repeats the lie, then admits he didn't, then repeats the lie, back and forth, while the real goal has nothing to do with honest debate. The goal is only to bump the LIE, lol.

Dotcommie has done the same in her threads.


The key is to respond to the lie, but not IN their threads. Resist the urge to reply to the outright lie in THEIR threads; reply in other threads. Let their FRAUDULENT threads die of lack of oxygen.


You know when you've come across this special type thread when the OP admits it over and over RIGHT IN THE THREAD. LOL





Now flame away dumb ass liberals....I look forward to you bumping MY thread title! Wahahahahahahahaa

My assumption going in is that every thread posted by a libtard is a lie.

 

[EconChick]

GEEEEZE, IT'S NOT PRECISE.............AND THERE IS OVERLAP. UR a real genius, aren't ya?

Overlap between what and what? The marginally attached are part of those not in the labor force, but the change in marginally attached is not necessarily correlated with any changes in the participation rate. You cannot look at the number of marginally attached and know what any changes in the participation rate are.

Good Lord, P.....if something is marginally attached....then it's got it's foot in both camps, or areas, or categories.....do I really need explain that reality to you?

 

[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?

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

No, it's precisely defined as those who want to work, could have started work during the survey reference week, actively looked for work in the 12 months ending with the reference week but did not actively look in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. Nothing nebulous about it.

But do you need me to walk you through the math as to why shadowstats is clearly making things up?

It is to the ditch digger or cement truck driver getting surveyed, genius. Ask them what you mean by "ACTIVELY LOOKED" .....

it doesn't get any MORE nebulous.

They're not asked if they actively looked. They're asked what they did to look. The analyst classifies their answer as one of the following:

1. Contact employer directly/interview
2. Contacted public employment agency
3. Contacted private employment agency
4. Contacted friends or relatives
5. Contacted school/university employment center
6. Sent out resumes/filled out applications
7. Checked union/professional registers
8. Placed or answered ads
9. Other active
10. Looked at ads
11. Attended job training programs/courses
12. Other passive
13. Nothing

The interviewer is NOT to supply any answers for them. 1 through 9 are active and 10-12 are passive and 13 is nothing.
CPS Questionnaire

So what exactly is nebulous again?

 

[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

No, it's precisely defined as those who want to work, could have started work during the survey reference week, actively looked for work in the 12 months ending with the reference week but did not actively look in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. Nothing nebulous about it.

But do you need me to walk you through the math as to why shadowstats is clearly making things up?

It is to the ditch digger or cement truck driver getting surveyed, genius. Ask them what you mean by "ACTIVELY LOOKED" .....

it doesn't get any MORE nebulous.

They're not asked if they actively looked. They're asked what they did to look. The analyst classifies their answer as one of the following:

1. Contact employer directly/interview
2. Contacted public employment agency
3. Contacted private employment agency
4. Contacted friends or relatives
5. Contacted school/university employment center
6. Sent out resumes/filled out applications
7. Checked union/professional registers
8. Placed or answered ads
9. Other active
10. Looked at ads
11. Attended job training programs/courses
12. Other passive
13. Nothing

The interviewer is NOT to supply any answers for them. 1 through 9 are active and 10-12 are passive and 13 is nothing.
CPS Questionnaire

So what exactly is nebulous again?

And you don't see ambiguity in "OTHER"....you're a numbers guy, not the "language" part of the stats "guy."

 

[pinqy]

GEEEEZE, IT'S NOT PRECISE.............AND THERE IS OVERLAP. UR a real genius, aren't ya?

Overlap between what and what? The marginally attached are part of those not in the labor force, but the change in marginally attached is not necessarily correlated with any changes in the participation rate. You cannot look at the number of marginally attached and know what any changes in the participation rate are.

Good Lord, P.....if something is marginally attached....then it's got it's foot in both camps, or areas, or categories.....do I really need explain that reality to you?

No, that's not what marginally attached means. How on earth did you pass statistics if you think a response could be classified in more than one category? It is not possible to fit the definition of both unemployed and marginally attached. They are mutually exclusive definitions. But go ahead...try to give an example of someone who fits both.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime 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.

Marginally attached workers (Current Population Survey) Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.

Since a person cannot both have looked and not looked during the 4 week period ending with the reference week, there can be no overlap.

Marginally attached are those who are not currently looking for work (and therefore not unemployed) but who recently did look for work and are likely to look again soon. They have some attachment to the labor force but are not part of it.

Contrast with "loosely attached to the labor force."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Congress had a higher approval rating than Bush

That's a lie - not that anyone expects anything different from you.

Congress Approval Rating Ties Lowest in Gallup Records

Hey, you're a fucking liar - it's just what you are; a shameless partisan hack without a shred of integrity or hint of honor.

 

[pinqy]

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

No, it's precisely defined as those who want to work, could have started work during the survey reference week, actively looked for work in the 12 months ending with the reference week but did not actively look in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. Nothing nebulous about it.

But do you need me to walk you through the math as to why shadowstats is clearly making things up?

It is to the ditch digger or cement truck driver getting surveyed, genius. Ask them what you mean by "ACTIVELY LOOKED" .....

it doesn't get any MORE nebulous.

They're not asked if they actively looked. They're asked what they did to look. The analyst classifies their answer as one of the following:

1. Contact employer directly/interview
2. Contacted public employment agency
3. Contacted private employment agency
4. Contacted friends or relatives
5. Contacted school/university employment center
6. Sent out resumes/filled out applications
7. Checked union/professional registers
8. Placed or answered ads
9. Other active
10. Looked at ads
11. Attended job training programs/courses
12. Other passive
13. Nothing

The interviewer is NOT to supply any answers for them. 1 through 9 are active and 10-12 are passive and 13 is nothing.
CPS Questionnaire

So what exactly is nebulous again?

And you don't see ambiguity in "OTHER"....you're a numbers guy, not the "language" part of the stats "guy."

No, I don't. From the Interviewer's manual "An active job search is one that could have resulted in a job offer without further action on the part of the job seeker"
and
"Other Active (for example, bid on a contract or auditioned for a part in a play)"
There's not much ambiguity. There may be some very few cases that are difficult to determine, but "other" responses are flagged and an analyst at BLS headquarters reviews it.

To characterize the whole definition as "nebulous" because of the possibility of some ambiguity (which would likely only require follow up questions to determine the category) is ridiculous.

And I do the language parts too.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Advertisers use a very basic subliminal psychology to make you buy products. It's by putting a message in your face over and over.

Democrats have been using the internet to spin lies for two elections now.

You can see Candy Man and others use them here.

Type a completely false statement in a title and let the dissenters reply away. Truth and debate don't matter, but replies to the thread serve the goal; bump the lie over and over so undecided voters see the lie over and over. Most people don't read threads, but they see the titles every day.


You don't believe me? Just read how Candy states her FALSE thread title that Obama dropped gas prices, then admits he didn't, then repeats the lie, then admits he didn't, then repeats the lie, back and forth, while the real goal has nothing to do with honest debate. The goal is only to bump the LIE, lol.

Dotcommie has done the same in her threads.


The key is to respond to the lie, but not IN their threads. Resist the urge to reply to the outright lie in THEIR threads; reply in other threads. Let their FRAUDULENT threads die of lack of oxygen.


You know when you've come across this special type thread when the OP admits it over and over RIGHT IN THE THREAD. LOL





Now flame away dumb ass liberals....I look forward to you bumping MY thread title! Wahahahahahahahaa

Nobody reply to this thread after me. LOL!

 

[kiwiman127]

Here we have an OP complaining about dishonesty and the OP is intellectually dishonest itself.
This is a great example of blatant hypocrisy in action. This of course isn't surprising. It's always the other side who lies, which is a lie in itself.

 

[pinqy]

It is to the ditch digger or cement truck driver getting surveyed, genius. Ask them what you mean by "ACTIVELY LOOKED" .....

it doesn't get any MORE nebulous.

Let me clarify that while the categories are exclusive and precisely defined, there will still be some non-sampling error due to confusion. During the Government shutdown in October 2013, a significant number of government workers were incorrectly classified as "employed but absent from work" when they should have been classified as "unemployed on temporary layoff." Either the respondent misunderstood the definitions, or the interviewer incorrectly classified the respondent, but BLS cannot change the answers even when they know the answers are wrong.

I'm not sure how there was confusion, but nothing is idiot-proof. employed but absent means you have a job, but just didn't work that week, while unemployed on temporary layoff means you had a job but were not allowed to go to work that week. (those on strike are still considered employed because they could report to work in theory).