Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand

[EconChick]

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

LOL. You really are a pathetic liar. Which everyone has come to expect from a left wing hack like you.


Been there done that.

Next question....

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

How ironic!!!!

Do you know that EMPLOYED people are also dropped from the labor force?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

LOL. You really are a pathetic liar. Which everyone has come to expect from a left wing hack like you.


Been there done that.

Next question....

Go back to my posts in this thread and refute them.

 

[pinqy]

Ummm it's pretty straight forward: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

There's no "capturing," you just go to the table.

So you're still not going to admit all stats have a bias?

What type of bias do you mean? Statistical bias? of course...you can't escape that. Political bias? Only in interpretation by politicians and others.
But, of course, you'll just continue to claim bias without ever stating what exactly the bias you're claiming is.

Pinqy, I'm not retired like a lot of you libs on this board are.....I don't have time to sit and answer every libs question. I have talked to this question a little bit and will prob get to it sometime this week, but for now, what's important is that the job picture is NOT GOOD.

If you spent more time actually answering questions and giving real analysis instead of insulting and claiming "victory" and claiming your superiority, maybe you would have time.
And I never said the job picture was good.

I DON'T SPEND TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS????????

That's all I've ******* done since I started posting on this board is spent hours giving long thought out answers.

I've never seen it. I've seen assertions and a lot of dismissals of any data you disagree with as "liberal" or "Keynesian" with dealing with any methodological questions.

I only have LIBERAL statistics to be found on the internet to try to make my case.

Was BLS liberal under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bush's? Well, Nixon thought so and tried to purge BLS of Jews.

The summary of my analysis is really clear. BLS statistics are faulty. Unemp stats are faulty.
.

That's not an analysis..that's a bald assertion. Of course they're not perfect, but you have failed for the most part to make any specific criticisms. And those you have made...like wanting to classify part time workers as both unemployed and employed or to have no buffer and define 39 hours in a week as a part time worker, would get you weird looks at any meeting of labor economists, regardless of politics.

 

[EconChick]

Gee, what have Republicans done to provide jobs? Did they pass the American Jobs Act?

Ahhhh, you're going to make a great tool for me on this thread.



So Obama's policies have nothing to do with the mess, huh?

Name the policies and we'll debate that.

Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.

That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.

 

[mudwhistle]

As has been explained on this board dozens of times....and as everyone knows..... the reason the Unemployment Rate has been dropping is for the WRONG REASON.

It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.

Here is a visual:


View attachment 33535

Why do you call it Obama's sleight of hand?

Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest.

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

 

[EconChick]

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

LOL. You really are a pathetic liar. Which everyone has come to expect from a left wing hack like you.


Been there done that.

Next question....

Go back to my posts in this thread and refute them.

Already have. Can't help you're too stupid to grasp.

But I do appreciate your bumping this thread.

 

[EconChick]

Why do you call it Obama's sleight of hand?

Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest.

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

LOL. You really are a pathetic liar. Which everyone has come to expect from a left wing hack like you.


Been there done that.

Next question....

Go back to my posts in this thread and refute them.

Already have. Can't help you're too stupid to grasp.

But I do appreciate your bumping this thread.

See? Everything I posted stands undisputed.

Case closed.

 

[pinqy]

Gee, what have Republicans done to provide jobs? Did they pass the American Jobs Act?

Ahhhh, you're going to make a great tool for me on this thread.



So Obama's policies have nothing to do with the mess, huh?

Name the policies and we'll debate that.

Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.

That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.

Ok, let's talk about this thread. Your claim is that "Obama has used slight of hand....he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.[/quote] How has he done that? Are you saying that, under another President, the same survey results would have shown more unemployed but Obama has done something contrary to previous practice?

The survey is conducted. The answers are aggregated. What exactly do you think Obama has to do with that process?

 

[mudwhistle]

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

How ironic!!!!

Do you know that EMPLOYED people are also dropped from the labor force?

No shit???

Wow.

I think why they're leaving is just as important as the fact that they are leaving.

 

[EconChick]

So you're still not going to admit all stats have a bias?

What type of bias do you mean? Statistical bias? of course...you can't escape that. Political bias? Only in interpretation by politicians and others.
But, of course, you'll just continue to claim bias without ever stating what exactly the bias you're claiming is.

Pinqy, I'm not retired like a lot of you libs on this board are.....I don't have time to sit and answer every libs question. I have talked to this question a little bit and will prob get to it sometime this week, but for now, what's important is that the job picture is NOT GOOD.

If you spent more time actually answering questions and giving real analysis instead of insulting and claiming "victory" and claiming your superiority, maybe you would have time.
And I never said the job picture was good.

I DON'T SPEND TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS????????

That's all I've ******* done since I started posting on this board is spent hours giving long thought out answers.

I've never seen it. I've seen assertions and a lot of dismissals of any data you disagree with as "liberal" or "Keynesian" with dealing with any methodological questions.

I only have LIBERAL statistics to be found on the internet to try to make my case.

Was BLS liberal under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bush's? Well, Nixon thought so and tried to purge BLS of Jews.

The summary of my analysis is really clear. BLS statistics are faulty. Unemp stats are faulty.
.

That's not an analysis..that's a bald assertion. Of course they're not perfect, but you have failed for the most part to make any specific criticisms. And those you have made...like wanting to classify part time workers as both unemployed and employed or to have no buffer and define 39 hours in a week as a part time worker, would get you weird looks at any meeting of labor economists, regardless of politics.

I've been telling the King he has no clothes on all my life and being thanked for it.............I certainly would have no problem telling a room full of liberally trained economists how stupid some of their assumptions are.

 

[kaz]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

How ironic!!!!

Do you know that EMPLOYED people are also dropped from the labor force?

No shit???

Wow.

I think why they're leaving is just as important as the fact that they are leaving.

Someone retires and that's somehow Obama manipulating the numbers. Jesus, what is wrong with you?

 

[EconChick]

Gee, what have Republicans done to provide jobs? Did they pass the American Jobs Act?

Ahhhh, you're going to make a great tool for me on this thread.



So Obama's policies have nothing to do with the mess, huh?

Name the policies and we'll debate that.

Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.

That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.

Ok, let's talk about this thread. Your claim is that "Obama has used slight of hand....he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How has he done that? Are you saying that, under another President, the same survey results would have shown more unemployed but Obama has done something contrary to previous practice?

The survey is conducted. The answers are aggregated. What exactly do you think Obama has to do with that process?[/QUOTE]

He's come from the same Ivy League schools that have promulgated that bullshit!!!! He's too stupid, as are most liberal economists....to question the whole methodology!

 

[mudwhistle]

Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest.

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

They assume that volunteering to leave is because of one reason, but in fact, every case is different. Some are reaching retirement age. Some are applying for Social Security Disability. Some are unable to find work. Still, they're not working, and that's what matters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

The number of discouraged workers FELL in the past year. I posted the chart.

 

[mudwhistle]

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

How ironic!!!!

Do you know that EMPLOYED people are also dropped from the labor force?

No shit???

Wow.

I think why they're leaving is just as important as the fact that they are leaving.

Someone retires and that's somehow Obama manipulating the numbers. Jesus, what is wrong with you?

I'm asking the same of you.

 

[depotoo]

We know the fact the jobs created are part time, etc., but I also wonder how many of these are also campaign hiring. What will these falsely inflated numbers look like after the election? Or will the Dems keep them on payrolls until after 2016?

 

[kaz]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Because they are employed. But how are you defining underemployed and how are you measuring them?

Defining? Um...people who are working part time or in a low wage job because they can't get a job in their profession. I'm not clear how else you would define it, any suggestions?

Measuring? That's my point, they are not. But if are claiming you don't know that is a lot more common now that before the recession and I have to prove it, then I'm calling you a liar, you do know that.