I predict unemployment will drop in the next BLS report

[Truthmatters]

The Conference Board | Trusted Insights for Business Worldwide


so do you trust them or not?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I will note this thread the next time you claim consumer confidence numbers mean nothing.

You are a lying sack of shit I made no claim what so ever. All I did was post the numbers you asked for.
Consumer Confidence Index® | The Conference Board

31 Jan. 2012

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had increased in December, retreated in January. The Index now stands at 61.1 (1985=100), down from 64.8 in December. The Present Situation Index declined to 38.4 from 46.5. The Expectations Index edged down to 76.2 from 77.0 in December.

You have yet to talk about them

 

[bigrebnc1775]

United States Consumer Confidence


You just refuse to answer so you can deny them when they dont say what you want to hear

Here's what you asked for dumbass

31 Jan. 2012

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had increased in December, retreated in January. The Index now stands at 61.1 (1985=100), down from 64.8 in December. The Present Situation Index declined to 38.4 from 46.5. The Expectations Index edged down to 76.2 from 77.0 in December.

Consumer Confidence Index® | The Conference Board

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Conference Board | Trusted Insights for Business Worldwide


so do you trust them or not?

This is what you asked for
Consumer Confidence Index® | The Conference Board

 

[Truthmatters]

why is it impossible you answer my question?

 

[Truthmatters]

Is that group trustable to provide important information on our economy?

yes or no is all it takes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why is it impossible you answer my question?

This is what you asked for but you are questioning me
DO YOU ACCEPT?????????
Consumer Confidence Index® | The Conference Board

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is that group trustable to provide important information on our economy?

yes or no is all it takes.

Here's what you asked for you did not comment on the link but posted something didferemt

31 Jan. 2012

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had increased in December, retreated in January. The Index now stands at 61.1 (1985=100), down from 64.8 in December. The Present Situation Index declined to 38.4 from 46.5. The Expectations Index edged down to 76.2 from 77.0 in December.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?

 

[Truthmatters]

You know what a better indicator of what is going right in the individual Americans lives?


The consumer confidence number.

You see if a family has someone who stops looking for work and yet still sees improvement in their lives then dropping of the unemployment rolls could be a possitive thing in their lives huh?


When a family member decides they DONT have to work so that family can live a comfortable life then that isnt bad is it.

How do you sus that out?








Consumer confidence numbers.


How are those numbers doing now?

How is it that these families find they can live so well and comfortably and NOT work? Exactly? Is there a secret formula?

some families can survive without EVERY member being in the work force.

Its used to be more common but many are now stayong home with the kids.

The cool thing is its NOT just the moms doing it.

Sometimes its dads, sometimes its grandma or the like

 

[Truthmatters]

Is that group trustable to provide important information on our economy?

yes or no is all it takes.

Here's what you asked for you did not comment on the link but posted something didferemt

31 Jan. 2012

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had increased in December, retreated in January. The Index now stands at 61.1 (1985=100), down from 64.8 in December. The Present Situation Index declined to 38.4 from 46.5. The Expectations Index edged down to 76.2 from 77.0 in December.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?

I trust their numbers.

i have already said it and SUGGESTED them as a good source and I have the post to prove it.

Why are you doing EVERYTHING you can think of to be uncooperative instead of just saying yes or no?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Putting TM on ignore is far more convenient....

 

[pinqy]

Dude...

Obviously you're ignorant to how the unemployment rate is calculated..... Either that or you have the mental capacity of a 2nd grader.


Unemployment Rate = Number of Unemployed (those actively on unemployment)/ (divided by) Total Labor Force

Nope, unemployed is defined as actively looking for work. Employment Situation Technical Note
Receipt or eligibility of benefits has NEVER been a factor. I

I like how you flat out ignored the links that showed unemployment for the rate and benefits aren't even close.

WTF is wrong with you?

No - the statisticians and our government define those "actively looking for work" via those actively on unemployment...U

I suppose acknowledging that is step 1...

"Active job seekers" are those who are currently receiving unemployment....

quit making things up, you're embarrassing yourself. I already gave links showing you're wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is that group trustable to provide important information on our economy?

yes or no is all it takes.

Here's what you asked for you did not comment on the link but posted something didferemt

31 Jan. 2012

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had increased in December, retreated in January. The Index now stands at 61.1 (1985=100), down from 64.8 in December. The Present Situation Index declined to 38.4 from 46.5. The Expectations Index edged down to 76.2 from 77.0 in December.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?

I trust their numbers.

i have already said it and SUGGESTED them as a good source and I have the post to prove it.

Why are you doing EVERYTHING you can think of to be uncooperative instead of just saying yes or no?

Because I wasn't the one that wanted their numbers you were.. So what happen to that December boost in the economy? Why has it dropped? Could it be like I told you it was Christmas and and most people if they have plastic are going to buy their children Christmas gifts. Remember that conversation you and I had? WE even discussed bankruptcy. In march because people spent money in December when they did not have it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope, unemployed is defined as actively looking for work. Employment Situation Technical Note
Receipt or eligibility of benefits has NEVER been a factor. I

I like how you flat out ignored the links that showed unemployment for the rate and benefits aren't even close.

WTF is wrong with you?

No - the statisticians and our government define those "actively looking for work" via those actively on unemployment...U

I suppose acknowledging that is step 1...

"Active job seekers" are those who are currently receiving unemployment....

quit making things up, you're embarrassing yourself. I already gave links showing you're wrong.

If there is no record kept how do you know one way or the other?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Nope, unemployed is defined as actively looking for work. Employment Situation Technical Note
Receipt or eligibility of benefits has NEVER been a factor. I

I like how you flat out ignored the links that showed unemployment for the rate and benefits aren't even close.

WTF is wrong with you?

No - the statisticians and our government define those "actively looking for work" via those actively on unemployment...U

I suppose acknowledging that is step 1...

"Active job seekers" are those who are currently receiving unemployment....

quit making things up, you're embarrassing yourself. I already gave links showing you're wrong.

PROGRESSIVE RULE 1:

deflect when proven to be an idiot

At least I'm not a racist...

 

[pinqy]

From Employment Situation Technical Note (a link I already gave) we see that

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.

(emphasis mine).

So your claim that only people collecting benefits are classified as "looking" is false, though I'm curious as to how you got that ridiculous idea. If you had done any research at all you would have seen it was wrong.

Further proof....from Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age we see that the not seasonally adjusted number of Unemployed was 13,541,000 for January 2012, with the reference week 8-14 Jan. Turning to the DOL news release on UI claims News Release we see that for the week ending Jan 14, the total number of people receiving benefits from Federal and State programs was 7,655,223 (ok I was mistaken, it's a little more than half) But what's your answer for the discrepancy? It seems clear to anyone with a 1st grade education that the larger number means they're including more than just the smaller number.

 

[pinqy]

So those 80,000 people who just lost there unemployment they employed now?

Of course not. Assuming they're still looking for work, they're unemployed. If they stop looking they'll be not in the labor force. If they die, go to jail, join the military, get committed, or leave the country they'll be out of the population.

Stop it. If they are no longer getting a check the government can't keep track of them,. I bet unemployment rate will drop next BLS.

Yes, they can....it's called a statistical survey and you've been provided many links about it. You've even been shown that Gallup's independent survey matches the BLS survey within the respective margins of error.

 

[Mr.Nick]

WTF is wrong with you?

No - the statisticians and our government define those "actively looking for work" via those actively on unemployment...U

I suppose acknowledging that is step 1...

"Active job seekers" are those who are currently receiving unemployment....

quit making things up, you're embarrassing yourself. I already gave links showing you're wrong.

If there is no record kept how do you know one way or the other?

The collectivist fool should be put in prison on stupidity alone...

If he uses his opinion one more time in an attempt to trump facts he is going on my ignore list...

 

[pinqy]

WTF is wrong with you?

No - the statisticians and our government define those "actively looking for work" via those actively on unemployment...U

I suppose acknowledging that is step 1...

"Active job seekers" are those who are currently receiving unemployment....

quit making things up, you're embarrassing yourself. I already gave links showing you're wrong.

deflect when proven to be an idiot

.

No deflection. I gave the links. You refused to read them. If you had, you would have seen nothing to confirm your claim (and you still haven't even tried to support your BS claim) and specific wording refuting it.

 

[editec]

Its the ame old tired rightwing bullshit arguments revived time after time, isn't it?

How many times do these morons need to have the unemployment statistic methodology explained?

That was a rhetorical question.

These know-nothings are entirely FAITH-BASED imbeciles for whom empiricle data is merely an annoyance.

Thank GOD for the ignore feature.