The unemployment rate DID NOT FALL / ITS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS PEOPLE

[mudwhistle]

Your projecting now. He didn't say any of those groups should be counted.

Prove your in the middle and realize that not counting people who have given up is bs.

I'm not projecting, I'm merely pointing out the result of his suggestion. There is a simple classification to define the size of the work force. It is the combination of people how are employed and people who are not employed and not looking. If we were to include people who are not looking, that would include stay at home parents who have no interest in working, and all the other people I mentioned above. I do agree, people who would want to work but have simply grown tired of looking for work in vain are relevant and important to note. And there are other data that address those figures as well. But to call the U-3 asinine is itself an asinine claim. Most of the time, the U-3 is a perfectly good metric to use to gauge unemployment, and it's been the official measure for a long time now. It's just that the current times are somewhat unique.

So who decides who is stay at home and who just gave up???

 

[Inthemiddle]

Nice that you cut the second part of my post that would take care of over half those groups. I specified

PEOPLE WHO GAVE UP

There, bigger letters. Maybe you can see them now. Retired - they did not give up. Disabled, nope. Being incapable is not giving up.

Tell me, what good is not counting people that simply stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one?

What you fail to understand is that the U-3 uses a simple classification of what constitutes the workforce. There are those who are employed, those who are unemployed and seeking work, and those who are unemployed and not seeking work. The first two constitute the workforce. The third includes people who have given up, stay at home parents, and all those other people I've mentioned. There are additional data that take into account people who have given up. But the U-3 has been the official figure for quite some time now, and under most circumstances it is a perfectly sufficient figure. Our current situation is unique, that is all. Normally, there are not a significant number of people who are unemployed, would like to be employed, but have given up looking for work after an extended period of time. Thus, there is nothing asinine about using the U-3 as the official figure. Because 99% of the time it is the most relevant figure. What would be asinine would be to use a different figure take into account people who are not looking for work simply because 1% of the time it becomes significant.

 

[mudwhistle]

I would tend to think that anyone who applied for unemployment and ran out of benefits cannot be counted as a stay at home because they had to have worked somewhere to get the benefits in the first place. The purpose of unemployment payments is to provide a subsidy while an employable person is looking for other employment. The moment you say you are unemployable, ie attending college or training, you lose your benefits. The fact that their benefits expired does not mean you're a stay at home.

I noticed these Dems always have a ready made excuse for everything. As long as you are unwilling to question the excuse it sounds feasible. It's like their claims about "Saving or creating jobs", something that can't be proven ether way. My, how convenient. It indicates prior thoughts on the subject.

 

[pinqy]

Tell me, what good is not counting people that simply stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one?

Because that's not the only reason people stop looking for work. Possibilities include:
16 year old looking for summer job then quits looking because school is about to start.
Married woman looking for part time work, stops lookng because pregnant.
Married person looking for work to supplement family income, spouse gets raise or family moves.
Etc.

But let's check: The Labor Force dropped by 315,000, but Discouraged workers (willing, and available for work, looked in last year but not looking now because they believe they won't find any) only went up 36,000

So it appears that very few "stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one"

But wait, there's more: BLS does an experimental study on labor force flows...the gross changes, not the net changes that are published. So looking at Labor Force flows we can look at who actually left the labor force and why. Labor Force is employed + unemployed so looking first at Employed: 3,769,000 left the labor force (lost/left job not looking for new one (yet))

Unemployed: 2,853,000 stopped looking (for any number of reasons)

And 26,000 people left not only the labor force, but the population.

So 6,648,000 left the labor force, mostly previously employed.
At the same time, 6,333,000 joined the labor force for the net change of -315,000

So it is NOT accurate to say flatly that 315,000 stopped looking when most of them just lost/left their jobs and haven't started looking for work.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tell me, what good is not counting people that simply stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one?

Because that's not the only reason people stop looking for work. Possibilities include:
16 year old looking for summer job then quits looking because school is about to start.
Married woman looking for part time work, stops lookng because pregnant.
Married person looking for work to supplement family income, spouse gets raise or family moves.
Etc.

But let's check: The Labor Force dropped by 315,000, but Discouraged workers (willing, and available for work, looked in last year but not looking now because they believe they won't find any) only went up 36,000

So it appears that very few "stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one"

But wait, there's more: BLS does an experimental study on labor force flows...the gross changes, not the net changes that are published. So looking at Labor Force flows we can look at who actually left the labor force and why. Labor Force is employed + unemployed so looking first at Employed: 3,769,000 left the labor force (lost/left job not looking for new one (yet))

Unemployed: 2,853,000 stopped looking (for any number of reasons)

And 26,000 people left not only the labor force, but the population.

So 6,648,000 left the labor force, mostly previously employed.
At the same time, 6,333,000 joined the labor force for the net change of -315,000

So it is NOT accurate to say flatly that 315,000 stopped looking when most of them just lost/left their jobs and haven't started looking for work.

You're really making an assumption.

The only way you can say for sure is if you asked every one of them the reason they quit looking.

So we're back to "Saved or Created" again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It took Reagan 58 months.

To do what??

Show us a graph.

I'd be glad to right after you answer the following question honestly:

Why didn't you ask the other guy for a graph?

Ah, the futility of trying to get a rightwing nut to be honest...

 

[mudwhistle]

To do what??

Show us a graph.

I'd be glad to right after you answer the following question honestly:

Why didn't you ask the other guy for a graph?

Ah, the futility of trying to get a rightwing nut to be honest...

You forget which sock you are today.

I wonder why you quoted yourself?????

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually under Bush he did have some control. But only because he had a Congress that was willing to work with him. Once the GOP lost Congress Bush's ability to exert influence over the economy vanished.

So what you're saying is that the government can and does create private sector jobs.

Uncertainty is the key.

No, it's the excuse that is regularly proclaimed, but that's about it.

Obama is missing in action.

As I recall, most conservatives usually are saying that Obama doing nothing is the best thing for the country, so that he doesn't screw things up even worse. But now, doing nothing is apparently the reason things are getting screwed up. Which is it?

He hasn't passed a budget since he's been in office.

Considering the majority of budgets over the past 30 or so years have been horrible, I would think that no budget would be a good thing. In any event, your claim is both false and irrelevant. How many times has Obama been blasted for increasing the deficit and spending too much? But now he hasn't passed a budget since he's been in office? Also, I wonder how he's supposed to pass a budget if Congress does not first bring him one? He can't legislate, you know. Also, what relevance does it have to jobs? Employers don't create jobs based on the Federal government's budget. They create jobs based on their business needs. If they cannot supply demand for their products, they create jobs to meet demand. If they are already meeting demand, they don't create jobs. It's that simple.

He constantly threatens to raise taxes.

No, he's urged Congress to balance the budget through a combination of reduced spending and increased revenue, and not to simply rely on one or the other. He's taken a centrist stance on this, that is all. Stop misrepresenting the situation.

His regulatory czar is screwing with job-creators by instituting recklessly expensive regulations.

This has been discussed on this board before. The effect of regulation on job numbers is negligible at best. What really fuels job creation is demand that outpaces labor capacity. Any claim otherwise is partisan blathering.

Something must be done and Obama is doing nothing.

Why the Hell are you making Obama out to be some kind of Messiah? He's the President, not the Savior. Stop expecting Obama to solve all your problems.

Bush didn't project the image of a radical trying to screw with the system like Obama does.

No employer is willing to stick his neck out under the current circumstances.

Awww, cry me a river. I get sick and tired of this entitled victimhood and people feeling sorry for themselves.

The reason you can't see this is because the thought never crosses your mind. It's so crazy. To think that Obama and the Dems would purposely sabotage the economy.

You're right, that is ******* crazy. It's sensationalist propaganda bullshit.

However you'll believe it if they lie and try to say the GOP is doing it instead.

No, I won't. Haven't you learned anything about me by now? I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I dislike both parties. At most, I might say that Republicans are espousing policies that are meant only benefit the well to do, without regard for the effect on the overall populace. I would never be so asinine as to say they are trying to purposely sabotage the system. I'd say, at most, they are putting their own personal benefits and those of their friends/supporters over the greater good.

Now the Dems are trying to claim the economy is fixing itself (through no actions of their own).

Conservatives are always talking about how the economy will fix itself if the government simply gets out of the way. How many times have conservatives rallied against the bailouts, saying that it delayed a true recovery and that things would be better if the market had been left to its own devices? Now that Democrats are suggesting that the economy can fix itself, you're insisting that we need government involvement? Partisan hackery at it's finest. And by "finest" I means "worst."

 

[Annie]

[
It's the definitions, that's all. Reported is the U3, what is more 'real' imo is U6.

U-6 was down 6 tenths of a percent, more than U-3 was down.

Good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd be glad to right after you answer the following question honestly:

Why didn't you ask the other guy for a graph?

Ah, the futility of trying to get a rightwing nut to be honest...

You forget which sock you are today.

I wonder why you quoted yourself?????

To repeat the question to you. What's the problem?

 

[Inthemiddle]

So who decides who is stay at home and who just gave up???

Seriously? If you have to ask this, then you didn't read. So let's see if you can read this:

THE BLS DETERMINES UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS USING A SAMPLE SURVEYS EVERY MONTH. THROUGH THESE SURVEYS THEY ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED, UNEMPLOYED BUT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, PART TIME WORKERS SEEKING FULL TIME, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO WORK, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK, ETC.

 

[pinqy]

Tell me, what good is not counting people that simply stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one?

Because that's not the only reason people stop looking for work. Possibilities include:
16 year old looking for summer job then quits looking because school is about to start.
Married woman looking for part time work, stops lookng because pregnant.
Married person looking for work to supplement family income, spouse gets raise or family moves.
Etc.

But let's check: The Labor Force dropped by 315,000, but Discouraged workers (willing, and available for work, looked in last year but not looking now because they believe they won't find any) only went up 36,000

So it appears that very few "stopped looking for a job because it is nigh impossible for them to find one"

But wait, there's more: BLS does an experimental study on labor force flows...the gross changes, not the net changes that are published. So looking at Labor Force flows we can look at who actually left the labor force and why. Labor Force is employed + unemployed so looking first at Employed: 3,769,000 left the labor force (lost/left job not looking for new one (yet))

Unemployed: 2,853,000 stopped looking (for any number of reasons)

And 26,000 people left not only the labor force, but the population.

So 6,648,000 left the labor force, mostly previously employed.
At the same time, 6,333,000 joined the labor force for the net change of -315,000

So it is NOT accurate to say flatly that 315,000 stopped looking when most of them just lost/left their jobs and haven't started looking for work.

You're really making an assumption.

No, I'm making an inference.

The only way you can say for sure is if you asked every one of them the reason they quit looking.

I agree. which is why it's wrong to state that people stopped looking because of discouragement. The data does not support that conclusion.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually under Bush he did have some control. But only because he had a Congress that was willing to work with him. Once the GOP lost Congress Bush's ability to exert influence over the economy vanished.

So what you're saying is that the government can and does create private sector jobs.

Uncertainty is the key.

No, it's the excuse that is regularly proclaimed, but that's about it.



As I recall, most conservatives usually are saying that Obama doing nothing is the best thing for the country, so that he doesn't screw things up even worse. But now, doing nothing is apparently the reason things are getting screwed up. Which is it?



Considering the majority of budgets over the past 30 or so years have been horrible, I would think that no budget would be a good thing. In any event, your claim is both false and irrelevant. How many times has Obama been blasted for increasing the deficit and spending too much? But now he hasn't passed a budget since he's been in office? Also, I wonder how he's supposed to pass a budget if Congress does not first bring him one? He can't legislate, you know. Also, what relevance does it have to jobs? Employers don't create jobs based on the Federal government's budget. They create jobs based on their business needs. If they cannot supply demand for their products, they create jobs to meet demand. If they are already meeting demand, they don't create jobs. It's that simple.



No, he's urged Congress to balance the budget through a combination of reduced spending and increased revenue, and not to simply rely on one or the other. He's taken a centrist stance on this, that is all. Stop misrepresenting the situation.



This has been discussed on this board before. The effect of regulation on job numbers is negligible at best. What really fuels job creation is demand that outpaces labor capacity. Any claim otherwise is partisan blathering.



Why the Hell are you making Obama out to be some kind of Messiah? He's the President, not the Savior. Stop expecting Obama to solve all your problems.







Awww, cry me a river. I get sick and tired of this entitled victimhood and people feeling sorry for themselves.



You're right, that is ******* crazy. It's sensationalist propaganda bullshit.

However you'll believe it if they lie and try to say the GOP is doing it instead.

No, I won't. Haven't you learned anything about me by now? I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I dislike both parties. At most, I might say that Republicans are espousing policies that are meant only benefit the well to do, without regard for the effect on the overall populace. I would never be so asinine as to say they are trying to purposely sabotage the system. I'd say, at most, they are putting their own personal benefits and those of their friends/supporters over the greater good.

Now the Dems are trying to claim the economy is fixing itself (through no actions of their own).

Conservatives are always talking about how the economy will fix itself if the government simply gets out of the way. How many times have conservatives rallied against the bailouts, saying that it delayed a true recovery and that things would be better if the market had been left to its own devices? Now that Democrats are suggesting that the economy can fix itself, you're insisting that we need government involvement? Partisan hackery at it's finest. And by "finest" I means "worst."

After your lie about what I said in the first sentence I stopped reading.

I never said that government creates jobs. They merely make conditions conducive to job creation or hostile to job creation.

Government can create jobs inside the government, but they always result in a net loss. The reason Democrats love this scenario is because they love control. Not to mention the power over government workers. Democrats prefer public-sector jobs over private because it means a certain amount of control is inherent in the system and they just love raising taxes, which means more power, whereas private-sector is essentially freedom.

 

[pinqy]

I would tend to think that anyone who applied for unemployment and ran out of benefits cannot be counted as a stay at home because they had to have worked somewhere to get the benefits in the first place.

Which is why the UE rate is not based on people collecting benefits. The official number of unemployed is about twice the number of people collecting benefits: Unemployed = 13,303,000
vs
people collecting benefits from all programs = 7,005,495

Unemployed is Did not work during the reference week, looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.

Not in the Labor Force is Did not work during the reference week, did not look for work in the previous 4 weeks.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So who decides who is stay at home and who just gave up???

Seriously? If you have to ask this, then you didn't read. So let's see if you can read this:

THE BLS DETERMINES UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS USING A SAMPLE SURVEYS EVERY MONTH. THROUGH THESE SURVEYS THEY ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED, UNEMPLOYED BUT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, PART TIME WORKERS SEEKING FULL TIME, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO WORK, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK, ETC.

Was this nonsense really necessary?

 

[The T]

So who decides who is stay at home and who just gave up???

Seriously? If you have to ask this, then you didn't read. So let's see if you can read this:

THE BLS DETERMINES UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS USING A SAMPLE SURVEYS EVERY MONTH. THROUGH THESE SURVEYS THEY ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED, UNEMPLOYED BUT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, PART TIME WORKERS SEEKING FULL TIME, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO WORK, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK, ETC.

Was this nonsense really necessary?

Why not a little larger...and in red?

 

[The Infidel]

I would tend to think that anyone who applied for unemployment and ran out of benefits cannot be counted as a stay at home because they had to have worked somewhere to get the benefits in the first place. The purpose of unemployment payments is to provide a subsidy while an employable person is looking for other employment. The moment you say you are unemployable, ie attending college or training, you lose your benefits. The fact that their benefits expired does not mean you're a stay at home.

I noticed these Dems always have a ready made excuse for everything. As long as you are unwilling to question the excuse it sounds feasible. It's like their claims about "Saving or creating jobs", something that can't be proven ether way. My, how convenient. It indicates prior thoughts on the subject.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ah, the futility of trying to get a rightwing nut to be honest...

You forget which sock you are today.

I wonder why you quoted yourself?????

To repeat the question to you. What's the problem?

Provide proof or STFU.

Everyone else tells me the same thing.

 

[mudwhistle]

So who decides who is stay at home and who just gave up???

Seriously? If you have to ask this, then you didn't read. So let's see if you can read this:

THE BLS DETERMINES UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS USING A SAMPLE SURVEYS EVERY MONTH. THROUGH THESE SURVEYS THEY ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED, UNEMPLOYED BUT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, PART TIME WORKERS SEEKING FULL TIME, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO WORK, UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK, ETC.

Using a "sample" sometimes can be manipulated, and often is.

Every person that loses their benefits should be asked what their current status is, not just a sampling if you want to be accurate.

 

[Inthemiddle]

After your lie about what I said in the first sentence I stopped reading.

Translation: Your arguments are presented for their flaws, and you don't want to go any farther because you can't handle it.

I never said that government creates jobs. They merely make conditions conducive to job creation or hostile to job creation.

Okay, so let's take this, then. This would mean that the government can do all the "right" things, and still there might be no jobs being created. And that the government could do all the "wrong" things and that jobs could still be created, just maybe not as well.

The truth is that it's the MARKET that dictates job creation. When demand out paces production capacity, businesses create jobs. If not, they won't create jobs. Even if it's "difficult" to create jobs because of whatever reason. They'd still rather make more money than less money.

Government can create jobs inside the government, but they always result in a net loss. The reason Democrats love this scenario is because they love control. Not to mention the power over government workers. Democrats prefer public-sector jobs over private because it means a certain amount of control is inherent in the system and they just love raising taxes, which means more power, whereas private-sector is essentially freedom.

Listen, if you can't put forth an argument unless it's based on blind partisan hackery, then don't say anything at all. You sound like one of those guys standing on a street corner shouting "The end is nigh!"