Well, that was certainly a well thought out, well reasoned, and strongly supported argument.
hey guess what? the Government Numbers are LIES!!!!(ALWAYS LIES)
Well, that was certainly a well thought out, well reasoned, and strongly supported argument.
Shadow Government Statistics : Home Page
Ok, let's look at Mr. Williams UE rate. He claims he's taking the U-6 measure and all he's doing is adding in people who would be considered discouraged (willing and available to work, not currently looking because they do not believe they'd be successful) except that they have not looked for work in over a year, which was a new requirement in 1994.
So how many is he claiming?
The U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic reasons) / (Labor Force + Marginally Attached) or for short, let's write the equation as (U+M+P)/(L+M)
Adding in his Discouraged (D) to the equation that would be (U+M+P+D)/(L+M+D) We have to add it to the numerator and denominator because those people were not part of the equation before.
Plugging in Unemployed and Labor Force from Table A-1, Part Time for Economic Reasons from Table A-8, and Marginally Attached from Table A-16, our equation for the U-6 becomes (12,806,000 + 2,608,000 + 8,119,000)/(154,871,000 + 2,608,000) = 23,533,000/157,479,000 = 14.9%
Ok, now Williams claims adding in the long term discouraged raises it to 22.4% so we have (23,533,000+D)/(154,479,000+D) = 22.4% Solve the equation and D = 15,132,000
Over 15 million people he's adding. That's more than total unemployed. You don't think that seems a little high?
But wait, there's more. Go back to Table A-1 and we see that "people who currently want a job" (those not counted as unemployed who say they do want to work) is only 6,378,000. And that includes the Marginally Attached we have already counted. So his figure of 22.4% includes 11,362,000 MORE than those who say they want to work.
Williams does not do any data collection, he simply "massages" published data (he has no access to any government micro data except possibly Consumer Expenditure microdata which is available to the public for a fee). He does not publish his methodology and no one has ever managed to duplicate his work.
So aside from political bias, how are you figuring he's reliable? Not that I'm expecting a reasoned argument, but hope springs eternal.
Ok, let's look at Mr. Williams UE rate. He claims he's taking the U-6 measure and all he's doing is adding in people who would be considered discouraged (willing and available to work, not currently looking because they do not believe they'd be successful) except that they have not looked for work in over a year, which was a new requirement in 1994.
So how many is he claiming?
The U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic reasons) / (Labor Force + Marginally Attached) or for short, let's write the equation as (U+M+P)/(L+M)
Adding in his Discouraged (D) to the equation that would be (U+M+P+D)/(L+M+D) We have to add it to the numerator and denominator because those people were not part of the equation before.
Plugging in Unemployed and Labor Force from Table A-1, Part Time for Economic Reasons from Table A-8, and Marginally Attached from Table A-16, our equation for the U-6 becomes (12,806,000 + 2,608,000 + 8,119,000)/(154,871,000 + 2,608,000) = 23,533,000/157,479,000 = 14.9%
Ok, now Williams claims adding in the long term discouraged raises it to 22.4% so we have (23,533,000+D)/(154,479,000+D) = 22.4% Solve the equation and D = 15,132,000
Over 15 million people he's adding. That's more than total unemployed. You don't think that seems a little high?
But wait, there's more. Go back to Table A-1 and we see that "people who currently want a job" (those not counted as unemployed who say they do want to work) is only 6,378,000. And that includes the Marginally Attached we have already counted. So his figure of 22.4% includes 11,362,000 MORE than those who say they want to work.
Williams does not do any data collection, he simply "massages" published data (he has no access to any government micro data except possibly Consumer Expenditure microdata which is available to the public for a fee). He does not publish his methodology and no one has ever managed to duplicate his work.
So aside from political bias, how are you figuring he's reliable? Not that I'm expecting a reasoned argument, but hope springs eternal.
^Blah,Blah,Blah.. Vote For Obumba it's a Recovery!!! (in fewer words)
Like I thought, you have no idea what you're talking about. And you neg rep me because you don't understand basic math. Nice. You can't argue actual issues, just spout nonsense and accuse everyone else of political bias when you're operating on nothing else.
And I would certainly not reccomend for anyone to vote for Obama. I certtainly have no intention of voting for him...I voted for McCain last time.
And why does money have to be backed by anything? Yes, too much money in circulation can be a problem, but is it, at the moment? I'm not seeing it. Inflation is not particularly high right now.^Blah,Blah,Blah.. Vote For Obumba it's a Recovery!!! (in fewer words)
Like I thought, you have no idea what you're talking about. And you neg rep me because you don't understand basic math. Nice. You can't argue actual issues, just spout nonsense and accuse everyone else of political bias when you're operating on nothing else.
And I would certainly not reccomend for anyone to vote for Obama. I certtainly have no intention of voting for him...I voted for McCain last time.
the Fed prints up money backed by nothing. the Dow goes up.. WooHoo it's a Recovery!!!
Ok, if you understand it, explain it. Where do the numbers come from, how are you claiming they're manipulated or invented, and what is your evidence or alternate source? If you're still going to back up shadowstats clearly bogus numbers, defend them.the Unemployment Numbers are total Fiction. i understand that much sport.
And why does money have to be backed by anything? Yes, too much money in circulation can be a problem, but is it, at the moment? I'm not seeing it. Inflation is not particularly high right now.
Ok, if you understand it, explain it. Where do the numbers come from, how are you claiming they're manipulated or invented, and what is your evidence or alternate source? If you're still going to back up shadowstats clearly bogus numbers, defend them.the Unemployment Numbers are total Fiction. i understand that much sport.
I won't hold my breath as you've shown no sign you actually understnd any of it.
In other words, you DO NOT know where the numbers come from or what the definitions are. Short version...the Population consists of:And why does money have to be backed by anything? Yes, too much money in circulation can be a problem, but is it, at the moment? I'm not seeing it. Inflation is not particularly high right now.
Ok, if you understand it, explain it. Where do the numbers come from, how are you claiming they're manipulated or invented, and what is your evidence or alternate source? If you're still going to back up shadowstats clearly bogus numbers, defend them.the Unemployment Numbers are total Fiction. i understand that much sport.
I won't hold my breath as you've shown no sign you actually understnd any of it.
go to any Wal-Mart at the beginning of any Month (Welfare Checks) count the people.. do you know how many people are NOT being counted? do they count welfare people as EMPLOYED?
it's all a Bunch of lies. Government twists the data and Numbers to fit whatever result they want.. Unemployment too high? Whoops there Goes 5 Million or so people GONE! it's almost like Magic! Vote for Obumba!
yep, seriously. A liberal will lack the IQ to know what capitalism is. That was a perfect example.
Unemployment increased to 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December?
Well color me surprised
