Their analyses are irrelevant....they're simply providing a tool linking directly to the BLS data. Keynsianism has ****-all to do with straight statistical measurement.FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.
Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.
LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.
Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????
I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.
I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.
So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?
But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)
You're talking about the HUGE Keynsian big spenders at St Louis FRB that said all that stimulus was a good thing???????????????????/
This is what's wrong with you lib analysts.
You're Keynesian indoctrinated.
Why? Because that's what most of academia teaches. That's what I was taught too.
You don't even know you don't know...................
Defend your claims, don't just make idiotic ad hom attacks that have nothing to do with the issue.
Your claim was that "The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up." and my claim, backed up with data, is that that is not currently the case.
If you dispute the BLS data (that I'm using the FED tool to visually represent those data is irrelevant) then provide your source.
I'm still trying to figure out how keynsianism would affect a link to statistical data.
You seem angry. That's ok though, I'd be angry and embarrassed too after that stinker of a post.She can tear apart that analysis. You'll have to take her word for it though as she never actually does it. She'll also call you names and claim victory.FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.
Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.
LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.
Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????
I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.
I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.
So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?
But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)
You're too stupid to even know what Keynesian indoctrination is. Which is why you are a lib lapdog when it comes to economic issues like this thread.
I also find it funny how frequently you throw out the words lib or liberal when you're as big of a partisan hack as I've seen on here.
It IS a science.Their analyses are irrelevant....they're simply providing a tool linking directly to the BLS data. Keynsianism has ****-all to do with straight statistical measurement.FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.
Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.
LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.
Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????
I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.
I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.
So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?
But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)
You're talking about the HUGE Keynsian big spenders at St Louis FRB that said all that stimulus was a good thing???????????????????/
This is what's wrong with you lib analysts.
You're Keynesian indoctrinated.
Why? Because that's what most of academia teaches. That's what I was taught too.
You don't even know you don't know...................
Defend your claims, don't just make idiotic ad hom attacks that have nothing to do with the issue.
Your claim was that "The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up." and my claim, backed up with data, is that that is not currently the case.
If you dispute the BLS data (that I'm using the FED tool to visually represent those data is irrelevant) then provide your source.
I'm still trying to figure out how keynsianism would affect a link to statistical data.
"Keynsianism has ****-all to do with straight statistical measurement."
It takes a special kind of idiot to say that.
Here, let me give you a quick primer on STATISTICS, genius.
When polls throw statistics at the public, people like you gullibly believe them. Why? Because you a number cruncher that hones in on that portion of the survey that is based on probability.
Have a big enough pool and probability goes up and up till the reliability is close to 100%. This part is practically a science.
And how it's understood. And it's not just the wording, but the order of the questions, and, in paper surveys, the layout. Length of survey becomes a factor as well, as respondent burden increases. You're talking about non-sampling error. And yes I'm very well aware of it. Did you really think you knew more about survey methodology than I do?
Which is why BLS and other agencies have staff psychologists to design the questionnaires to try to minimize non-sampling error and enhance clarity. The Census interviewers have a detailed manual on how exactly to ask the questions and strict definitions. Any ambiguity is reviewed by a BLS analyst. But it doesn't always work and ambiguity, either on the part of the interviewer or the respondent occurs frequently. The problem is known and is addressed, but of course cannot completely eliminate the non-sampling error and the effect cannot be effectively measured.
No? Get out of academia and come to the real world where we discuss these things as a practical matter. 14 years at BLS including teaching methodology, I assure you I have far more experience than you do.
The change to computerization in 1994 helped a lot, especially with CATI being used. Minimizes interviewer influence.
Why don't you begin with the specifically Keynsian assumptions used in processing the number of full time, part time, and discouraged workers. And present your alternate, non-Keynsian biased data which supports your claim that part time and discouraged workers are currently influencing the UE rate downward.
In the last thread where we discussed this, I explicitly mentioned a major case of non-sampling error that threw off the October 2013 unemployment estimates. So how was that pretending they don't exist?
And the fact that you can't point out how Keynsian economics are at all relevant to the construction of the formulas, and the fact that you avoid straight forward questions to make a political rant establishes your credibility how? You keep saying it's a thing, but you have yet to give a single example to support your assertion.
Because you don't have it; I just showed you the data for the last 2 years that show that full time jobs are now rising as opposed to part time, and that discouraged workers are down. Didn't take me long to "dig up" the info.
Which variables? And I'm addressing your specific claims. How is that not apples to apples? Oh, you won't give a straight answer, I know...I don't think you're capable.
Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.
And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.
So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.
YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.
So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.
I'm still trying to figure out how she thinks the statistics are "Keynesian biased." Notice how vague she is about how the interviewers can bias the question (which is of course true) but doesn't explain how that's "Keynsian" or show that the non-sampling error is anything but random.Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.
And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.
So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.
YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.
So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.
You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.
I'm still trying to figure out how she thinks the statistics are "Keynesian biased." Notice how vague she is about how the interviewers can bias the question (which is of course true) but doesn't explain how that's "Keynsian" or show that the non-sampling error is anything but random.Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.
And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.
So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.
YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.
So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.
You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.
And of course, how in another thread she abandoned, I went out of my way to give an example of non-sampling bias that made the October 2013 unemployment level clearly wrong, but she still claims I don't understand non-sampling bias.
Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.
And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.
So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.
YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.
So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.
You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.
Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.
Where did I say I don't know what Keynsian economics is? I'm asking if you just learned about it.Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.
And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.
So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.
YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.
So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.
You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.
It takes an incredibly stupid person to get on a thread about economics without knowing what the hell Keynesian economics is.
LMFAO.
Even pinky....if he has any integrity at all....would set you straight on that.
Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.
The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October, 2009. According to BLS figures, at that time, there were 27,462,000 folks working part time and 808,000 discouraged workers. Today, we have 27,359,000 part timers and 698,000 discouraged workers. The translation of those numbers for non-thinking rightards such as yourself is that means while the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5.9%, it has done so while shedding 103,000 part time employees and 110,000 discouraged workers.
Yet the poster on this forum who fancies herself as some kind of economist guru thinks that a decrease in part time employment and discouraged workers is what reflects decline in the unemployment rate.
What a monumental fail, EconoWhore.
Where did I say I don't know what Keynsian economics is? I'm asking if you just learned about it.Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.
And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.
So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.
YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.
So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.
You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.
It takes an incredibly stupid person to get on a thread about economics without knowing what the hell Keynesian economics is.
LMFAO.
Even pinky....if he has any integrity at all....would set you straight on that.
It takes a special kind of stupid for someone to think BLS statistics are somehow Keynsian. You should ask the University of Phoenix for your money back.
This post follows your typical post. Do you have a template?Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.
The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October, 2009. According to BLS figures, at that time, there were 27,462,000 folks working part time and 808,000 discouraged workers. Today, we have 27,359,000 part timers and 698,000 discouraged workers. The translation of those numbers for non-thinking rightards such as yourself is that means while the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5.9%, it has done so while shedding 103,000 part time employees and 110,000 discouraged workers.
Yet the poster on this forum who fancies herself as some kind of economist guru thinks that a decrease in part time employment and discouraged workers is what reflects decline in the unemployment rate.
What a monumental fail, EconoWhore.
LOL
Another idiot I've completely fattened like a fly......how funny you want to pick yourself up from when I flattened you weeks ago....to try to even attempt to go at another round.
Hell, you've been afraid to confront me for about a month now. Did it take you a month to get the courage to post in this thread??
LOL. You've already proven yourself to be completely inept in economics. I won't waste my time burying you again. I know your self esteem barely recovered from the last time.
But thanks for the bump!!
Ah, indoctrination. The classic righty crutch when they have no argument.Where did I say I don't know what Keynsian economics is? I'm asking if you just learned about it.Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.
And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.
So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.
YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.
So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.
You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.
It takes an incredibly stupid person to get on a thread about economics without knowing what the hell Keynesian economics is.
LMFAO.
Even pinky....if he has any integrity at all....would set you straight on that.
It takes a special kind of stupid for someone to think BLS statistics are somehow Keynsian. You should ask the University of Phoenix for your money back.
Well now that's funny..................Loner Loser couldn't stop yapping about my use of the word months ago. So much for you knowing what the hell you're talking about.
As usual.
And no, your post shows you haven't got the first clue about indoctrination.
I didn't expect you to. Your small IQ was a pretty big barometer.
This post follows your typical post. Do you have a template?Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.
The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October, 2009. According to BLS figures, at that time, there were 27,462,000 folks working part time and 808,000 discouraged workers. Today, we have 27,359,000 part timers and 698,000 discouraged workers. The translation of those numbers for non-thinking rightards such as yourself is that means while the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5.9%, it has done so while shedding 103,000 part time employees and 110,000 discouraged workers.
Yet the poster on this forum who fancies herself as some kind of economist guru thinks that a decrease in part time employment and discouraged workers is what reflects decline in the unemployment rate.
What a monumental fail, EconoWhore.
LOL
Another idiot I've completely fattened like a fly......how funny you want to pick yourself up from when I flattened you weeks ago....to try to even attempt to go at another round.
Hell, you've been afraid to confront me for about a month now. Did it take you a month to get the courage to post in this thread??
LOL. You've already proven yourself to be completely inept in economics. I won't waste my time burying you again. I know your self esteem barely recovered from the last time.
But thanks for the bump!!
1. Call the other poster names.
2. Talk down to the other poster.
3. Provide no substance.
4. Claim victory.
And you still fail to provide any examples of how Keynesian economics play any role at BLS beyond vague claims of assumptions. Which assumptions. And since BLS analysts are forbidden from doing any policy analysis, your claims fall flat.
How you think any of your claims of indoctrination are supposed to play any role in the pure statistical analysis of compiling the data
Give an example: I stick to the facts of the data, not policy implications.
