US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

What's NOT POSSIBLE is to calculate an accurate estimate of "jobs saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used it.

No, you dumb ass, estimated difference in employment can be described as either created or saved, without a any actual difference. The numbers cited by administration were estimated and confirmed by CBO.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE IF THE NUMBER WAS MADE UP?

It's not possible, but what is very much possible is your unyielding stupidity.

Confirmed? How could the CBO possibly "confirm" an estimate that was arrived at without using a formula to determine the estimate? All the CBO did was confirm that given the numbers provided by the Administration that their estimate might be possible. How are you confirming the numbers that the Administration provided?

 

[Oldstyle]

So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?

 

[Faun]

Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!

Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

You yourself posted a link to how jobs saved was measured.

 

[AntonToo]

So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?

No silly, there is not some sort of simple formula that takes all kinds of different components of a policy and spits out a number. It takes actual WORK by professional economists to produce these numbers.

The fact that you don't understand it and keep asking for some sort of formula is due to your stupidity and general lack of understanding how the world works.

 

[Rshermr]

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14731604, member: 31215"

]When the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved"...you're now claiming that jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month? Jobs were not increasing when they started using that "jobs created or saved" statistic, Georgie...on the contrary they were still decreasing. Your memory is as bad as you knowledge of economics Sorry, you are WRONG. Your mental malfunction relates to gross and net.

You are again showing the lack of economic knowledge, as we would expect from a food services employee. Lets look at the concept, me boy. Careful, this may be too complex for you:
1. Early on, as a result of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, up to 700,000 jobs per month were being lost, NET. That is even then there were some number of new jobs. Maybe it was 25000 new jobs and 725,000 lost jobs. Net would be 700,000 jobs LOST. (Are you starting to see your mental malfunction yet?) Then, the trend went to more jobs created and saved, and less jobs lost, and the net may have been 200,000 jobs saved and 700,000 jobs lost, so the net was 500,000 jobs lost.
But, there may have been 100,000 jobs saved.
I suspect you are now very confused. But in fact, it is very rational, and very logical. It is EXACTLY what any person who has a working brain and is rational would expect. A jobs report saying that there were X jobs lost says nothing about how many jobs were created or saved. Nothing at all. And therefore you comment is specious.
I am sure you will want to come back and make up new lies. So, another opportunity for you to lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14731604, member: 31215"

]When the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved"...you're now claiming that jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month? Jobs were not increasing when they started using that "jobs created or saved" statistic, Georgie...on the contrary they were still decreasing. Your memory is as bad as you knowledge of economics Sorry, you are WRONG. Your mental malfunction relates to gross and net.

You are again showing the lack of economic knowledge, as we would expect from a food services employee. Lets look at the concept, me boy. Careful, this may be too complex for you:
1. Early on, as a result of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, up to 700,000 jobs per month were being lost, NET. That is even then there were some number of new jobs. Maybe it was 25000 new jobs and 725,000 lost jobs. Net would be 700,000 jobs LOST. (Are you starting to see your mental malfunction yet?) Then, the trend went to more jobs created and saved, and less jobs lost, and the net may have been 200,000 jobs saved and 700,000 jobs lost, so the net was 500,000 jobs lost.
But, there may have been 100,000 jobs saved.
I suspect you are now very confused. But in fact, it is very rational, and very logical. It is EXACTLY what any person who has a working brain and is rational would expect. A jobs report saying that there were X jobs lost says nothing about how many jobs were created or saved. Nothing at all. And therefore you comment is specious.
I am sure you will want to come back and make up new lies. So, another opportunity for you to lie.

When did that "trend" start, Georgie? Did it start before or after the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved" instead of jobs created?

 

[Oldstyle]

As I've stated all along...this was never about providing an economic statistic that clearly showed what was happening in the economy as far as job creation was concerned but was ALWAYS about masking what was happening with job creation.

 

[Oldstyle]

So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?

No silly, there is not some sort of simple formula that takes all kinds of different components of a policy and spits out a number. It takes actual WORK by professional economists to produce these numbers.

The fact that you don't understand it and keep asking for some sort of formula is due to your stupidity and general lack of understanding how the world works.

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

 

[AntonToo]

As I've stated all along...this was never about providing an economic statistic that clearly showed what was happening in the economy as far as job creation was concerned but was ALWAYS about masking what was happening with job creation.

How does providing estimate of Stimulus effect on jobs market, estimate consistent with the CBO's
findings add up to "Masking what is happening with the job creation".

It doesn't because it is not masking, but rather REVEALING what is happening according to best information we have.

 

[AntonToo]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

 

[Andylusion]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

The problem is, you must by definition assume the counter factual. You must assume that without X, that this job would not have been created, or would have been lost.

That's a broad assumption, that just makes an ass of out the assuming. After all, millions of jobs are created and lost routinely on a month by month basis.

The outcome of these formulas can be changed on a whim. In the 1970s, Carter asked the US Geological Survey to determine how much Coal was left in the US. The report indicated there was over 200 years worth of coal left in the US at the rate of increasing usage at that time.

This of course didn't work for Carter who was pushing the need for investment in replacement technologies today. So he had those people at the US Geological Survey fired (moved to a more suitable position), and replaced with more open-minded people. Magically a new report was created which came to more politically supportable positions.

This is normal for government.

 

[Rshermr]

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14731604, member: 31215"

]When the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved"...you're now claiming that jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month? Jobs were not increasing when they started using that "jobs created or saved" statistic, Georgie...on the contrary they were still decreasing. Your memory is as bad as you knowledge of economics Sorry, you are WRONG. Your mental malfunction relates to gross and net.

You are again showing the lack of economic knowledge, as we would expect from a food services employee. Lets look at the concept, me boy. Careful, this may be too complex for you:
1. Early on, as a result of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, up to 700,000 jobs per month were being lost, NET. That is even then there were some number of new jobs. Maybe it was 25000 new jobs and 725,000 lost jobs. Net would be 700,000 jobs LOST. (Are you starting to see your mental malfunction yet?) Then, the trend went to more jobs created and saved, and less jobs lost, and the net may have been 200,000 jobs saved and 700,000 jobs lost, so the net was 500,000 jobs lost.
But, there may have been 100,000 jobs saved.
I suspect you are now very confused. But in fact, it is very rational, and very logical. It is EXACTLY what any person who has a working brain and is rational would expect. A jobs report saying that there were X jobs lost says nothing about how many jobs were created or saved. Nothing at all. And therefore you comment is specious.
I am sure you will want to come back and make up new lies. So, another opportunity for you to lie.

When did that "trend" start, Georgie? Did it start before or after the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved" instead of jobs created?

Give it up, dipshit. You lost this argument long ago. Jobs saved is valid. Which is why you can find no impartial source to back up your stupid claims. You were outgunned 5 to ZERO most recently. You were lying, posting con talking points, and lost the argument. It is just that you never, ever quit lying.
When did the obama administration start using jobs created and saved after it had been used by others for decades. Dipshit. The trend started later, but the fact is, jobs created were happening from the very beginning. Anyone with a rational mind can see that. Which leaves you out.

 

[AntonToo]

The problem is, you must by definition assume the counter factual. You must assume that without X, that this job would not have been created, or would have been lost.

COUNTER FACTUAL?

What is counterfactual about estimating that 800 billion dollars in spending and tax-cuts made for few million jobs? Which FACT does it contradict?

Estimate does not ever state "THIS SPECIFIC JOB", it just gives a general impact on jobs.

It's not perfect, but it's the best information we have to go on. Do you have some other, better method to form and report on policies?

 

[Rshermr]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

The problem is, you must by definition assume the counter factual. You must assume that without X, that this job would not have been created, or would have been lost.

That's a broad assumption, that just makes an ass of out the assuming. After all, millions of jobs are created and lost routinely on a month by month basis.

The outcome of these formulas can be changed on a whim. In the 1970s, Carter asked the US Geological Survey to determine how much Coal was left in the US. The report indicated there was over 200 years worth of coal left in the US at the rate of increasing usage at that time.

This of course didn't work for Carter who was pushing the need for investment in replacement technologies today. So he had those people at the US Geological Survey fired (moved to a more suitable position), and replaced with more open-minded people. Magically a new report was created which came to more politically supportable positions.

This is normal for government.

What is normal is that you are a clown. Got it.

 

[Rshermr]

The problem is, you must by definition assume the counter factual. You must assume that without X, that this job would not have been created, or would have been lost.

COUNTER FACTUAL?

What is counterfactual about estimating that 800 billion dollars in spending and tax-cuts made for few million jobs? Which FACT does it contradict?

Estimate does not ever state "THIS SPECIFIC JOB", it just gives a general impact on jobs,

the poor clown is brain dead. He posts the best he can, it is simply that it is 1st grade level. All he really accomplishes is to clog the thread. He says pretty much noting that matters. And if it matters, it is untrue. Guy is a troll.

 

[pinqy]

So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?

Oh, good Lord....the formula is:
Estimate of jobs that would have been lost without policy X minus the estimated actual net change in jobs (aka "jobs created")

The estimate of actual net change is derived from the Current Employment Statistics and/or the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
The estimate of jobs that would have been lost is derived from multiple models and includes admin reports from companies receiving stimulus money.

CBO report on stimulus effects

 

[Rshermr]

As I've stated all along...this was never about providing an economic statistic that clearly showed what was happening in the economy as far as job creation was concerned but was ALWAYS about masking what was happening with job creation.

And again, you lost that argument 5 to ZERO. Where you were the zero. Five impartial organizations with teams of researchers and economists, versus you, Oldstyle. A food services employee. With virtually no economic background.
Now, why is it you thought someone should believe you and not those organizations?

 

[Rshermr]

So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?

Oh, good Lord....the formula is:
Estimate of jobs that would have been lost without policy X minus the estimated actual net change in jobs (aka "jobs created")

The estimate of actual net change is derived from the Current Employment Statistics and/or the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
The estimate of jobs that would have been lost is derived from multiple models and includes admin reports from companies receiving stimulus money.

CBO report on stimulus effects
OK. There you go, Oldstyle. Now you can quit asking me for something you do not have a right to.
And thanks, Pinqy. Always nice to have a rational and truthful post in this argument. Now maybe Oldstyle can shut up. And, I did not have to break my word.

 

[Oldstyle]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

When you "estimate" and those estimates are all over the place...what good is the estimate? You've got claims of "jobs saved" back then that ran the gamut from a hundred thousand all the way up to three million...but you somehow declare that these numbers have been "confirmed"? That borders on FARCE, Anton and I think you know it!

 

[Oldstyle]

So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers? Really, Anton?

Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.

So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are? But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?