REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Unemployment Rate Facts

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, September 20, 2018 22:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3060
PAGE 1 of 5

Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:11 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I have not paid attention to the details for the past year or so. I have been reminded of this a few times when 6ix posts that he doesn't believe the numbers now because the same people who say they are good now said the figures were bad before.
On the surface this seems a valid point. The numbers are called Unemployment figures, and those are regularly redefined. At one time Active Duty Military Personnel were classified as unemployed. Obama's BLS has worked diligently to obfuscate the dismal performance of Obamanomics.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. For example, the current Rate of 4.1% (for 4 months straight) is SeasAdj, and the real Rate is 4.5% for Jan 2018. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed. The 2nd column is the Rate.
The 3rd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category. The 5th column is the sum of Unemployed plus Marginally Attached - which more accurately represents the Actual Unemployed. The 6th column is the Rate for column 5 figure.
The 7th column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 8th column is the sum of the 5th column plus 7th column. 9th column is the Rate for column 8 figure.
The 10th column is the Civilian Population. 11th column is Labor Force, 12th column is Participation Rate. 13th column is outlier figure for the year.

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Year Unemp Pcnt MrgAt Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% Outlr
Jan2008 08221 05.4% 1729 1.1% 09950 06.5% 5235 3.4% 15185 09.9% 232616 152828 65.7 66.8
Jan2009 13009 08.5% 2130 1.4% 15139 09.9% 8675 5.6% 23814 15.5% 234739 153445 65.4 64.4
Jan2010 16147 10.6% 2539 1.6% 18686 12.2% 9161 6.0% 27847 18.2% 236832 152957 64.6 65.3
Jan2011 14937 09.8% 2800 1.8% 17737 11.6% 9027 5.9% 26764 17.5% 238704 152536 63.9 64.6
Jan2012 13541 08.8% 2809 1.9% 16350 10.7% 8747 5.7% 25097 16.4% 242269 153485 63.4 64.3
Jan2013 13181 08.5% 2443 1.6% 15624 10.1% 8506 5.5% 24130 15.6% 244663 154794 63.3 62.6
Jan2014 10855 07.0% 2592 1.7% 13447 08.7% 7617 4.9% 21064 13.6% 246915 154381 62.5 63.5
Jan2015 09498 06.1% 2234 1.4% 11732 07.5% 7125 4.6% 18857 12.1% 249723 156050 62.5 63.2
Jan2016 08309 05.3% 2089 1.3% 10398 06.6% 6234 4.0% 16632 10.6% 252397 157347 62.3 63.4
Jan2017 08149 05.1% 1752 1.1% 09901 06.2% 6127 3.9% 16028 10.1% 254082 158676 62.5 63.5
Jan2018 07189 04.5% 1653 1.0% 08842 05.5% 5380 3.4% 14222 08.9% 256780 160037 62.3%

Jul 2012 13400 08.6% 2529 1.6% 15929 10.2% 8218 5.2% 24147 15.4% 243354 156526 64.3 64.3
Aug2012 12696 08.2% 2561 1.6% 15257 09.8% 7723 5.0% 22980 14.8% 243566 155255 63.7 64.3
Sep2012 11742 07.6% 2517 1.6% 14259 09.2% 8003 5.2% 22262 14.4% 243772 155075 63.6 64.3
Oct2012 11741 07.5% 2433 1.6% 14174 09.1% 7768 5.0% 21942 14.1% 243983 155779 63.8 64.3
Nov2012 11404 07.4% 2505 1.6% 13909 09.0% 7898 5.1% 21807 14.1% 244174 154953 63.5 64.3


Comparing to The Great Depression: the Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.75% with 12.830 Million unemployed. In 1932 there were 12.060 M unemployed, and 11.340M in 1934, 10.610 in 1935.
The 5 year stretch from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 12.9 Million each year, more Unemployed than the Great Depression. And 2014 was only less with the Fake figure, but including Marginally Attached was still more than Great Depression.

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate was almost doubled by Jan 2010, and the Fake figure didn't return to 2008 level until Jan 2016. This figure after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Marginally Attached category, which Obamanomics managed to almost double. This Jan figure didn't return to 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected. With 10 Million in 2008, this count did not fall back to sub-10 Million until 2017.
The figure of Unemployed plus Marginally Attached is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure. It does not return to Jan 2008 level until 2017, after Trump was Elected.
With Obamanomics pushing more into the Involuntary Part-Time group, this also got bloated to disguise the horrible Unemployment problems, and this Rate did not return to 2008 level until 2018.

The Jan Rate of all 3 categories combined of Obamanomics Unemployment did not fall back to 2008 level until 2018.
By 2016 the Marginally Attached plus Involuntary Part-Time counts were more than the Fake Unemployment count.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:33 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I'd tell you that I don't have time to look into it right now, but I'd be lying. I've actually got a lot of free time now. Not as much as when I was completely unemployed, but more than enough.

I've been working on my side project, but I think I'm going to turn in early and actually flip back to a day schedule on my off days this time. I'm hoping for an opportunity to see my niece since I haven't seen her since Christmas.


If you'd like to look into it a bit yourself, I suggest looking at Underemployment as a starter. It's probably the biggest factor in why the current unemployment rate statistics are a lie.

Quote:

Underemployment (or disguised unemployment) is the under-use of a worker due to a job that does not use the worker's skills, or is part time, or leaves the worker idle. Examples include holding a part-time job despite desiring full-time work, and overqualification, where the employee has education, experience, or skills beyond the requirements of the job


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment

A lot of this has to do with jobs being shipped overseas, but as has been discussed in here before it's also a matter of automation, or computers otherwise being able to do a lot of work that had to be done by humans before. I know I've bitched about my salary going to pay 5 to 10 Indians with much more education than me before, but the truth is that almost 10 years after I was laid off I'll bet 50% of my old job doesn't even need to be done by a human being anymore.


Probably the second largest reason the unemployment numbers are a lie is because they only count people who are actively handing in reports every week about their unemployment status to draw an unemployment check. You're perfectly free to continue to hand in these reports after you've exhausted your benefits and remain on that statistic, but I don't see why anybody would do that once the free checks stop coming in.

My last unemployment stint was just under 2 1/2 years long. Only 6 months of that time I was considered unemployed. Now that I have a part-time job that number didn't change at all, simply because I already was considered not part of unemployment for that reason. However, had I gotten that part time job immediately after being laid off from my great full time job I would not be considered unemployed (and they don't ever factor underemployment in the statistics that are presented to the public).

This second part is something that Trump used to talk about when he said the unemployment numbers were bullshit before he was president. Funny how he doesn't talk about that anymore though, innit?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 5:17 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


The Fake figures Obama boasted in 2016 were fake. But now Trump has returned real numbers back to the reports, in line with 2008.

Review the figures and identify what you feel are fake numbers for Trump.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:50 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Your graph is not readable. You need to either link the spreadsheet or readable table you got the information from, or put it in a Google spreadsheet so everyone can read it.

You ignored the two things I told you to look at, so I'm going to ignore your request... at least until you present a readable graph.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:51 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The Fake figures Obama boasted in 2016 were fake. But now Trump has returned real numbers back to the reports, in line with 2008.

Review the figures and identify what you feel are fake numbers for Trump.

This is the same source Trump is using. There is no change between Obama leaving and Trump's first year. For many years, % unemployment has been dropping in a wiggly line and the number of people employed has been rising in a nice smooth line.

If you want the XLS file, it is here: https://goo.gl/cUv5zQ

Blue Line is Civilian Unemployment Rate. Jun 2009=100
Red Line is All Employees: Total Nonfarm Payrolls, Jun 2009=100
June 2009 is the end of the last recession.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=iU78


Graphing it with the Y-axis on the right side as % unemployment (rather than 0-100) looks much the same:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=iU7R


Graphing with the Y-axis on the left as thousands of employed (rather than 0-100) also looks much the same:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=iU8w


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 11:39 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.



Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 12:34 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I did include your second item.

Are you saying the rows word wrap?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:19 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken.

They do count you, even if your unemployment insurance benefits have stopped because you have been out-of-work too many weeks. There is a long and complicated explanation of how the number of long term unemployed are counted. No, they don’t call 333,000,000 Americans www.census.gov/popclock/ to ask them if they are working. Instead, they ask only 1,000,000 people, each and every month. And then they use statistics to figure out what the other 332,000,000 Americans are working. www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

What do the unemployment Insurance (Ul) figures measure?

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. . . .

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:41 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken.

They do count you, even if your unemployment insurance benefits have stopped because you have been out-of-work too many weeks. There is a long and complicated explanation of how the number of long term unemployed are counted. No, they don’t call 333,000,000 Americans www.census.gov/popclock/ to ask them if they are working. Instead, they ask only 1,000,000 people, each and every month. And then they use statistics to figure out what the other 332,000,000 Americans are working. www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

What do the unemployment Insurance (Ul) figures measure?

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. . . .

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

Are the Long-term Unemployed counted among the Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, or counted among the Labor Force, or not counted among either?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 2:04 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are the Long-term Unemployed counted among the Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, or counted among the Labor Force, or not counted among either?

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks, tell them the truth: Do you got a job? Or are you in jail, in the army, in a mental institution (those last 3 don't count as being employed), whatever. "Each month, highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees contact the 60,000 eligible sample households and ask about the labor force activities (jobholding and job seeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households. These are live interviews conducted either in person or over the phone." - www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

That's how unemployment is calculated -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks Americans questions. The process cannot produce an incorrect unemployment rate if Americans tell the truth about working or not.

This is an interesting figure:

www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/persons-not-in-the-labor-force
-who-want-a-job.htm

Again, the figure cannot be wrong if Americans tell the truth about wanting a job.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 7:11 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken.

They do count you, even if your unemployment insurance benefits have stopped because you have been out-of-work too many weeks. There is a long and complicated explanation of how the number of long term unemployed are counted. No, they don’t call 333,000,000 Americans www.census.gov/popclock/ to ask them if they are working. Instead, they ask only 1,000,000 people, each and every month. And then they use statistics to figure out what the other 332,000,000 Americans are working. www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

What do the unemployment Insurance (Ul) figures measure?

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. . . .

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly




lol. Um.... nope.

And 60-70 million Americans aren't even old enough to work so they obviously don't even count.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 7:17 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are the Long-term Unemployed counted among the Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, or counted among the Labor Force, or not counted among either?

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks, tell them the truth: Do you got a job? Or are you in jail, in the army, in a mental institution (those last 3 don't count as being employed), whatever. "Each month, highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees contact the 60,000 eligible sample households and ask about the labor force activities (jobholding and job seeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households. These are live interviews conducted either in person or over the phone." - www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

That's how unemployment is calculated -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks Americans questions. The process cannot produce an incorrect unemployment rate if Americans tell the truth about working or not.

This is an interesting figure:

www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/persons-not-in-the-labor-force
-who-want-a-job.htm

Again, the figure cannot be wrong if Americans tell the truth about wanting a job.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly



That's making a hell of a lot of assumptions.

First off, only somewhere around 1-5% of Americans even answer any robo-calls and stick around long enough to talk to anybody on the other side once they figure out who it is.

The people being polled can lie, the bureau can lie, politicians can lie. There is no way of verifying any of this is true at all, so they can make up whatever numbers they want. There is ZERO math involved in what you are proposing is the way that unemployment is calculated. All you are doing is bolstering my argument that the unemployment numbers are total bullshit.

Remember, these were the very same tactics that were used when polling for who was going to be voted in for President. Look how accurate those polls were.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:15 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

lol. Um.... nope.

And 60-70 million Americans aren't even old enough to work so they obviously don't even count.

6ix, you never did click the link and read, did you? If you had: "The survey is designed so that each person age 16 and over (there is no upper age limit) is counted and classified in only one group. The sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force." If an American is between 16 and 116, they are counted as employed if they say they are employed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks them: "Are you employed or not?" Below 16 does not count. If you tell the Bureau you do not want to work then you do not count. The Bureau takes your word as truth of whether you are employed, not employed, or the third group: out-of-the-work-force-by-your-own-choice-because-work-sucks-and-you-refuse-to-be-a-wage-slave-and-cannot-live-chained-to-a-job.
www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:20 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

That's making a hell of a lot of assumptions.

First off, only somewhere around 1-5% of Americans even answer any robo-calls and stick around long enough to talk to anybody on the other side once they figure out who it is.

The people being polled can lie, the bureau can lie, politicians can lie. There is no way of verifying any of this is true at all, so they can make up whatever numbers they want. There is ZERO math involved in what you are proposing is the way that unemployment is calculated. All you are doing is bolstering my argument that the unemployment numbers are total bullshit.

Remember, these were the very same tactics that were used when polling for who was going to be voted in for President. Look how accurate those polls were.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics polls 110,000 people. A political survey might be hundreds. And if you lie about being employed when you are not, well, you are employed. What is the Bureau to do about assholes that lie about everything? Give 'em job? Let the liars stay unemployed.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

lol. Um.... nope.

And 60-70 million Americans aren't even old enough to work so they obviously don't even count.

6ix, you never did click the link and read, did you? If you had: "The survey is designed so that each person age 16 and over (there is no upper age limit) is counted and classified in only one group. The sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force." If an American is between 16 and 116, they are counted as employed if they say they are employed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks them: "Are you employed or not?" Below 16 does not count. If you tell the Bureau you do not want to work then you do not count. The Bureau takes your word as truth of whether you are employed, not employed, or the third group: out-of-the-work-force-by-your-own-choice-because-work-sucks-and-you-refuse-to-be-a-wage-slave-and-cannot-live-chained-to-a-job.
www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf



I'm not talking about the link. I'm talking about your figure of 330+ million Americans, which included children.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

That's making a hell of a lot of assumptions.

First off, only somewhere around 1-5% of Americans even answer any robo-calls and stick around long enough to talk to anybody on the other side once they figure out who it is.

The people being polled can lie, the bureau can lie, politicians can lie. There is no way of verifying any of this is true at all, so they can make up whatever numbers they want. There is ZERO math involved in what you are proposing is the way that unemployment is calculated. All you are doing is bolstering my argument that the unemployment numbers are total bullshit.

Remember, these were the very same tactics that were used when polling for who was going to be voted in for President. Look how accurate those polls were.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics polls 110,000 people. A political survey might be hundreds. And if you lie about being employed when you are not, well, you are employed. What is the Bureau to do about assholes that lie about everything? Give 'em job? Let the liars stay unemployed.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly



No. It doesn't poll 110,000 people. Assuming they even bother to call 110,000 people, almost nobody is going to pick up the phone and of those that do only a very tiny fraction will co-operate with the poll.

It doesn't matter if the people on the phone lie, or even what they say about it. There is no way to track who answered what and that information has never been made available and transparent to the public.

If you're going to keep up with this line of dialogue on how the information is collected, then you're only proving my argument true. Since math is not used at all via this very unscientific method, there is no way anybody could look at those figures and believe them to be true.

It's a political tool, nothing more and nothing less. The Democrats can celebrate the numbers when they're in and demonize them when they're out. Same for Republicans.

Trump called them bullshit before he was President. Now he celebrates them.

They're still bullshit, Mr. President.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 12:20 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


BLS does a horrendous job of identifying and defining their stats. Second was helpful above by linking to a different page that provided definition, which the raw data table did not. So BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

I have re-done the first post with this new information.

The numbers are called Unemployment figures, and those are regularly redefined. At one time Active Duty Military Personnel were classified as unemployed. Obama's BLS has worked diligently to obfuscate the dismal performance of Obamanomics.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. For example, the current Rate of 4.1% (for 4 months straight) is SeasAdj, and the real Rate is 4.5% for Jan 2018. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed. The 2nd column is the Rate.
The 3rd column is what is called the Want A Job Now category but is NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category. The 5th column is the sum of Unemployed plus Want A Job - which more accurately represents the Actual Unemployed. The 6th column is the Rate for column 5 figure.
The 7th column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 8th column is the sum of the 5th column plus 7th column. 9th column is the Rate for column 8 figure.
The 10th column is the Civilian Population. 11th column is Labor Force, 12th column is Participation Rate.

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Year Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc%
Jan2008 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7
Jan2009 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4
Jan2010 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6
Jan2011 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9
Jan2012 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4
Jan2013 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3
Jan2014 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5
Jan2015 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5
Jan2016 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3
Jan2017 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5
Jan2018 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3%

Jul 2012 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3
Aug2012 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7
Sep2012 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6
Oct2012 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8
Nov2012 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5


Comparing to The Great Depression: the Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.75% with 12.830 Million unemployed. In 1932 there were 12.060 M unemployed, and 11.340M in 1934, 10.610 in 1935.
The 5 year stretch from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 12.9 Million each year, more Unemployed than the Great Depression. And 2014-2017 was only less with the Fake figure, but including Want A Job was still more than Great Depression, until 2018.
2010 and 2011 had Total percentages (over 20%) greater than every Great Depression year except 1933 & 1934.

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate was almost doubled by Jan 2010, and the Fake figure didn't return to 2008 level until Jan 2016. This figure after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure. It does not return to Jan 2008 level until 2018. This Subtotal count of 13.2 Million in 2008 does not fall back to this count until 2018.
With Obamanomics pushing more into the Involuntary Part-Time group, this also got bloated to disguise the horrible Unemployment problems, and this Rate did not return to 2008 level until 2018.

The Jan Rate of all 3 categories combined of Obamanomics Unemployment did not fall back to 2008 level until 2018.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 2:31 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If you'd like to look into it a bit yourself, I suggest looking at Underemployment as a starter. It's probably the biggest factor in why the current unemployment rate statistics are a lie.
Quote:

Underemployment (or disguised unemployment) is the under-use of a worker due to a job that does not use the worker's skills, or is part time, or leaves the worker idle. Examples include holding a part-time job despite desiring full-time work, and overqualification, where the employee has education, experience, or skills beyond the requirements of the job

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment

Probably the second largest reason the unemployment numbers are a lie is because they only count people who are actively handing in reports every week about their unemployment status to draw an unemployment check.

My last unemployment stint was just under 2 1/2 years long. Only 6 months of that time I was considered unemployed. Now that I have a part-time job that number didn't change at all, simply because I already was considered not part of unemployment for that reason. However, had I gotten that part time job immediately after being laid off from my great full time job I would not be considered unemployed (and they don't ever factor underemployment in the statistics that are presented to the public).

This second part is something that Trump used to talk about when he said the unemployment numbers were bullshit before he was president. Funny how he doesn't talk about that anymore though, innit?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Your first issue is Underemployment, which is comprised of 3 components.
One component is Involuntary Part-Time employment, which I have already included.
The other 2 components are Overstaffing and Overqualified. Neither of these have been reported by BLS as far as I can find. With no history of these concepts being represented or reported as being parts of Unemployment data, it is not reasonable to imagine that the data is or was falsely misrepresented with these concepts. If the Unemployment figures have been reported through history without ever considering these ideas, then continuing to Report figures under the same standards is not a plausible claim of Fake Data.

Your second issue is non-reporting Unemployed, which is a category included in the Want A Job category, and I have included this category in my table.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 6:53 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Do you agree with Second's assessment that they get the data by calling 110,000 households per month?

If you do, I'll ask you a simple question.

Why do you suppose they would do that when they've already proven themselves perfectly capable of figuring how much money everyone was making, whether they were employed or self employed, back in the days when they gave us our social security reports that detailed exactly how much money we made every year, how much we paid into social security, and how much we would get per month depending on which age we decided to retire?

They already have that data, presented it to us on a yearly basis using actual MATH, and have been able to compile it for decades. Why waste what must be millions or even 10's of millions of dollars per year doing something as unscientific as random robo-calls on a very small percentage of citizens if they already had nearly 100% of the data just because of our income taxes and social security payments?




My answer is, because they can just make up anything they want to when there is no actual math being used.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 7:03 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Here's an example of what those mailers look like if you forgot. Page 3 being the most important part with all of the information they'd need to determine everything without making a single phone call. (I only put up to page 3, but you can get the rest at the link on the bottom).










https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v74n2/v74n2p1.html


Quote:

In recent years, funding constraints and technological developments have brought major changes to the Statement. In February 2012, SSA resumed mailing printed Statements to workers aged 60 or older, following a suspension that began in March 2011 to conserve agency funds. Then, in May 2012, SSA introduced an online version of the Statement. The agency also made a one-time mailing of the Statement in July to workers aged 25 in 2012. In October 2012, SSA again suspended Statement mailings for budgetary reasons, and relied on the online version to provide workers with immediate access to their earnings records, estimated benefits, and other information. In September 2014, the agency resumes mailing a revised and redesigned version of the printed Statement to workers of selected ages.


I wasn't even aware that you could get these statements online. I thought they had stopped mailing them out around the time they were telling people under 55 that they wouldn't even get social security when they retire. You learn something new everyday.

I can't wait to see mine. My income is like a rollercoaster when viewed over the years. Good on Wanda Worker in the sample document. Somehow she's managed to increase her earnings every single year of her working life. I bet most people's statements don't look so neat.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 10:56 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do you agree with Second's assessment that they get the data by calling 110,000 households per month?

If you do, I'll ask you a simple question.

Why do you suppose they would do that when they've already proven themselves perfectly capable of figuring how much money everyone was making, whether they were employed or self employed, back in the days when they gave us our social security reports that detailed exactly how much money we made every year, how much we paid into social security, and how much we would get per month depending on which age we decided to retire?

They already have that data, presented it to us on a yearly basis using actual MATH, and have been able to compile it for decades. Why waste what must be millions or even 10's of millions of dollars per year doing something as unscientific as random robo-calls on a very small percentage of citizens if they already had nearly 100% of the data just because of our income taxes and social security payments?




My answer is, because they can just make up anything they want to when there is no actual math being used.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

If the Bureau of Labor Statistics depended on W-2 forms that businesses send to the Internal Revenue Service only once per year and quarterly income tax withholding, their numbers wouldn't be any good for a monthly estimation. Also the Bureau does not want an estimate based on who is avoiding paying any income tax at all. And the Bureau wants more information that the IRS will never receive. There is a news release from the Bureau giving charts & tables full of numbers. Two answers to some questions about the tables www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf :

6. Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households. All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.

7. Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who want a job but are not currently looking for work?
Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who want a job, including those who are not currently looking because they believe no jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor underutilization (some of which include discouraged workers and other groups not officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in table A-15 of The Employment Situation news release. For more information about these alternative measures, please visit www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#altmeasures

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 1:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


BLS uses at least 2 channels of data collection. One is the household sampling. Another is institutional, which is largely automated, and is provided by employers and the like. During a Government Shutdown the household data collection is suspended but the institutional data continues to roll in.
There are statistical methods for corralling accurate figures from gathered information. When Obama fraudulently manipulated the data in 2012 to miraculously and suddenly lower the reported Unemployment Rates before Election Day, he then allowed the data to return to unmolested levels.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 2:15 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

When Obama fraudulently manipulated the data in 2012 to miraculously and suddenly lower the reported Unemployment Rates before Election Day, he then allowed the data to return to unmolested levels.

I am looking at the XLS file, and I can’t see the Obama conspiracy you see.

If you got something, show me, JewelStaiteFan. Going from 7.8% to 7.7% to 7.9% around the election is not showing me Obama "molesting" the data.

xls file: https://goo.gl/cUv5zQ

2012-06-01 8.2 134026
2012-07-01 8.2 134182
2012-08-01 8.1 134355
2012-09-01 7.8 134549
2012-10-01 7.8 134702
2012-11-01 7.7 134832
2012-12-01 7.9 135075
2013-01-01 8.0 135282
2013-02-01 7.7 135547
2013-03-01 7.5 135703
2013-04-01 7.6 135882
2013-05-01 7.5 136122
2013-06-01 7.5 136280

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 3:44 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
If the Bureau of Labor Statistics depended on W-2 forms that businesses send to the Internal Revenue Service only once per year and quarterly income tax withholding, their numbers wouldn't be any good for a monthly estimation.



I thought of that after I made the post, and I figured you'd bring it up.

Fair enough. But they should use it once per year to prove that their monthly rates are bullshit.

Bullshit polls and manipulated facts can't stand up to actual math.

This would be the reason they don't even bother checking the data they already have and comparing it against their robo-calls. One single year of doing so would blow the lid off the whole corrupt deal.




Bottom line, the proof is in how our two parties handle unemployment. Whoever is in power says the numbers are great. Whoever is not in power says the numbers are not honest. Pay attention in 3 or 7 years when the pendulum swings the other way and remember this conversation.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 5:47 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I used a different computer today and saw the table I made was disjointed, perhaps what 6ix was talking about.

So I am reposting the table here, broken into 2 parts.

BLS does a horrendous job of identifying and defining their stats. Second was helpful above by linking to a different page that provided definition, which the raw data table did not. So BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

I have re-done the first post with this new information.

The numbers are called Unemployment figures, and those are regularly redefined. At one time Active Duty Military Personnel were classified as unemployed. Obama's BLS has worked diligently to obfuscate the dismal performance of Obamanomics.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. For example, the current Rate of 4.1% (for 4 months straight) is SeasAdj, and the real Rate is 4.5% for Jan 2018. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed. The 2nd column is the Rate.
The 3rd column is what is called the Want A Job Now category but is NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category. The 5th column is the sum of Unemployed plus Want A Job - which more accurately represents the Actual Unemployed. The 6th column is the Rate for column 5 figure.
The 7th column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 8th column is the sum of the 5th column plus 7th column. 9th column is the Rate for column 8 figure.
The 10th column is the Civilian Population. 11th column is Labor Force, 12th column is Participation Rate.

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Year Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt
Jan2008 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1%
Jan2009 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0%
Jan2010 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5%
Jan2011 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1%
Jan2012 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8%
Jan2013 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4%
Jan2014 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2%
Jan2015 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8%
Jan2016 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2%
Jan2017 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7%
Jan2018 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2%

Jul 2012 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2%
Aug2012 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1%
Sep2012 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9%
Oct2012 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5%
Nov2012 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6%



Mo/Year Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc%
Jan2008 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7
Jan2009 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4
Jan2010 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6
Jan2011 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9
Jan2012 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4
Jan2013 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3
Jan2014 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5
Jan2015 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5
Jan2016 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3
Jan2017 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5
Jan2018 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3%

Jul 2012 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3
Aug2012 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7
Sep2012 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6
Oct2012 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8
Nov2012 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5



Comparing to The Great Depression: the Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.75% with 12.830 Million unemployed. In 1932 there were 12.060 M unemployed, and 11.340M in 1934, 10.610 in 1935.
The 5 year stretch from 2009 to 2014 exceeded 12.9 Million each year, more Unemployed than the Great Depression. And 2014-2017 was only less with the Fake figure, but including Want A Job was still more than Great Depression, until 2018.
2010 and 2011 had Total percentages (over 20%) greater than every Great Depression year except 1933 & 1934.

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate was almost doubled by Jan 2010, and the Fake figure didn't return to 2008 level until Jan 2016. This figure after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure. It does not return to Jan 2008 level until 2018. This Subtotal count of 13.2 Million in 2008 does not fall back to this count until 2018.
With Obamanomics pushing more into the Involuntary Part-Time group, this also got bloated to disguise the horrible Unemployment problems, and this Rate did not return to 2008 level until 2018.

The Jan Rate of all 3 categories combined of Obamanomics Unemployment did not fall back to 2008 level until 2018.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 5:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

When Obama fraudulently manipulated the data in 2012 to miraculously and suddenly lower the reported Unemployment Rates before Election Day, he then allowed the data to return to unmolested levels.

I am looking at the XLS file, and I can’t see the Obama conspiracy you see.

If you got something, show me, JewelStaiteFan. Going from 7.8% to 7.7% to 7.9% around the election is not showing me Obama "molesting" the data.

xls file: https://goo.gl/cUv5zQ

2012-06-01 8.2 134026
2012-07-01 8.2 134182
2012-08-01 8.1 134355
2012-09-01 7.8 134549
2012-10-01 7.8 134702
2012-11-01 7.7 134832
2012-12-01 7.9 135075
2013-01-01 8.0 135282
2013-02-01 7.7 135547
2013-03-01 7.5 135703
2013-04-01 7.6 135882
2013-05-01 7.5 136122
2013-06-01 7.5 136280


I'm not sure how gullible you might be trying to be, or if you're trying to ignore the data.
In 2012 Obama knows no incumbent President since FDR has won re-election with Unemployment at 8% or higher, so he must have Unemployment reported to be below this by October 2012 - which will be published in early November before Election Day.

Comparing Jan 2012 and 2013 with other Jan data shows CivPop, Labor Force, Unemployment count and Rate, and Involuntary Part-Time to be in adequate alignment and trend, and these are all data components compiled from institutional reports.
The first half of 2012 the numbers are not heading where Obama needs them fast enough. So in Aug, Sep, Oct the figures suddenly and miraculously become what Obama needs. Then the figures return to reality in following months.

We see in August that the pretense of Unemployment Rate at 75% of what it was a couple years before is undermined by the fact that the Want A Job count is the highest it has ever been, which it has never been above 7 Million. This is how they present the illusion of the worst ever Want A Job count equaling a 25% drop in the Official Unemployment.


Mo/Year Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc%
Jan2008 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7
Jan2009 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4
Jan2010 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6
Jan2011 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9
Jan2012 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4

Jul 2012 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3
Aug2012 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7
Sep2012 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6
Oct2012 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8
Nov2012 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5

Jan2013 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 153794 63.3

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 6:02 PM

THGRRI


Lets remember SECOND. We are dealing with people who live in the world of conspiracies. They can't function without one. Once they've found one to latch onto, to rage about, they cannot be swayed. Even when the proof is irrefutable.

Like the fact that the numbers show the truth. Obama is responsible for delivering a better economy so far than Trump. Even when Obama inherited a much much worse economy. It's very sad...


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2018 6:05 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


lol... every post you make in here is about a conspiracy T.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 10, 2018 1:07 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Updated with today's report:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.



Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U-6%
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 12243 07.6% 5241 3.2% 17484 10.8% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3 15.2
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7 14.6
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6 14.2
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8 13.9
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5 13.9

Quote:



The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 10, 2018 2:01 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Unemployment/Underemployment hasn't been under 8% since at least 2000.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

Quote:

The real unemployment rate (U-6) is a broader definition of unemployment than the official unemployment rate (U-3). In February 2018, it remained at 8.2 percent.

The U-3 is the rate most often reported in the media. In the U-3 rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are in the labor force. To remain in the labor force, they must have looked for a job in the last four weeks.

The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. For that reason, it is almost double the U-3 report.




EDIT: My bad... according to this table, it's been over 8% since 2002.

Year---(U3)-----(U6)---(U3/U6)--(Comments)
1994 6.6% 11.8% 56% The first year BLS reported U6
1995 5.6% 10.2% 55%
1996 5.6% 9.8% 57%
1997 5.3% 9.4% 56%
1998 4.6% 8.4% 55%
1999 4.3% 7.7% 56%
2000 4.0% (Record Low) 7.1% 56% Stock market crashed in March
2001 4.2% 7.3% 58%
2002 5.7% 9.5% 60% U3 closest to U6
2003 5.8% 10.0% 58%
2004 5.7% 9.9% 58%
2005 5.3% 9.3% 57%
2006 4.7% 8.4% 56%
2007 4.6% 8.4% 55%
2008 5.0% 9.2% 54%
2009 7.8% 14.2% 55% High of 10.2% in Oct
2010 9.8% 16.7% 59%
2011 9.1% 16.2% 56%
2012 8.3% 15.2% 55%
2013 8.0% 14.5% 55%
2014 6.6% 12.7% 52%
2015 5.7% 11.3% 50%
2016 4.9% 9.9% 49% Both return to pre-recession levels
2017 4.8% 9.4% 51%
2018 4.4% 8.2% 50%

Man... fff.net is terrible at showing tables.

Quote:

The point is to make sure you compare apples to apples. If you say the government is lying during a recession, then you've got to make the same argument when times are good.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 10, 2018 2:29 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


That U-6 data is hidden pretty well. I added the data to my earlier post. Found it in Table A-15 after 2010.
Your table is littered with Libtard BS.
Stock Market Crash in March 2000? Do you believe that?
And 3.8 is the lowest differential, while the prior 2 years are 3.1% - Libtard Maths at work.
And 9.9% us as low as 8.4% - more Libtard Maths at work. Sheesh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2018 11:38 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



Updated with today's report:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.



Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U-6%
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 12243 07.6% 5241 3.2% 17484 10.8% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 11464 07.1% 4975 3.1% 16439 10.2% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3 15.2
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7 14.6
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6 14.2
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8 13.9
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5 13.9

Quote:



The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 12:32 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Deep State must be deeply embedded at BLS. Reading their report, summary says no change, little change, no difference, nothing to see here folks, these are not the improvements you are looking for, never mind that man behind the curtain.

Any way to gloss over the horrors of Obamanomics.

But the actual numbers show a whole different story. Every raw figure of bad column is now the lowest since Bush43. Every Subtotal percentage is not only lowest, but also less than half of the figures Obama generated.
And the Labor Force Participation Rate continues to be the best in years.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 8:21 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


The corporations don’t need BLS numbers. Corps don't need the unemployed to be profitable. So why hire them? You know corps aren’t run like charities for the unemployed.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/06/how-12-experts-would-en
d-inequality-if-they-ran-america/?utm_term=.4e3e366d2f37


The economy in which we live now is one where lots of business models that had once been illegal are essentially immunized from antitrust liability. Among them: vertical integration (owning multiple stages of production in the supply chain, as many telecom companies do); misclassification of employees as independent contractors; the rise of the gig economy.

As a result, corporate profits as a share of economic output have risen from less than 5 percent to more than 15 percent. They're a much larger share of national income, at the expense of both workers and traditional capital investment. If profits are high, as they are now, corporations are supposed to be expanding and investing under threat of competition. But that's not happening. They're at high profits without needing to invest, which is evidence that they don't face competition.

We need new antitrust legislation to set the policy back on track. That legislation should consist of a revision of monopolization enforcement — particularly Section 2 of the Sherman Act — since we have not seen a meaningful case brought by the government since it took action against Microsoft in the early 2000s.

Companies should face legal liability not just in the product markets but also through antitrust action in the labor market when they exert “monopsony” power. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/how-widespread-labor-monopsony-some-new-
results-suggest-its-pervasive
/

The goal is to change how corporations work, to reduce their profitability and to create space for other players to compete, creating an economy that works for a wider set of stakeholders than the corporate CEOs and their shareholders. It would help reverse the decline of entrepreneurship and small-business growth and ensure the economy works for everyone.




The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 8:23 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


It's still not good jobs though.

It might be better than it has been during the Obama Administration, but that's not saying much at all. During most of GWB's Administration it wasn't all that great either. The job market has been taking a shit since around 2002 and hasn't ever had any meaningful recovery.

The problem right now is that even if the economy improved, there still won't be all that many great jobs to be had. Automation and Outsourcing have just taken so many of them. We'll never get the ones that automation took away back, and we won't get the ones we lost to outsourcing until these cheaper countries become so well off that our labor is competitive to theirs. That's not something we should be looking forward to.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 8:48 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's still not good jobs though.

It might be better than it has been during the Obama Administration, but that's not saying much at all. During most of GWB's Administration it wasn't all that great either. The job market has been taking a shit since around 2002 and hasn't ever had any meaningful recovery.

The problem right now is that even if the economy improved, there still won't be all that many great jobs to be had. Automation and Outsourcing have just taken so many of them. We'll never get the ones that automation took away back, and we won't get the ones we lost to outsourcing until these cheaper countries become so well off that our labor is competitive to theirs. That's not something we should be looking forward to.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Maybe you should repeat this to yourself a few times until you understand: American Corporations don't hire in order to reduce your unemployment. Corporations hire to increase their profits and they don't give a damn about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It doesn't make Corps any money.

Corporations are making excellent profits now. Why would the Corps want to share all that money with the unemployed, unless it would make them even more profits? Since American Corporations are run this way, millions of people will not be getting that good paying job because that does nothing for the owners of the Corporations.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 8:53 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Maybe you should repeat this to yourself a few times until you understand: American Corporations don't hire in order to reduce your unemployment. Corporations hire to increase their profits and they don't give a damn about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It doesn't make Corps any money.

Corporations are making excellent profits now. Why would the Corps want to share all that money with the unemployed, unless it would make them even more profits? Since American Corporations are run this way, millions of people will not be getting that good paying job because that does nothing for the owners of the Corporations.



Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 10:00 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.

Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.

Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)

Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 3:51 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Unemployment/Underemployment hasn't been under 8% since at least 2000.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

Quote:

The real unemployment rate (U-6) is a broader definition of unemployment than the official unemployment rate (U-3). In February 2018, it remained at 8.2 percent.

The U-3 is the rate most often reported in the media. In the U-3 rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are in the labor force. To remain in the labor force, they must have looked for a job in the last four weeks.

The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. For that reason, it is almost double the U-3 report.




EDIT: My bad... according to this table, it's been over 8% since 2002.

Year---(U3)-----(U6)---(U3/U6)--(Comments)
1994 6.6% 11.8% 56% The first year BLS reported U6
1995 5.6% 10.2% 55%
1996 5.6% 9.8% 57%
1997 5.3% 9.4% 56%
1998 4.6% 8.4% 55%
1999 4.3% 7.7% 56%
2000 4.0% (Record Low) 7.1% 56% Stock market crashed in March
2001 4.2% 7.3% 58%
2002 5.7% 9.5% 60% U3 closest to U6
2003 5.8% 10.0% 58%
2004 5.7% 9.9% 58%
2005 5.3% 9.3% 57%
2006 4.7% 8.4% 56%
2007 4.6% 8.4% 55%
2008 5.0% 9.2% 54%
2009 7.8% 14.2% 55% High of 10.2% in Oct
2010 9.8% 16.7% 59%
2011 9.1% 16.2% 56%
2012 8.3% 15.2% 55%
2013 8.0% 14.5% 55%
2014 6.6% 12.7% 52%
2015 5.7% 11.3% 50%
2016 4.9% 9.9% 49% Both return to pre-recession levels
2017 4.8% 9.4% 51%
2018 4.4% 8.2% 50%

Man... fff.net is terrible at showing tables.

Quote:

The point is to make sure you compare apples to apples. If you say the government is lying during a recession, then you've got to make the same argument when times are good.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

Wherever your numbers are coming from, they are reading U-6 at 0.7% below the BLS figure.
So the newest 8.1% could be the Lowest, or 2nd or 3rd Lowest in the history of them tracking it.

But your table is still chock full of imaginary data, so it's difficult to translate facts from it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 4:03 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Wherever I got the data from? I linked it.

Go do some research. The data is sound. It's just not what you want to hear.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 4:06 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.

Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.

Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)

Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly



I know you're shilling for the Democrats again, but they come with way too much other baggage for anyone to vote them in.

I suggest they start taking a much more moderate approach to a host of other issues if they ever want to see a supermajority again.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 4:17 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.

Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.

Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)

Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.

The feverish SpinDoctoring that second insists upon doing for Obamanomics is impressive.
Any reasonable person in 2006 and 2008 knew Democraps and Obama would wreck the Economy, and when the facts threatened to reveal this truth, Obama endeavored to cover-up the facts, redefine the numbers to reflect his preferred lies. This is where 6ix starts his complaint. That Obamanomics worked so hard to ship all of our jobs overseas is glossed over. Just ignore the Obamanomics worst performance in history. Never you mind Obamanomics creating more unemployed than FDR's Great Depression. Don't pay any attention to real Democrap failures being accurately reported. Just ignore reality.
So the Libtard solution to their failures being exposed? Give them MORE CONTROL over the Economy, eliminate Free Market, eliminate Free Enterprise, return to Communism. You just don't understand that you didn't give them ENOUGH control when they were Hell-bent on destroying America. Their model is when the Isolationist FDR & Democraps grew the Axis too large, they were able to take Government control of private companies to enforce their Socialist Utopias.

After The Unions forced our jobs overseas, it is difficult to reverse. Trump has done some, but Unions insist upon sending more overseas, and replacing as many as possible with automation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 4:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
That U-6 data is hidden pretty well. I added the data to my earlier post. Found it in Table A-15 after 2010.
Your table is littered with Libtard BS.
Stock Market Crash in March 2000? Do you believe that?
And 3.8 is the lowest differential, while the prior 2 years are 3.1% - Libtard Maths at work.
And 9.9% us as low as 8.4% - more Libtard Maths at work. Sheesh.

6ix, if your data is actually as real as you claim, please convert these Libtard Maths into something non-Libtards can understand.

Merely linking to a Libtard source does not bolster your claims.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 4:37 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I don't see how it's Libtard.

They're saying that the numbers were bullshit under Obama as well.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 5:47 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The feverish SpinDoctoring that second insists upon doing for Obamanomics is impressive.
Any reasonable person in 2006 and 2008 knew Democraps and Obama would wreck the Economy, and when the facts threatened to reveal this truth, Obama endeavored to cover-up the facts, redefine the numbers to reflect his preferred lies. This is where 6ix starts his complaint. That Obamanomics worked so hard to ship all of our jobs overseas is glossed over.
So the Libtard solution to their failures being exposed? Give them MORE CONTROL over the Economy, eliminate Free Market, eliminate Free Enterprise, return to Communism. You just don't understand that you didn't give them ENOUGH control when they were Hell-bent on destroying America. Their model is when the Isolationist FDR & Democraps grew the Axis too large, they were able to take Government control of private companies to enforce their Socialist Utopias.

After The Unions forced our jobs overseas, it is difficult to reverse. Trump has done some, but Unions insist upon sending more overseas, and replacing as many as possible with automation.

JewelStaiteFan, I'm in the top 1% and you aren't anything more than ignorant nut on how Corporations work. Flexible work arrangements, which include crowdsourcing platforms such as Uber, as well as freelancers and independent contractors, increased about 50 percent from 2005 to 2015. These jobs account for 94 percent — nearly all — of the net employment growth in the United States over that time. Neither JewelStaiteFan, 6ixStringJack, nor the GOP know how to stop Corporations from screwing over their workers. If you knew how, you wouldn't dare use your knowledge because you would have to kick many very rich people in the balls to make them behave generously toward Americans in the lower half of the economy. The rich won't voluntarily treat their employees better. It feels unnatural, even crazy to the rich, paying more than the least amount in wages. That's my experience.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/04/walmarts-future-workforce
-robots-and-freelancers/557063
/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 7:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
I'm in the top 1%



No you're not.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 7:21 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't see how it's Libtard.

They're saying that the numbers were bullshit under Obama as well.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.

3. Explain how 2016 (Obama) has returned to pre-recession levels with U3 of 4.9% and U6 of 9.9%, while the onset of The Rock-the-Vote Recession was February 2008, and these numbers are worse than every non-Recession year 2007, 2006, 2005 since the last Recession - and not as good as 2008 Recession year.

4. Explain how your number for 2018 U6 is 8.2% while BLS reported 8.9%. BLS is the Definer of U6, and the sole provider of that number - so why are you claiming a number which does not match?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 9:30 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.



Not fake news.

The Dotcom Crash - March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

https://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp


Quote:

2. 2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.


I don't understand the question. What is 3.8 and what is 3.1 and 3.1?



I'll get back to you on the rest later. Meanwhile, you're going to have to find a link for your numbers. I'm having a hard time finding a yearly average of numbers since they seem to be broken down by months. Either you or the article I linked might just be taking a number from the month during the year to best suit your particular arguments.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2018 10:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

Not fake news.

The Dotcom Crash - March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

https://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp
Quote:

2. 2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.
I don't understand the question. What is 3.8 and what is 3.1 and 3.1?



I'll get back to you on the rest later. Meanwhile, you're going to have to find a link for your numbers. I'm having a hard time finding a yearly average of numbers since they seem to be broken down by months. Either you or the article I linked might just be taking a number from the month during the year to best suit your particular arguments.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

I forgot you can't do math.
9.5 - 5.7 = 3.8 your quoted claim of the closest U3 and U6 got in 2002.
7.3 - 4.2 = 3.1 the year prior.
7.1 - 4.0 = 3.1 the year before that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2018 12:05 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

Not fake news.

The Dotcom Crash - March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

https://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Holy Cow, you must be a genius!!!
A specialized subpart of a corner of The Stock Market has a decline over 30 months so IT MUST BE A CRASH!!!

From Jan 2000 at 11,700 Dow until May 2001 with a couple hundred less Dow, that is just crystal clarity in focusing your laser sharp identification of massive drops in STOCK MARKET VALUE. Dropping a whole couple percent in only a span of 16 months, that is such a total CRASH, totally fer sure.
By this standard of measurement, the huge CRASH from July 1997 to October 2002 resulted in the drop from 8,038 down to a whopping 7,286 in only a period of 63 months, a loss of almost 10%, or almost 1% per 9 months.

I'm really disappointed you believe such pablum.


A decrease from May 2001 to October 2002 of 4,100 DOW? That's a drop of 36% in 17 months, or over 2% per month average of the Broader Market, so probably doesn't suit your definition of a Crash.

In MArch 2000 it looks like Dow was under 10,000. So then it gained about 1,600 by May 2001. With a gain of about 16% from the onset of your defined CRASH, that much gain indicates such a horrible crash, everybody must have known about it!! But the News of the time did not report this 16% growth as a crash.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kavanaugh
Tue, September 25, 2018 12:40 - 161 posts
Who, What is Zero Hedge
Tue, September 25, 2018 11:48 - 37 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, September 25, 2018 11:41 - 1863 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Tue, September 25, 2018 04:24 - 1368 posts
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Tue, September 25, 2018 03:29 - 669 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Mon, September 24, 2018 23:34 - 1022 posts
Is Shifty Schiff About To Be Exposed As Collosal Liar?
Mon, September 24, 2018 20:12 - 34 posts
11/9
Mon, September 24, 2018 20:01 - 1 posts
Mike Pompeo and Former Obama aide Rahm Emanuel say US preparing 'actions' against Venezuela?
Mon, September 24, 2018 17:08 - 3 posts
Russia wants to upend Western democracy
Mon, September 24, 2018 13:54 - 113 posts
Trump's Budget
Mon, September 24, 2018 11:38 - 105 posts
Chemical weapons: Are we detecting a pattern yet?
Mon, September 24, 2018 10:57 - 110 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL