It's An Unemployment Miracle!

[koalabear]

Overall? Fuck yes.
Across the board? Don't be an idiot.

I'm never an idiot when lumber is involved.

 

[Pookie]

Sure, let's draw assessments of the political climate from an online casino. It is a horse race after all, right?

Over time, it has grown to be a very accurate predictor. In 2008, only two states didn't go as as betting indicated they would ... Indiana and Missouri. InTrade bettors expected Obama to get 364 electoral votes in 2008, one less than he actually got.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

"Denial" is a core component of the Ishmael Reality Distortion Zone™

are you sure, that you are not talking about yourself and Merc?

both of you live in the land called Denialville

 

[Ishmael]

And you've figured in demographic factors such as the baby boomers into that .... how?

And just how does that factor in Pooks? Hmmm? Reading some blog?

The fact of the matter is that the Aug. U6 number was 14.7% and the Sept. U6 number is 14.7%. So the BLS is telling us that total unemployment remained unchanged, but the 'official' unemployment number dropped a phenomenal 0.3%. How did they achieve this miraculous number?

Ishmael

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Something else that does and will continue to keep the unemployment rate high is temp agencies.

In RI we have a lot of Spanish people many of them come over here and the temp agency pays their bond. They then work for the temp agency who then pays them.

When my company gets busy even if it for months at a time rather than hire they bring in a bunch of these people making minimum wage(although the agency is getting at least $3-4 per hour for themselves over that)

They will keep them for months then cut them loose. This way they don;t have to (God forbid) hire anyone.

Most of these people do not have legal status(as my company has tried to actually hire a couple of them because they will work for shit money) but yet are filling up all the factories in the state.

Two years ago Immigration showed up out of the boue and took about a dozen of them out of the factory.

This is who is working here and taking jobs.

But I guess if we say anything about it we must be racist or inhumane, heaven forbid we take someone here illegally and send them away instead we give them our friends and family members jobs.

WTF

You bad-mouth the GB all the goddamned time over at AH, and here you are.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Quick! Change the topic!

And just how does that factor in Pooks? Hmmm? Reading some blog?

The fact of the matter is that the Aug. U6 number was 14.7% and the Sept. U6 number is 14.7%. So the BLS is telling us that total unemployment remained unchanged, but the 'official' unemployment number dropped a phenomenal 0.3%. How did they achieve this miraculous number?

Ishmael

Notice how deftly Lit's most ignorant son of a bitch attempts to switch the discussion from "labor force participation rate" (where he got his ass thoroughly kicked) to "discouraged workers".

Weapons grade Derp: Ishmael.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Do you even know what InTrade is?

Lemme guess. Uh...its a place where fools and their money are soon parted? They were popular around 1900. Folks made bets on the future prices of stocks. I read the book.

 

[Pookie]

And just how does that factor in Pooks? Hmmm? Reading some blog?

Answer my question first.

Why isn't that HUGE down tick in the unemployment numbers reflected in a equal up tick in the labor force participation number? Well, that's because the unemployment number reported (U3) is a 'cooked' number. If that number was a true reflection of the employment picture in the United States you would necessarily HAVE to see corresponding changes in the U6 numbers and the labor force participation numbers, those changes are NOT there folks.

Ishmael

How have you figured in demographic factors such as the baby boomers into that? If you haven't, just say so.

 

[RjThoughts]

I'm never an idiot when lumber is involved.

Nailed that one!!
You didn't let anyone screw with you!

I'm here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress. Try the veal!

<drops microphone>

 

[Pookie]

Notice how deftly Lit's most ignorant son of a bitch attempts to switch the discussion from "labor force participation rate" (where he got his ass thoroughly kicked) to "discouraged workers".

Weapons grade Derp: Ishmael.

I caught that. He knows he fucked up with what he posted, too. He's been reading to many wingnut websites and blogs. I figure he knows he can't defend it either without looking foolish.

But maybe he'll man up and respond to my question.

 

[Pookie]

Lemme guess. Uh...its a place where fools and their money are soon parted? They were popular around 1900. Folks made bets on the future prices of stocks. I read the book.

Lucky guess ... sorta. Now please try to keep up with the rest of the class.

 

[mercury14]

And just how does that factor in Pooks? Hmmm? Reading some blog?

The fact of the matter is that the Aug. U6 number was 14.7% and the Sept. U6 number is 14.7%. So the BLS is telling us that total unemployment remained unchanged, but the 'official' unemployment number dropped a phenomenal 0.3%. How did they achieve this miraculous number?

Ishmael

The U6 dropped .4% bro. Then it was seasonally adjusted, keeping it at 14.7%.

 

[Pookie]

removed for now

 

[jeninflorida]

Nailed that one!!
You didn't let anyone screw with you!

I'm here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress. Try the veal!

<drops microphone>

makes me think of Tim Allen...not sure if he was the one who said it first or not.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

I think we can all agree that the unemployment figure is inaccurate. It never was accurate. But at least we have a consistent inaccurate way of measuring unemployment.

 

[Pookie]

The U6 dropped .4% bro. Then it was seasonally adjusted, keeping it at 14.7%.

He's off in wingnut land with this.

 

[jeninflorida]

And just how does that factor in Pooks? Hmmm? Reading some blog?

The fact of the matter is that the Aug. U6 number was 14.7% and the Sept. U6 number is 14.7%. So the BLS is telling us that total unemployment remained unchanged, but the 'official' unemployment number dropped a phenomenal 0.3%. How did they achieve this miraculous number?

Ishmael

Something smells a little fishy, funny how that just came out so positive after Obama had his ass kicked.

the simple fact is that Obama has had 4 years in office, wasted two years on Obamacare and the other 2 with creating excuses as to why its everyone else fault. But I'm sure that Obama is ready for his next career, PGA here comes the Obama

 

[Ishmael]

Something I will point out though ...



The U6 number is total unemployed ... plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.



Ish. Seriously?

I know what U6 is Pooks. Sooooo, they're playing a 'shell' game with the numbers. There is NO way total unemployed can remain the same if 'real' unemployed declined by a 0.3%. After all, the total unemployed number also includes the 'official' unemployed number. It should be obvious to any one that cares to think about it that all they did was move some folks into a different category of unemployed so that they did count in the 'offical' number.

Factory orders down, inventories up, an increase in application for first time unemployment benefits. Yeah buddy, things are going nowhere but up from here. [/sarcasm]

Ishmael

 

[Pookie]

I know what U6 is Pooks. Sooooo, they're playing a 'shell' game with the numbers. There is NO way total unemployed can remain the same if 'real' unemployed declined by a 0.3%. After all, the total unemployed number also includes the 'official' unemployed number. It should be obvious to any one that cares to think about it that all they did was move some folks into a different category of unemployed so that they did count in the 'offical' number.

Factory orders down, inventories up, an increase in application for first time unemployment benefits. Yeah buddy, things are going nowhere but up from here. [/sarcasm]

Ishmael

Sooo ... we're back to this ...

And just how does that factor in Pooks? Hmmm? Reading some blog?

Answer my question first.

Why isn't that HUGE down tick in the unemployment numbers reflected in a equal up tick in the labor force participation number? Well, that's because the unemployment number reported (U3) is a 'cooked' number. If that number was a true reflection of the employment picture in the United States you would necessarily HAVE to see corresponding changes in the U6 numbers and the labor force participation numbers, those changes are NOT there folks.

Ishmael

How have you figured in demographic factors such as the baby boomers into that? If you haven't, just say so.

 

[Pookie]

The fact of the matter is that the Aug. U6 number was 14.7% and the Sept. U6 number is 14.7%. So the BLS is telling us that total unemployment remained unchanged, but the 'official' unemployment number dropped a phenomenal 0.3%. How did they achieve this miraculous number?

Ishmael

While you work on the other question, lets get a little jump on this one.

From August to September there were 456,000 fewer unemployed. Total employment rose by 873,000. The number of part-time workers increased by 600,000.

Now for purposes of the official unemployment umber and the U6, what happens to that increase in 600,000 part-time workers? If they were unemployed before, they can't be counted as such anymore. Therefore, they would not be counted in the official unemployment number. However, they likely would still be counted as underemployed, since that tends to be the nature of part-time workers, and thus would be counted in the U6 unemployment number.

Would that not be one way for this miracle to happen?

 

[Ishmael]

While you work on the other question, lets get a little jump on this one.

From August to September there were 456,000 fewer unemployed. Total employment rose by 873,000. The number of part-time workers increased by 600,000.

Now for purposes of the official unemployment umber and the U6, what happens to that increase in 600,000 part-time workers? If they were unemployed before, they can't be counted as such anymore. Therefore, they would not be counted in the official unemployment number. However, they likely would still be counted as underemployed, since that tends to be the nature of part-time workers, and thus would be counted in the U6 unemployment number.

Would that not be one way for this miracle to happen?

Pooks, you can play all the spin games you want and it doesn't change a thing.

Let's say you have 100 cars on a lot and 8 of them are red. You pull one of the red ones out, paint it green, park it over with the green cars and then come and tell me that you've reduced the inventory of red cars by 12.5%. Statistically speaking you are absolutely correct. But you are still stuck with the fact that there are still 100 cars on the fucking lot.

And factory orders are still down. Inventory numbers and first time unemployment applications are still up.

Ishmael

 

[bra_man69]

Pooks, you can play all the spin games you want and it doesn't change a thing.

Let's say you have 100 cars on a lot and 8 of them are red. You pull one of the red ones out, paint it green, park it over with the green cars and then come and tell me that you've reduced the inventory of red cars by 12.5%. Statistically speaking you are absolutely correct. But you are still stuck with the fact that there are still 100 cars on the fucking lot.

And factory orders are still down. Inventory numbers and first time unemployment applications are still up.

Ishmael

With all the new job's think the gdp number would of went sky high.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I caught that. He knows he fucked up with what he posted, too. He's been reading to many wingnut websites and blogs. I figure he knows he can't defend it either without looking foolish.

But maybe he'll man up and respond to my question.

I'm not a betting man, but I think the safest bet is that Ish will never answer a question. Bet the house he'll respond with name calling, changing the topic,& declaring himself the winner.

 

[Pookie]

Pooks, you can play all the spin games you want and it doesn't change a thing.

Ishmael

I'm not spinning a damn thing. I just responded to your posts, Ish. You asked ...

The fact of the matter is that the Aug. U6 number was 14.7% and the Sept. U6 number is 14.7%. So the BLS is telling us that total unemployment remained unchanged, but the 'official' unemployment number dropped a phenomenal 0.3%. How did they achieve this miraculous number?

Ishmael

You thought it involve a miracle to do this. No miracle needed. You just have to know what the fuck you're doing when you do the math. You didn't know what was in the U6 number, otherwise you wouldn't have asked that silly question. No spin needed at all. I even tried to drop you a big hint in a later post, and still you didn't pick up on it.

You said you knew what U6 was ...

I know what U6 is Pooks.

Ishmael

But obviously you didn't. Otherwise, you would've seen how simple the math was, and that it didn't take any miracles.



Now ... back to this earlier post ...

Why isn't that HUGE down tick in the unemployment numbers reflected in a equal up tick in the labor force participation number? Well, that's because the unemployment number reported (U3) is a 'cooked' number. If that number was a true reflection of the employment picture in the United States you would necessarily HAVE to see corresponding changes in the U6 numbers and the labor force participation numbers, those changes are NOT there folks.

Ishmael

You say the number is "cooked". Well, obviously they haven't changed the methodology. You just didn't know what all was in the U6. Something is definitely "cooked", but it isn't the U3. It is what it's always been.

But lets see if you'll finally address this. I realize I may have to wait while you study up on what is in the U6 number, but I can be patient. Soooo ....

How have you figured in demographic factors such as the baby boomers into that? If you haven't, just say so.

 

[Wrong Element]

Pooks, you can play all the spin games you want and it doesn't change a thing.

Quoted without comment.