The Great Economy Lie

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

IT AINT NECESSARILY SO, THE THINGS THAT YOURE LIABLE TO READ IN THE BIBLE, THEY AINT NECESSARILY SO.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

If you and the CEO at Gallup have just come to understand how unemployment is calculated, then that is your problem for being uninformed.

You may not like it. You may have very sound arguments for changing the calculation (which would be interesting to hear especially if you have a degree in economics) but your being uninformed does not make those in the know liars.

 

[1sickbastard]

...but your being uninformed does not make those in the know liars.

Sure it does.
For some people, ignorance is not only their best defense, it's also their primary offensive weapon. There are any number of GB/PB regulars who exemplify this principle.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you and the CEO at Gallup have just come to understand how unemployment is calculated, then that is your problem for being uninformed.

You may not like it. You may have very sound arguments for changing the calculation (which would be interesting to hear especially if you have a degree in economics) but your being uninformed does not make those in the know liars.

It's yet another re-hash of Vetty's tired "but...but...U6!"

I like how the standard includes anyone over 18...no upper age limit as long as they aren't in a nursing home or prison. That means Vetty and AJ and Ish are all "unemployed", not "retired". No such thing as retirement to the Labor Force Participation Rate.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It's yet another re-hash of Vetty's tired "but...but...U6!"

I like how the standard includes anyone over 18...no upper age limit as long as they aren't in a nursing home or prison. That means Vetty and AJ and Ish are all "unemployed", not "retired". No such thing as retirement to the Labor Force Participation Rate.

How do they quantify "actively seeking ..." when establishing the workforce? Do Vetty and AJ and Ish seem to be actively seeking employment to the calculation?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you and the CEO at Gallup have just come to understand how unemployment is calculated, then that is your problem for being uninformed.

You may not like it. You may have very sound arguments for changing the calculation (which would be interesting to hear especially if you have a degree in economics) but your being uninformed does not make those in the know liars.

Economics is a social science, that is, no science in it at all.

As VETTE says, IF YOU CUT A HOT DOG IN HALF YOU AINT GOT MORE HOT DOG.

 

[Que]

Double post

 

[Que]

How do they quantify "actively seeking ..." when establishing the workforce? Do Vetty and AJ and Ish seem to be actively seeking employment to the calculation?

You quantify "actively seeking" the same way the BLS survey determines it. You ask 'em, "Are you actively seeking employment? More hours? Better employment?"

Trumpeting a lower incidence of new people being thrown out of work without in anyway accounting for or trying to determine how many of the people in past unemployment reports still have not found work is beyond disingenuous.

In an active, healthy, growing economy the new unemployment claims number is helpful. Tells you something about the state of flux in the job market, tells you something about the direction employment is headed right now this interval. In a stagnant economy what difference does it make how many new people lost their jobs when that number is a mere fraction of the people out of work?

It isn't as if we don't know how many people of what ages had jobs 6 years ago and how many newly minted 18-24 year olds we had, and how many boomers applied for SS. These are not mysteries. These are known figures.

A few more people are working than before, but the number has not kept pace with even population growth, let alone restoring jobs lost in massive layoffs 6 years ago.

Putting some lipstick on the pig has its uses. It helps mildly with consumer confidence. It doesn't help anyone's consumer confidence if they themselves are not working. That is something if memory serves around 30 million people. 10% of the public wants jobs and have no job or barely a job.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You quantify "actively seeking" the same way the BLS survey determines it. You ask 'em, "Are you actively seeking employment? More hours? Better employment?"

Trumpeting a lower incidence of new people being thrown out of work without in anyway accounting for or trying to determine how many of the people in past unemployment reports still have not found work is beyond disingenuous.

In an active, healthy, growing economy the new unemployment claims number is helpful. Tells you something about the state of flux in the job market, tells you something about the direction employment is headed right now this interval. In a stagnant economy what difference does it make how many new people lost their jobs when that number is a mere fraction of the people out of work?

It isn't as if we don't know how many people of what ages had jobs 6 years ago and how many newly minted 18-24 year olds we had, and how many boomers applied for SS. These are not mysteries. These are known figures.

A few more people are working than before, but the number has not kept pace with even population growth, let alone restoring jobs lost in massive layoffs 6 years ago.

Putting some lipstick on the pig has its uses. It helps mildly with consumer confidence. It doesn't help anyone's consumer confidence if they themselves are not working. That is something if memory serves around 30 million people. 10% of the public wants jobs and have no job or barely a job.

Stats are for the Kings comfort and the clerks well-being. The peasant knows if he's hungry or cold, regardless of what Channel 9 reports; the King knows what he's told, and the clerks fill the Kings ears with shit to save their heads.

 

[Libsam]

If you and the CEO at Gallup have just come to understand how unemployment is calculated, then that is your problem for being uninformed.

You may not like it. You may have very sound arguments for changing the calculation (which would be interesting to hear especially if you have a degree in economics) but your being uninformed does not make those in the know liars.

Wow, that was a dizzying spin!!
This must be what it feels like to dance with Gruber.