US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

AdamT said:
You can stop whacking your strawman. I know that U-6 wasn't calculated prior to '94. The point is that the '94 changes to U-3 resulted in a higher unemployment rate relative to the pre-'94 methodology.

Wrong, unemployment rates are lower than pre 1994 numbers because discouraged workers are no longer counted as unemployed whereas they were

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
yes, certainly do just like I know that U-6 wasn't reported by bls prior to 1994

So what? The U6 in 2011 is still not a comparible measure to the U3 in the 1980's

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
So what? The U6 in 2011 is still not a comparible measure to the U3 in the 1980's

What i just showed is that the unemployment numbers under Reagan were much better than the unemployment numbers under Obama. Wasn't that your question, name a Republican President with better unemployment numbers?

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
Better question is why would you support a President that is attempting to convert our economy to the European model?

Nah, the delusions of the right to that affect are best left for them to stew over.

Donc · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
in order to see if I have moved the goalposts you at least have to get onto the field which you haven't done

Sure I’m on the field, much to your chagrin. Post #1113 pretty well sent you scrammlin and lookin for a new spot to plant the ole goalpost.:lamo

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Nah, the delusions of the right to that affect are best left for them to stew over.

Talk about someone with their head buried in the sand. Read the article and get back to me

“If you repeat our mistakes, if you shift power from the 50 states to Washington … we know exactly what lies in store for you,” Hannan said.

“I am living in your future, or at least the future your leaders seem intent on taking you,” he said. “And believe me, you are not going to enjoy it.”

Fletch · Feb 13, 2012

treedancer said:
Sure I’m on the field, much to your chagrin. Post #1113 pretty well sent you scrammlin and lookin for a new spot to plant the ole goalpost.:lamo

Lets take a look at post 1113 and see if that is true:

treedancer said:
View attachment 67122357

This pretty well covers the GDP questions and this covers the other Obama years.Notice where it was when he came into office?Notice where it is now?Nuf said.:2wave:

GDP in 2009,in billions was 14014.80.00

GDP in 2010,in billions was 14551.80.00

US Gross Domestic Product GDP History United States 1950-2010 - Federal State Local Data

Actually, this is an example of you moving the goalposts, not Conservative. He asked for a comparison between 2010 and 2011 and you gave a comparison between 2009 and 2010. But the graph you posted backs up his point--that GDP growth in 2011 declined from 2010.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
What i just showed is that the unemployment numbers under Reagan were much better than the unemployment numbers under Obama. Wasn't that your question, name a Republican President with better unemployment numbers?

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Holy ****, Con, weren't you even paying attention? No, that was not my question.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
Talk about someone with their head buried in the sand. Read the article and get back to me

I read the article which is how I know it's based on a false premise.

AdamT · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
Wrong, unemployment rates are lower than pre 1994 numbers because discouraged workers are no longer counted as unemployed whereas they were

Sorry, Bud, but YOU are wrong, as I already established. To refresh your recollection: there were multiple changes to the unemployment calculation methodology in 1994. One change was to eliminate some discouraged workers, but the sum total of the changes resulted in a HIGHER equivalent unemployment rate. This was shown -- conclusively -- by calculating unemployment for the same 18-month period using both the old and new formulas:

To gain an understanding of how the revised CPS survey differed from the former CPS, a parallel survey using the new questionnaire was administered to roughly 12,000 households over an 18-month period. The new CPS yielded an overall unemployment rate of 7.3 percent compared with 6.8 percent under the old survey. The new questionnaire also indicated higher unemployment among women, teenagers and the elderly. The unemployment rate for women, for instance, was 7.1 percent under the new survey compared to 6.4 percent under the old CPS.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6642/is_n5_v10/ai_n28648113/

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I read the article which is how I know it's based on a false premise.

What is it that creates liberal arrogance that ignores the experience of others?

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

AdamT said:
Sorry, Bud, but YOU are wrong, as I already established. To refresh your recollection: there were multiple changes to the unemployment calculation methodology in 1994. One change was to eliminate some discouraged workers, but the sum total of the changes resulted in a HIGHER equivalent unemployment rate. This was shown -- conclusively -- by calculating unemployment for the same 18-month period using both the old and new formulas:

Employment and unemployment data: dramatic changes of key indicators | Government Finance Review | Find Articles

CPS isn't the keeper of employment and unemployment data

AdamT · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
CPS isn't the keeper of employment and unemployment data

Dude... CPS stands for Current Population Survey, which is the BLS unemployment report. Throw in the towel -- you lose.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
What is it that creates liberal arrogance that ignores the experience of others?

I'll chalk that up to the same strawman that article was based on. What is it about rightwing fear mongering that they see a Socialist boogieman under every Democrats' bed. When are y'all going to evolve beyond the McCarthyism?

Navy Pride · Feb 13, 2012

The jobs created are all smoke and mirrors. People have actually quit looking for work and are not on the rolls any longer. we are actually 2,000,000 jobs down since Husseein Obama became prez.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
CPS isn't the keeper of employment and unemployment data

Holy ****, Con. I'm embarressed for you. Googling 'CPS' woild likely benefit you.

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy ****, Con. I'm embarressed for you. Googling 'CPS' woild likely benefit you.

Feel free to show me the U-6 number prior to 1994 for Reagan

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

AdamT said:
Dude... CPS stands for Current Population Survey, which is the BLS unemployment report. Throw in the towel -- you lose.

It's scary that he's the loudest voice for Conservatives on the website when it comes to posting BLS data.

AdamT · Feb 13, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's scary that he's the loudest voice for Conservatives on the website when it comes to posting BLS data.

I would say "funny" rather than "scary".

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
Feel free to show me the U-6 number prior to 1994 for Reagan

Sure,Con, just as soon as you show me someone arguing that it existed.

:roll:

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sure,Con, just as soon as you show me someone arguing that it existed.

:roll:

So then tell us were discouraged workers counted as unemployed prior to 1994 or were they left out of the official U-3 number

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
So then tell us were discouraged workers counted as unemployed prior to 1994 or were they left out of the official U-3 number

Seriously, Con, you really should start paying attention in class. Adam already addressed that in post #1135.

Conservative · Feb 13, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seriously, Con, you really should start paying attention in class. Adam already addressed that in post #1135.

Seriously Sheik you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so caustic. Read the article completely and get back to me. I asked you the question which you ran from, were discouraged workers counted during the Reagan years as unemployed or were they eliminated as they are today. Read the report for the answer

AdamT · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
Seriously Sheik you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so caustic. Read the article completely and get back to me. I asked you the question which you ran from, were discouraged workers counted during the Reagan years as unemployed or were they eliminated as they are today. Read the report for the answer

And yet again, there is no dispute that the current U-3 number includes fewer discouraged workes than it used to. But OVER ALL, due to other changes that reduced the undercounting of unemployed people, the current methodology results in a higher unemployment rate than the pre-94 methodology. No dodging that bullet.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 13, 2012

Conservative said:
Seriously Sheik you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so caustic. Read the article completely and get back to me. I asked you the question which you ran from, were discouraged workers counted during the Reagan years as unemployed or were they eliminated as they are today. Read the report for the answer

There's nothing I need to answer which wasn't addressed in post #1135 regrading discouraged workers. Perhaps the problem is that this is just another topic you don't understand? Afterall, you were easily tripped up by 'CPS'. If that's the case, I'd be happy to explain it to you.