• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Not sure if any line. But each regulation must be viewed on its own as to whether it is needed or not. Too many is subjective. Objectively each must be weighted by need.

But our problem isn't the regulations. Our economy was thriving with as many or more. Deregulation may well have led to some of our problems. You don't clearly see all the different issues we face, so you approach it too simplistically, which ultimately means you have wrong.

Your opinion noted, seems that your opinion is always right and thus everyone else with a different opinion is wrong. I actually ran a business, had monthly P&L's, dealt with govt. regulations therefore seem to have a more realistic view of what the problems are. You and your liberal friends see things one way and compromise isn't something to be considered. You are right, the rest of us wrong yet the results say you are wrong yet you cannot admit it.
 
I believe that was in reference to this jobs report...not the '2 jobs created per Month is a good jobs report' position you have.
It kills you to have it pointed out how wrong you are, doesn't it?

Carry on.
 
It kills you to have it pointed out how wrong you are, doesn't it?

Carry on.

:rolleyes:

Ummm...no.

I welcome it...how else can I learn?

I have said many times that I come here to learn, teach and kill some time.

I don't think I was wrong above...not that it's a biggie.

I admitted I was wrong last night as soon as it was pointed out to me.

So why would I not admit it now?

Now if you're through with the personal attacks/judgements...can we get back to the topic?

And if you are not - try pm's or the dungeon.


And btw, you keep asking me to leave you alone...but then you keep directing posts at me.

A little decisiveness might help you on this one.


Have a nice day.
 
Save the coy crap for someone else.

If you have a point, make it or don't waste my time...please.

That was my point. While useful for general trends, you have to be very cautious about putting too much significance on changes in the smaller divisions of the labor force data. While the official Jobs change of +195,000 is statistically significant (coming from the more accurate Establishment Survey), NONE of the changes of the major groups of the labor force statistics were (except for the changes to Marginally Attached and Discouraged...both of those clearly went up)

So while we might as well assume that full time jobs did drop and part time jobs increased, it's incorrect to put too much significance on it.
 
That was my point. While useful for general trends, you have to be very cautious about putting too much significance on changes in the smaller divisions of the labor force data. While the official Jobs change of +195,000 is statistically significant (coming from the more accurate Establishment Survey), NONE of the changes of the major groups of the labor force statistics were (except for the changes to Marginally Attached and Discouraged...both of those clearly went up)

So while we might as well assume that full time jobs did drop and part time jobs increased, it's incorrect to put too much significance on it.

Oh, come on now.

Believe the numbers that sound good for the Obama admin..

But don't believe the ones that sound bad?

(Btw - I am neither rep or dem)


You are going to have to show link(s) to unbiased, factual proof to me that one is worth getting worked up about and one is not before I am buying into that (not that I am saying it is not potentially true).

Can you?
 
Oh, come on now.

Believe the numbers that sound good for the Obama admin..

But don't believe the ones that sound bad?

Like when I pointed out that the increase in Discouraged workers was significant? You seem to have selective reading. The official jobs numbers had a statistically significant upward change.

The huge upward change in Discouraged and Marginally Attached also were statistically significant.

The changes in labor force, labor force participation, total employment, employment-population ratio, unemployment were not statistically significant.

That's math, not political bias. For casual usage, we might as well go along with the numbers as published, but caution is in order.

(Btw - I am neither rep or dem)
Neither am I, though I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian.


You are going to have to show link(s) to unbiased, factual proof to me that one is worth getting worked up about and one is not before I am buying into that (not that I am saying it is not potentially true).

Can you?
Of course I can. The change in seasonally adjusted non-parm payroll employment was +195,000 (Table B-1) Using Table 3 for AE (all employee) 1 month change from preliminary estimate, we see that the standard error is 55,726
Using 90% confidence, (1.645 standard errors) the margin of error is +/-91,669 so with 90% confidence the actual change was between +103,331 and +286,669 Zero is not included, therefore the change is statistically significantly different from zero.

CPS data is a little more complicated. Going to Table D1 in the Household Data appendix, starting on Page 195 for explanations, we see that for Full time employees the "a" parameter is -.0000164, the "b" parameter is "3095.55" and the factor for 1-month consecutive change is 1.11
The average of May and June 2013 for full time workers is (116,238,000 + 115,998,000)/2 = 116,118,000 The change is -240,000 as seen in Table A9
Plugging it into the formula we see that the Standard Error is 1.11*(-.0000164*116,118,000^2+3,095.55*116,118,000)^.5 = 412,827
At the 90% confidence interval, that's 1.645*412,827 = 679,100 making the actual change in full time workers between -919,100 and +678,860 which does contain zero and is therefore not statistically significantly different from zero.
 
Last edited:
Your opinion noted, seems that your opinion is always right and thus everyone else with a different opinion is wrong. I actually ran a business, had monthly P&L's, dealt with govt. regulations therefore seem to have a more realistic view of what the problems are. You and your liberal friends see things one way and compromise isn't something to be considered. You are right, the rest of us wrong yet the results say you are wrong yet you cannot admit it.

Not everyone, but certainly yours here. It is wrong headed.
 
Like when I pointed out that the increase in Discouraged workers was significant? You seem to have selective reading. The official jobs numbers had a statistically significant upward change.

The huge upward change in Discouraged and Marginally Attached also were statistically significant.

The changes in labor force, labor force participation, total employment, employment-population ratio, unemployment were not statistically significant.

That's math, not political bias. For casual usage, we might as well go along with the numbers as published, but caution is in order.

Neither am I, though I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian.

Whatever.


Of course I can. The change in seasonally adjusted non-parm payroll employment was +195,000 (Table B-1) Using Table 3 for AE (all employee) 1 month change from preliminary estimate, we see that the standard error is 55,726
Using 90% confidence, (1.645 standard errors) the margin of error is +/-91,669 so with 90% confidence the actual change was between +103,331 and +286,669 Zero is not included, therefore the change is statistically significantly different from zero.

CPS data is a little more complicated. Going to Table D1 in the Household Data appendix, starting on Page 195 for explanations, we see that for Full time employees the "a" parameter is -.0000164, the "b" parameter is "3095.55" and the factor for 1-month consecutive change is 1.11
The average of May and June 2013 for full time workers is (116,238,000 + 115,998,000)/2 = 116,118,000 The change is -240,000 as seen in Table A9
Plugging it into the formula we see that the Standard Error is 1.11*(-.0000164*116,118,000^2+3,095.55*116,118,000)^.5 = 412,827
At the 90% confidence interval, that's 1.645*412,827 = 679,100 making the actual change in full time workers between -919,100 and +678,860 which does contain zero and is therefore not statistically significantly different from zero.
:rolleyes:

Oh come on man...did you honestly think I would understand this?

Or are you just trying to show off - which is why I think you come to this thread every month

(Though it seems more sad then impressive to me)

In layperson's terms...some of us have lives you know.


Why, in essence, are you saying that one is statistically less accurate then the other?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the links, but my background and education make such an effort unnecessary.

What you have posted is an outline of the obvious.

The fact is, in different times, economic downturns provided opportunity for gain for those companies who invest wisly and position themselves to capitalize on the inevitable upturn. In different times, economic downturns cleared the playing field, and allowed growing companies to capture increased market share exposed by those who relinquished it.

This time around, not so much, since continued uncertainty over the impact of policies not yet implemented cloud the analysis of the future. My business here in Southern California employs many people, requires a fair amount of energy to sustain, and involves compliance with a remarkable number of regulatory agencies. While I accept that as the cost of doing business, I would suggest it would be almost impossible to start my company from scratch in California's current regulatory environment.

Such realities within the current business model aren't caught in graphs detailing the relationship of supply to demand, or in the effective use of capital in a fluid economic environment.

I would think that it never hurts to learn new things. So for the sake of my own personal eduction, which graphs show the realities within the business model that you're talking about?

Two points.
1). There is a fundamental distinction between analysis of the effects to one business versus that of the market as a whole. Remember, micro-economics and macro-economics are separate fields of study.
2). Colloquial observations are not a valid substitution for actual data and rigorous analysis.
 
As is yours. So?

Of course it is my opinion based upon actually being in the business world, dealing with regulations, higher taxes, a monthly financial statement, investment of personal income, and having thousands of employees. What is your expertise again?
 
Whatever.
I'll interpret that as "you're correct, you were not showing any political bias but I don't dare admit it."

Oh come on man...did you honestly think I would understand this?
It's basic Stats 101. The math is high school level.

Or are you just trying to show off - which is why I think you come to this thread every month
I'll remind you that you wouldn't take my word about the reliability and demanded proof. So when I show what you asked for, you dismiss it as me showing off? Please. What would your response have been if I hadn't shown the math? Oh, you would have dismissed me for not providing proof. So basically, you were going to dismiss me no matter what.

In layperson's terms...some of us have lives you know.
I get paid to know this stuff. And now I've put in my notice, so I'm a lame duck and I have time.


What formula are you speaking of here?
The formula from the link http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf : se(x) = (ax^2 + bx)^.5 from page 196 Add in the factor for consecutive month change as mentioned later for se(x,f) = f*(ax^2 + bx)^.5

And where is your source of the 90% confidence.
Right there in the link. For the payroll data it might not be on that exact page, though. But in any case 90% confidence is 1.645 standard errors and 95% confidence is 1.96 standard errors. It's been a very long time since I've done the math on how to actually derive those.

I want to understand this.
And I'm trying to explain it...but you keep dismissing my explanations as ego. I've been doing this professionally for many years...I do know what I'm talking about. That's not ego, that's fact.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is my opinion based upon actually being in the business world, dealing with regulations, higher taxes, a monthly financial statement, investment of personal income, and having thousands of employees. What is your expertise again?

Being in the business world doesn't make you an expert here. Besides, I'm both owner of an LLC and have run more than a few business myself. You mistake your little world as being all knowing of the larger world.
 
Being in the business world doesn't make you an expert here. Besides, I'm both owner of an LLC and have run more than a few business myself. You mistake your little world as being all knowing of the larger world.

If you are as you say then you understand how higher taxes, more regulations affect the P&L and thus the return on any investment you made. If not, then you are all talk as are most liberals getting your information out of a textbook and ignoring the financial statements and human behavior. My bet is that so called little world you believe I was involved in is more representative of the real world than yours but we will never know. What we do know is that the results of liberalism are a disaster and you made a mistake in supporting Obama unless you are part of that disaster.
 
If you are as you say then you understand how higher taxes, more regulations affect the P&L and thus the return on any investment you made. If not, then you are all talk as are most liberals getting your information out of a textbook and ignoring the financial statements and human behavior. My bet is that so called little world you believe I was involved in is more representative of the real world than yours but we will never know. What we do know is that the results of liberalism are a disaster and you made a mistake in supporting Obama unless you are part of that disaster.

It's all manageable and minor. Business has gone on, been successful, regardless of any of this. History shows this clearly.
 
I'll interpret that as "you're correct, you were not showing any political bias but I don't dare admit it."

It's basic Stats 101. The math is high school level.

I'll remind you that you wouldn't take my word about the reliability and demanded proof. So when I show what you asked for, you dismiss it as me showing off? Please. What would your response have been if I hadn't shown the math? Oh, you would have dismissed me for not providing proof. So basically, you were going to dismiss me no matter what.

I get paid to know this stuff. And now I've put in my notice, so I'm a lame duck and I have time.


The formula from the link http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf : se(x) = (ax^2 + bx)^.5 from page 196 Add in the factor for consecutive month change as mentioned later for se(x,f) = f*(ax^2 + bx)^.5

Right there in the link. For the payroll data it might not be on that exact page, though. But in any case 90% confidence is 1.645 standard errors and 95% confidence is 1.96 standard errors. It's been a very long time since I've done the math on how to actually derive those.

And I'm trying to explain it...but you keep dismissing my explanations as ego. I've been doing this professionally for many years...I do know what I'm talking about. That's not ego, that's fact.

First...since you brought up earlier.

You stated the following:

'Not by any definition ever used.'

And I proved to you that it had been used - many times - before.

Are you now prepared to admit your statement was erroneous?


Second...you did not give me the source for the formula before.

You gave me a page reference that was over a dozen pages away from the formula I would (IMO) need to figure it out.

Next time, try including the actual page number...please.


Not all of us are here to try and pad our egos (in some semi-bizarre fashion) by trying to point out statistical minutia on subjects that we deal with daily at our jobs...and thusly have a greater comfort level with then others.

In short, in my strong opinion, you come here to play anal retentive baseball with people who you think do not understand this stuff as well as you.

And don't insult us both by denying it...it's ridiculously obvious.

I will grant you...you are at least civil about it...which is better then many/most.

But then don't get all but out of shape when others do it back in different subjects...aka above.

If you can't take it...don't dish it out.


Have a nice day.
 
It's all manageable and minor. Business has gone on, been successful, regardless of any of this. History shows this clearly.

You seem to be an expert on what everyone else does and what businesses do with higher taxes and regulations. That leads me to believe you never had a dime of your own money invested in anything nor did you ever have to meet a payroll with revenue generated from the sale of any products. I do agree with you though as most of it is manageable but the problem is that management normally means reduction in operating expenses with the easiest one to reduce and the most expensive being payroll. We are seeing businesses making record profits today and achieving high stock values due mostly to operating expenses being low because payrolls are low. Companies are doing more with less and the reverberates throughout the economy. The ones being hurt the most are small businesses which liberals want to ignore. Further what you fail to understand is how the market works. People even people like you are always looking for a good deal. Competition keeps prices low and when you raise operating expenses and cannot pass those increased costs on to the consumer you cannot print money thus you go out of business.

The economic results of Obama are geared to the uneducated non business individual who somehow seems to believe that money grows on trees. For the govt. it basically does as they cut down trees and print cash out of the paper. Private business cannot do that. Obama has been the most anti business, anti private enterprise President this country has seen since Carter. He is making Carter look good though. Unfortunately in your world results don't seem to matter which leads me to believe as I stated you invested and managed nothing.
 
I'll interpret that as "you're correct, you were not showing any political bias but I don't dare admit it."

It's basic Stats 101. The math is high school level.

I'll remind you that you wouldn't take my word about the reliability and demanded proof. So when I show what you asked for, you dismiss it as me showing off? Please. What would your response have been if I hadn't shown the math? Oh, you would have dismissed me for not providing proof. So basically, you were going to dismiss me no matter what.

I get paid to know this stuff. And now I've put in my notice, so I'm a lame duck and I have time.


The formula from the link http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf : se(x) = (ax^2 + bx)^.5 from page 196 Add in the factor for consecutive month change as mentioned later for se(x,f) = f*(ax^2 + bx)^.5

Right there in the link. For the payroll data it might not be on that exact page, though. But in any case 90% confidence is 1.645 standard errors and 95% confidence is 1.96 standard errors. It's been a very long time since I've done the math on how to actually derive those.

And I'm trying to explain it...but you keep dismissing my explanations as ego. I've been doing this professionally for many years...I do know what I'm talking about. That's not ego, that's fact.

First...since you brought up earlier.

You stated the following:

'Not by any definition ever used.'

And I proved to you that it had been used - many times - before.

Are you now prepared to admit your statement was erroneous?


Second...you did not give me the source for the formula before.

You gave me a page reference that was over a dozen pages away from the formula I would (IMO) need to figure it out.

Next time, try including the actual page number...please.


Not all of us are here to try and pad our egos (in some semi-bizarre fashion) by trying to point out statistical minutia on subjects that we deal with daily at our jobs...and thusly have a greater comfort level with then others.

In short, you come here to play anal retentive baseball with people who you think do not understand this stuff as well as you.

And don't insult us both by denying it...it's ridiculously obvious.

I will grant you...you are at least civil about it (which cannot be said for many/most).

But then you shouldn't get all but out of shape when others do it back in different subjects...aka above.

If you can't take it...don't dish it out.



Third - as for the stats thingy...I assume you are saying that the margin of error (according to the BLS) is greater for the full time job loss number then the total new jobs number.

Fine..noted.

Next time, please just say that instead of that condescending manner you did originally - by asking me a question whose answer you already knew.

It is less annoying and far less time consuming.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
I would think that it never hurts to learn new things. So for the sake of my own personal eduction, which graphs show the realities within the business model that you're talking about?

Two points.
1). There is a fundamental distinction between analysis of the effects to one business versus that of the market as a whole. Remember, micro-economics and macro-economics are separate fields of study.
2). Colloquial observations are not a valid substitution for actual data and rigorous analysis.


One thing I realized very quickly after leaving graduate school was that classroom and boardroom were completely different things.

I'm not aware of any graph or analysis that has been able to arm the business owner with a path to follow, based on the many variables they face today.

For example, how does one account for the impact of Obamacare on a business, when the implementation has proven so daunting, parts of it have been delayed for a year?

How does a business owner account for the impact of energy intiatives the President annouced he plans to go around Congress to adopt?

The EPA is set to roll out a program called Environmental Justice in 2014.

Environmental Justice | US EPA

To a business owner, such a plan could have a major impact on future expansion, or even whether they should remain in place.

This list could go on, but these factors certainly play into my decision making, and it seems from others I know, it plays into theirs.

Expansion and hiring new employees is a good thing. I do not know of any business owners who feel otherwise. However, we have a duty to our families, and perhaps even a greater duty to our employees and their families, that our decisions are sound, and our plans do not risk the future of our companies, no matter how big or small.

The current emphasis on demand does not account for the realities in the business environment. I don't reject analysis, nor do I reject other forms of statistical review, but they are only tools.
 
First...since you brought up earlier.

You stated the following:

'Not by any definition ever used.'

And I proved to you that it had been used - many times - before.
In casual usage and not by any official statistics (with grey areas such as some of what we would now call discouraged could be included as uneployed before 1967). Unemployed has always in the US data meant looking for work.


Are you now prepared to admit your statement was erroneous?
No, because I assume you know I meant "used" as in "used in compiling official statistics" and not "used by Joe Schmoe when passing a joint with his cousin."


Second...you did not give me the source for the formula before.
Yes, I did. I didn't think it would be difficult to find.

Next time, try including the actual page number...please.
I will. I should have the first time and I apologize for not.


Not all of us are here to try and pad our egos (in some semi-bizarre fashion) by trying to point out statistical minutia on subjects that we deal with daily at our jobs...and thusly have a greater comfort level with then others.

In short, in my strong opinion, you come here to play anal retentive baseball with people no you think do not understand this stuff as well as you.

And don't insult us both by denying it...it's ridiculously obvious.

I will grant you...you are at least civil about it.
And you are not. Or do you consider your constant insults about ego towards me to be civil? They are not.

But then don't get all but out of shape when others do it back in different subjects...aka above.

If you can't take it...don't dish it out.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Which different subject?
 
In casual usage and not by any official statistics (with grey areas such as some of what we would now call discouraged could be included as uneployed before 1967). Unemployed has always in the US data meant looking for work.


No, because I assume you know I meant "used" as in "used in compiling official statistics" and not "used by Joe Schmoe when passing a joint with his cousin."
I cannot read your mind.

Your statement was technically wrong and I have proven it.

If you do not wish to admit the obvious - that is your prerogative.

If you are going to be picky to others...then I am going to be picky to you.

:wink:

And you are not. Or do you consider your constant insults about ego towards me to be civil? They are not.

And I don't consider your somewhat condescending (though reasonably polite) attitude to me and others in this thread civil either.

You get what you give man.


But I will add...I do WISH most people on this board were as polite as you seem.

I do have respect for you...especially your technical prowess on this thread's general subject source (BLS).

But I am not going to just take it when people condescend to me or others...no matter how subtle it is....whether it's SlyFox (whom I have little respect for) or you (whom I have more respect for) or anybody.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
One thing I realized very quickly after leaving graduate school was that classroom and boardroom were completely different things.

I'm not aware of any graph or analysis that has been able to arm the business owner with a path to follow, based on the many variables they face today.

For example, how does one account for the impact of Obamacare on a business, when the implementation has proven so daunting, parts of it have been delayed for a year?

How does a business owner account for the impact of energy intiatives the President annouced he plans to go around Congress to adopt?

The EPA is set to roll out a program called Environmental Justice in 2014.

Environmental Justice | US EPA

To a business owner, such a plan could have a major impact on future expansion, or even whether they should remain in place.

This list could go on, but these factors certainly play into my decision making, and it seems from others I know, it plays into theirs.

Expansion and hiring new employees is a good thing. I do not know of any business owners who feel otherwise. However, we have a duty to our families, and perhaps even a greater duty to our employees and their families, that our decisions are sound, and our plans do not risk the future of our companies, no matter how big or small.

The current emphasis on demand does not account for the realities in the business environment. I don't reject analysis, nor do I reject other forms of statistical review, but they are only tools.

There isn't such a graph. But realize we're talking about two different things here.

Businesses are independent profit maximizers. Their job is to maximize their profits and gobble up as much of the available market share as possible. I'm not advocating improper behaviour, but maximizing profit is their duty to their families and employees. Businesses shouldn't ever feel the need to expand when it's not in their self interest to do so. That's micro-economics.

But we're not talking about microeconomics. We're not talking about open systems where it's possible to absorb wealth and material from the outside. We're talking about Macro-economics where there is no outside.

The bottom line is that there amount of stuff made in the world equals the amount of stuff consumed. The economy is essentially the trading of all of these goods and services. The economy grows as people produce and therefore consume more. However, if all of the wealth is concentrated in too few hands, then the uber rich can't possibly spend what they have and the people at the bottom don't have enough wealth to make up the difference. The net result is higher unemployment.

I know you have all of these political hot button issues, but they kind of don't matter, at least not when we're talking about fundamental problems in the economy.
 
So, if a Rep was in the WH and the jobs report showed only 2 new jobs created (which you said was a good report) - would you still call that a good report?

Yes or no, please?

I would say that there is not a yes or no answer to your question.
 
Back
Top Bottom