• 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!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

pinqy said:
What do you mean two different measurements? Both are percentage of the population.

Not that much variance. It is roughly the same. The left Y axis has a range of 3.5 percentage points and the right Y axis has a range of 4.2 percentage points.


Your math sucks. The intervals on the left Y axis is .5 percentage points and the interval on the right is .6 percentage points Not really an issue.

You do realize that since they're both percentages of the same thing, it doesn't matter that one is from 31.5% to 35% and the other is 62.4 to 66.2? The difference is minimal.


I made it and I just created it so you could see both together. And they both are going in opposite directions...Not in the Labor Force does not want a job went up 2.7 percentage points and the labor force participation rate went down 2.9 percentage points. Again, they're both percentage of the population. So how does the chart not accurately reflect the 2.7% increase in percent that doesn't want a job and the 2.9% drop in the labor force percent?


How many times have you rejected my links to BLS because it's biased? Be consistent. And I did link to the BLS site and gave you the series report numbers.

Sort of. Though I was using the seasonally adjusted data.



For the third time posting the link and codes: Go to BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Put in the series report numbers I gave you:
Population LNS10000000
Not in Labor Force LNS15000000
Labor force participation rate LNS11300000
Not in labor force wants job now LNS15026639

To get those who are not in the labor force and don't want a job, subtract "wants a job now" from the total labor force.
I assume you know how to divide that result from the population to get the percentage.

That's why I used the FRED site. Easier, and it's the same data.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to tell you, I am not doing the big multi-quote post...I have a life, you know.

Your graph (IMO) sucked...you don't think so...guess how much I care?


I will ask you one more time, which chart are you referring to (with a link)?

I am not hunting down the numbers..provide the links or forget it.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
1) And where exactly did I make a statement about 'how I ignore people that prove me wrong?'
Click to expand...
DA60 said:
I usually just ignore him.

This time I saw a link so I followed him.

But normally, he is on my Ignore list.

Imo, he has a closed mind and comes on here primarily to troll...he is a waste of my time.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
Your rule is to ignore anyone that has destroyed your argument.
Click to expand...

My apologies. It was "anyone that has destroyed your argument". But you got the general idea.

Frankly, I pay more attention to people that prove me wrong as they are my best source for learning.
Click to expand...
But you're not interested in learning, you're interested in cherry-picking data you can put forth which you can use to cast a negative spotlight on the data release. This is obvious because you constantly change the criteria you criticize. For example, this month it's which age range got the jobs. A couple months ago, I believe it was growth of part time or full-time jobs. It's whatever negative information you can find to pursue some nonsensical argument about how the jobs report is always bad or, as I believe you said this time (paraphrased) "fair, but I still think it's bad".

2) So, I assume, you admit you have no way of proving that the BLS did not cook the books to make the Dem's look better.
Click to expand...
So, I assume, you still think your fallacious arguments are cute and not entirely indicative of your desperation to save face.

Noted.

This is what I'm talking about. You have no interest in objective and honest discourse, only fallacious arguments and cherry picked data. Your posts on this topic are always chalk full of dishonest statements, statements even you know are dishonest. You make a claim which is lacking in any evidence but you want me to prove your factually devoid statement is incorrect? That's stupid, but about par for the course. It's not on me to prove your factually devoid statement inaccurate, it's on you to prove your accusation true.

Now do you have ANY proof the numbers are intentionally deceptive? Or will you do as you always do and just dance around the fact you've been proven wrong/absurd once more with some stupid "Noted. Good day." nonsense you always post when you know you've been exposed?
 
jonny5 said:
I think you mean to the Obama fanatics, its fantastic! To some of us, its just meh. More people employed, great, but still 40 million in poverty, 2 trillion spent on "human resources" (income support etc). When that goes down significantly, then itll be fantastic to everyone.
Click to expand...

I love this: the Right pretending they care about working people while promoting policies that harm them and opposing policies that provide opportunity. It is sooooooooooooooo conservative.
 
Slyfox696 said:
My apologies. It was "anyone that has destroyed your argument". But you got the general idea.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no recollection of him 'destroying my arguments.' But if he did, good for him...I hope I learned from it.

I already explained why I ignore him...I don't respect him, I think he comes here to troll, has a closed mind and he rarely posts links to unbiased sources.

You don't agree...I don't much care.

But you're not interested in learning, you're interested in cherry-picking data you can put forth which you can use to cast a negative spotlight on the data release. This is obvious because you constantly change the criteria you criticize. For example, this month it's which age range got the jobs. A couple months ago, I believe it was growth of part time or full-time jobs. It's whatever negative information you can find to pursue some nonsensical argument about how the jobs report is always bad or, as I believe you said this time (paraphrased) "fair, but I still think it's bad".

So, I assume, you still think your fallacious arguments are cute and not entirely indicative of your desperation to save face.

Noted.

This is what I'm talking about. You have no interest in objective and honest discourse, only fallacious arguments and cherry picked data. Your posts on this topic are always chalk full of dishonest statements, statements even you know are dishonest. You make a claim which is lacking in any evidence but you want me to prove your factually devoid statement is incorrect? That's stupid, but about par for the course. It's not on me to prove your factually devoid statement inaccurate, it's on you to prove your accusation true.

Now do you have ANY proof the numbers are intentionally deceptive? Or will you do as you always do and just dance around the fact you've been proven wrong/absurd once more with some stupid "Noted. Good day." nonsense you always post when you know you've been exposed?
Click to expand...

Lol...really?

So where is your proof that I am knowingly making dishonest statements on this topic?
 
Last edited:
FaceofBachmann said:
In the conservative vision of the US economy, working people should work until their 85 just to eek by,
while the rich rake it in and sit back on their verandas with the scotch brought in on silver trays.
Click to expand...

The Wall Streert Journal, the Bible of the Conservo-Rightists, doesn't try to change what facts mean in the way our right-wing friends do:

U.S. Job Growth Rebounded in September - WSJ

The WSJ even mentioned that jobs went up by 180,000 in August--higher than was first put out--proving the administration is not cooking the books.
But only the GOP and its posters would continue to yell "you lie" about cooking books only to proven wrong time and again .
 
Personally, while I think that Obama is highlighting only the good news out of this, and that there is plenty more to the story concerning our economy, I do think it is good that it seems to be coming back although anemic as it is...

Now do I think that it is Obama policies that are causing the slow come back? No. But that is just my uninformed opinion...

Do I think that Repubs these days would do any better? I don't know, probably not...It's just a big mess, and we can't really trust anything that is being reported anymore...Ain't democratic socialism great?
 
j-mac said:
Personally, while I think that Obama is highlighting only the good news out of this, and that there is plenty more to the story concerning our economy, I do think it is good that it seems to be coming back although anemic as it is...

Now do I think that it is Obama policies that are causing the slow come back? No. But that is just my uninformed opinion...

Do I think that Repubs these days would do any better? I don't know, probably not...It's just a big mess, and we can't really trust anything that is being reported anymore...Ain't democratic socialism great?
Click to expand...

You certainly have the right to your opinion.

But I do not call a jobs report where 82,000 less Americans ages 20-54 were employed in September AND the average wage per hour dropped (by a penny) a 'slow come back'.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

I call that a slow backtrack.


Btw, I am neither dem or rep.
 
DA60 said:
I have absolutely no recollection of him 'destroying my arguments.' But if he did, good for him...I hope I learned from it.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Okay.

I already explained why I ignore him.
Click to expand...
And it's already been explained why you really ignore him. So please ignore me, since I meet the qualifcations. Thanks.

I don't respect him
Click to expand...
Because he posts accurate information and not cherry-picked data surrounded by fallacious arguments?

Yes, I can see how that might lose your respect.

I think he comes here to troll and he rarely posts links to unbiased sources.
Click to expand...
...still waiting on you to show how the statistics provided by both Kush and pinqy are cooked. You've yet to even try.

You don't agree...I don't much care.
Click to expand...
Clearly not, since you supposedly have a life and yet are still responding to me. :roll:

Lol...really?

So where is your proof that I am knowingly making dishonest statements?
Click to expand...
Good try at the red herring, but A) I already explained it and B) where is your evidence the numbers are intentionally deceptive?

I'll say it again, since you seem to have this habit of "missing" things when it's clear you're talking out of your backside...where is your evidence the numbers are intentionally deceptive? For bonus points, please show your evidence the numbers are intentionally falsified to help only one party.

Go.
 
lifeisshort said:
Save that BS for the Koolaid drinkers.people old enough to draw SS are not counted in the participation rate
Click to expand...


Yes they are. There lower limit is age 16, there is no upper limit. My 99 year old grandmother is considered part of the potential labor force.

It's one of the drawbacks of the lfpr statistic. It really a valueless metric.
 
Slyfox696 said:
:lol:

Okay.

And it's already been explained why you really ignore him. So please ignore me, since I meet the qualifcations. Thanks.

Because he posts accurate information and not cherry-picked data surrounded by fallacious arguments?

Yes, I can see how that might lose your respect.

...still waiting on you to show how the statistics provided by both Kush and pinqy are cooked. You've yet to even try.

Clearly not, since you supposedly have a life and yet are still responding to me. :roll:
Click to expand...
I said I don't 'much' care, not I don't care at all. Also, I am bored right now. Finally, I had some respect for you.


Good try at the red herring, but A) I already explained it and B) where is your evidence the numbers are intentionally deceptive?
Click to expand...
the only way you can know that I was intentionally being deceptive (which I have not knowingly been) is if a) I admitted it (which I have not) or b) you can read my mind (which I assume you cannot).

So I will ask again for the last time, where did I state that I knowingly posted dishonest statements on this topic?

If you do not provide the evidence, then I must assume you have none and you just made it up and you go around libelling people without proof.

I'll say it again, since you seem to have this habit of "missing" things when it's clear you're talking out of your backside...where is your evidence the numbers are intentionally deceptive? For bonus points, please show your evidence the numbers are intentionally falsified to help only one party.

Go.
Click to expand...

I never said (to my knowledge) that the BLS was cooking the books.

I said I believe they are (or similar statements)...big difference.

To what extent are they, I do not know.

Can I prove they are...nope.

Just as you cannot prove that they are not cooking the books.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
You certainly have the right to your opinion.

But I do not call a jobs report where 82,000 less Americans ages 20-54 were employed in September AND the average wage per hour dropped (by a penny) a 'slow come back'.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm]Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm]Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

I call that a slow backtrack.


Btw, I am neither dem or rep.
Click to expand...

DA60 said:
So, I assume, you admit you have no way of proving that the BLS did not cook the books to make the Dem's look better.

Noted.
Click to expand...
First he cites BLS data...then wonders if BLS data is cooked.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
I love this: the Right pretending they care about working people while promoting policies that harm them and opposing policies that provide opportunity. It is sooooooooooooooo conservative.
Click to expand...

Hilsenrath Analysis: Jobs Report Keeps Early Rate Hike On Table, Tough Communication Decision For Fed - Real Time Economics - WSJ

There are ten other links in this story in regards to this September job report.
The WSJ seems to be the leader of the grown-ups from the righties.
Their focus isn't on "you lie"
It's on the ramifications of averaging over 200,000 jobs a month for at least eight months that I know of.

The main concern for the WSJ is pressure on the Fed to raise rates .
 
DA60 said:
I said I don't 'much' care, not I don't care at all. Also, I am bored right now. Finally, I had some respect for you.
Click to expand...
uh oh, somebody is close to being ignored!


the only way you can know that I was intentionally being deceptive is if a) I admitted it (which I have not) or b) you can read my mind (which I assume you cannot).
Click to expand...
Is hypocrisy intentional?

So I will ask again for the last time, where did I admit that I knowingly posted dishonest statements?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you did not realize your posts were hypocritical,

If you do not provide the evidence, then I must assume you have none and you just made it up.e
Click to expand...
Look up.



I never said the BLS was cooking the books.

I said I believe they are...big difference.

To what extent are they, I do not know.

Can I prove they are...nope.

Just as you cannot prove that they are not cooking the books.
Click to expand...
No, you said that others have no way of knowing if the BLS data is "cooked"...and now you say you believe it is....BUT....you cite it all the time!

I think that is wonderful.
 
ocean515 said:
Sorry, but you are not correct. The data does not support your theory. People are working longer and the Census Bureau data supports this conclusion.

View attachment 67173876


Further, Boomers typically don't come from single child families. This means births extending into the early '50's.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that people aren't working longer. Can you point to where I said that? Nor did I claim that boomers come from single child families, or what that has to do with anything. I don't know where you are getting this stuff from.
 
j-mac said:
Personally, while I think that Obama is highlighting only the good news out of this, and that there is plenty more to the story concerning our economy, I do think it is good that it seems to be coming back although anemic as it is...
Click to expand...
Yet you can give zero links to more to the story can you--along with proving how anemic +248,000 is, compared to Bush's disastrous 6 months of averaging -740,000.
All you can do is just say Obama is only highlighting the good news--which that many jobs is certainly good news.
Only Democratic Presidents have done what you accuse BTW.

Now do I think that it is Obama policies that are causing the slow come back? No. But that is just my uninformed opinion...
Click to expand...
Obama's policies are to blame for these new jobs--and the come back is anything but slow--and I am informed compared to what you admit.
And all of your uninformed opinions as you call them are anti-Obama--try the Wall Street Journal--Bible of the conservo-rightists.
Do I think that Repubs these days would do any better? I don't know, probably not...It's just a big mess, and we can't really trust anything that is being reported anymore...Ain't democratic socialism great?
Click to expand...
You freely admit that Repubs couldn't do any better, any better with a problem they caused BTW.
You then rant off to Democratic socialism--as a worthless ending to what you have presented .
 
The same suspects every month, crying conspiracy and clutching to anything that resembles negative news. What a sorry bunch.
 
imagep said:
I didn't say that people aren't working longer. Can you point to where I said that? Nor did I claim that boomers come from single child families, or what that has to do with anything. I don't know where you are getting this stuff from.
Click to expand...

I'm getting it from your posts. You claimed there were more people born in 1946 than at any other time. That would make those people 68 today. Their brothers and sisters have barely hit 65, and many have not hit 60 yet.

Add in the census data that shows more 65+ year old people are continuing to work than before, and the suggestion that anyone 60 or over is retiring is not supported by the available data. Perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation, but it seems your confusing retired, with retirement age.
 
DA60 said:
the only way you can know that I was intentionally being deceptive (which I have not knowingly been) is if a) I admitted it (which I have not) or b) you can read my mind (which I assume you cannot).
Click to expand...
You forgot c)

c) When you post statements even you will not try to defend but want another to disprove.

You know there's not a shred of evidence to suggest the numbers are fixed, but you're claiming it and/or defending it anyways to further your intent of claiming a bad jobs report. That's intentionally being deceptive and is dishonest.

I never said the BLS was cooking the books.
Click to expand...
But Erod did and you were defending his position by knowingly posting statements for which you have zero evidence.

I said I believe they are...big difference.
Click to expand...
And I believe you are five years old and since you have not shown me any proof which says otherwise, then I must be right.

At least, that was the basic premise of your logic.

Just as you cannot prove that they are not cooking the books.
Click to expand...
I also can't prove I'm not living in The Truman Show, but absent any facts to suggest I am, I'll simply have to go with the mountains of evidence which say I am not.
 
a351 said:
The same suspects every month, crying conspiracy and clutching to anything that resembles negative news. What a sorry bunch.
Click to expand...

I think the takeaway is that no matter how favorable the employment or other economic indicators are, the Rightwing crybabies will start the spin cycle and come up with some ridiculous argument to claim that Obama is ruining the lovely economy he inherited from Bush (which was of course on the brink of collapse).

It's all they can do at this point, and hope low information voters don't notice.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
I think the takeaway is that no matter how favorable the employment or other economic indicators are, the Rightwing crybabies will start the spin cycle and come up with some ridiculous argument to claim that Obama is ruining the lovely economy he inherited from Bush (which was of course on the brink of collapse).

It's all they can do at this point, and hope low information voters don't notice.
Click to expand...
I've a feeling we'll see similar bellyaching if a Republican takes the WH in 2016, but it's a pitiful display regardless.
 
tres borrachos said:
How do double negatives raise the employment rate?
Click to expand...

If conservatives were able to actually act on their rhetoric, they would have cut government spending, and reduced the size of our GDP. This would have resulted in a lost of both private and public sector jobs. Also, if they would have increased taxation on the 47% (which they are constantly whining about not paying enough in taxes) then demand would have dropped, further reducing our GDP and resulting in fewer jobs.

Sometimes not doing something has a better result than doing it.
 
Slyfox696 said:
You forgot c)

c) When you post statements even you will not try to defend but want another to disprove.

You know there's not a shred of evidence to suggest the numbers are fixed, but you're claiming it and/or defending it anyways to further your intent of claiming a bad jobs report. That's intentionally being deceptive and is dishonest.

But Erod did and you were defending his position by knowingly posting statements for which you have zero evidence.

And I believe you are five years old and since you have not shown me any proof which says otherwise, then I must be right.

At least, that was the basic premise of your logic.

I also can't prove I'm not living in The Truman Show, but absent any facts to suggest I am, I'll simply have to go with the mountains of evidence which say I am not.
Click to expand...

So, you have no proof that I knowingly made false statements.

Noted.


And I will agree to your request, you are now on my ignore list.

We are done here.


Good day.
 
Fenton said:
Awesome !!

The Fed can stop QE ! And the millions of additional people who are now dependant on Foodstamps, can now go back to work !
Click to expand...

The vast majority of them are already working, but at bargain prices for the rest of us.

Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate food stamps and all other forms of means tested welfare, but if we did that we would need to put in place some mechanism which would create higher wages (ie a higher minimum wage, or more government spending/jobs).
 
DA60 said:
Just as you cannot prove that they are not cooking the books.
Click to expand...

You are asking another poster to prove YOUR negative comment entirely made up by you and which is unprovable.

This is just another wing of the false-equivalency party known as the GOP--though you continue to deny being a GOP though you post like one.

while I am a proud, positive Democrat and don't run from my brand .
 
cholla said:
I am one of the lucky ones that gets surveyed every month.

"Hi, this is Lorna with the Dept of Labor, how are you in Phoenix this month?"

'Fine how are you"

"How many employees did you have for the week including the 12th?"

"None, I fired the one that I had because he was late 3 days out of 5. And as a concrete contractor, being late just does not work."

"OK then, fired one guy. My boss decided that we are going to count you as an employee this month, even though you are the owner. So no change in the number of employees for your company this month. I'll call you in October, have a nice month."

This is an actual conversation with the Dept of Labor so when you say that they don't cook the books, I have to differ. They did something similar a year or two ago. Then after the election, back to normal.
Click to expand...

Who told you that. Is this documented?

And you do realize that people who are self employed are ALL counted as having jobs don't you?

Anyhow, they don't call employers, they call individuals. I highly suspect you just made up that story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom