• 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

As our population grows, it's perfectly natural that fewer people are in the workforce.

Let's say that this year one family exists, and there are two parents who both work and a 17 year old high school student who doesn't work and 83 year old granny. Thats a total of 2 people not in the labor force.

Next year two families exists, and there are now four parents who work, two teenagers who don't, and two elderly people - so that's now 4 people not in the workforce.

Any surprises?

There is one surprise...And that is why not audit the BLS and its parent the Dept. of Labor and structure this wacky system to come up with more precise numbers on this crap...Hey, I got an idea, remove the BLS from the Dept of Labor...
 
This is your exact quote:

"There were more babies born in 1946 than in any other year up until that time "​

Exactly. "up until that time"

that doesn't mean there weren't more born in later years, there obviously were.
 
BLS doesn't call individuals, they call employers. That's for the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES) Yes, we were all talking about the CPS, which is collected by Census. but he could easily be in the CES if he pays UI taxes.

There are some things off....who did she say she worked for? What time period was she asking for? What a about the other questions?

thanks for attempting to clear that up, but I think your explanation left some of us just as confused.

You are apparently correct that it is the census people who collect the data for the unemployment rates that we were discussing, and you are also correct that it is the BLS which performs a survey of employers.

Regardless, it is the responses from individuals in the survey (not employers), that determines the unemployment rate, and apparently the BLS puts the numbers together from census polls.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
 
BLS doesn't call individuals, they call employers. That's for the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES) Yes, we were all talking about the CPS, which is collected by Census. but he could easily be in the CES if he pays UI taxes.

There are some things off....who did she say she worked for? What time period was she asking for? What a about the other questions?

She works for the Dept of Labor. She always asks for the number of employees working in the week that includes the 12th. Normally she asks how many hours they worked and how much they are paid, but not this time since there was no employee.
 
There is one surprise...And that is why not audit the BLS and its parent the Dept. of Labor and structure this wacky system to come up with more precise numbers on this crap...Hey, I got an idea, remove the BLS from the Dept of Labor...

It is audited.

Anyhow, there are several private sector companies that also do their own unemployment estimates, and while they never match month for month the bls numbers as far as job gains and losses, the general trends and the estimates of the unemployment rate to confirm the government figures over time.

Even shadow stats trusts the government numbers enough to base their estimates on the government numbers - they just add a particular number of unemployed to the government figures.
 
It is audited.

Anyhow, there are several private sector companies that also do their own unemployment estimates, and while they never match month for month the bls numbers as far as job gains and losses, the general trends and the estimates of the unemployment rate to confirm the government figures over time.

Even shadow stats trusts the government numbers enough to base their estimates on the government numbers - they just add a particular number of unemployed to the government figures.

Well, like I said, I'm just looking around Scott, and not seeing any great surge in peoples standard of living...I still see the same businesses closed, the same strip malls shuttered, and I see a lot of people that are unemployed looking not toward optimism in finding a job, but rather looking in how to collect more in benefits.

When the reports come out that show that half of America is not on welfare, I'll get more optimistic.
 
You can look it up on the BLS website.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Not everything you hear at the tea party rallies or at the barber shop is true. Sometimes you need to verify your information prior to posting inaccurate data. DP is a little tougher than convincing your facebook friends of your lies.

The woman that calls me every month identifies herself as Lorna with the Dept of Labor. Nothing else.

You certainly seem to assume a lot of things about me. I suppose that attacking the messenger is accepted behavior in your circle.

I am not saying that the way they survey me is the only way that data is collected, because I don't work for them anymore than you do. I am reporting my conversation this month with the Dept of Labor.
 
Well, like I said, I'm just looking around Scott, and not seeing any great surge in peoples standard of living...I still see the same businesses closed, the same strip malls shuttered, and I see a lot of people that are unemployed looking not toward optimism in finding a job, but rather looking in how to collect more in benefits.

When the reports come out that show that half of America is not on welfare, I'll get more optimistic.

Absolutely.

We need tax cuts on the middle class, we need to eliminate means tested welfare and spend that money creating infrastructure so that our businesses can once again thrive. I never understood why we prefer to give money to poor people rather than to spend that money on productive jobs.

Have ya noticed how our roads in SC have gone to hell during the past five or ten years? There are a couple of stretches of I-85 between Spbg and Anderson that look like bomb crater war zones. Then when the people started making an issue of it, Nikki says "I found the problem, we weren't spending the federal funding allocation for our roads." She was either hording that money, or she was asleep at the wheel.
 
The woman that calls me every month identifies herself as Lorna with the Dept of Labor. Nothing else.

You certainly seem to assume a lot of things about me. I suppose that attacking the messenger is accepted behavior in your circle.

I am not saying that the way they survey me is the only way that data is collected, because I don't work for them anymore than you do. I am reporting my conversation this month with the Dept of Labor.

that's odd, really odd. And sorry, I didn't realize that this was someone actually calling you, I assumed that this was a story that you were just repeating third hand.

Seriously, you should start recording these calls, and if you can find enough discrepancies, go to the media. If they are distorting numbers like this, the world needs to know.
 
Absolutely.

We need tax cuts on the middle class, we need to eliminate means tested welfare and spend that money creating infrastructure so that our businesses can once again thrive. I never understood why we prefer to give money to poor people rather than to spend that money on productive jobs.

Have ya noticed how our roads in SC have gone to hell during the past five or ten years? There are a couple of stretches of I-85 between Spbg and Anderson that look like bomb crater war zones. Then when the people started making an issue of it, Nikki says "I found the problem, we weren't spending the federal funding allocation for our roads." She was either hording that money, or she was asleep at the wheel.

Yes, and in cases like that Haley should be held accountable...Driving my truck down 85 south I have to stay in Lane 2 because the right lane just hammers the truck. But, you'll also notice that the geniuses in the State house, don't want that accountability, rather they want to try and get that one cent tax passed for the roads, until they get it and don't spend that on them either...Ugh....It just pisses me off.
 
Yes, and in cases like that Haley should be held accountable...Driving my truck down 85 south I have to stay in Lane 2 because the right lane just hammers the truck. But, you'll also notice that the geniuses in the State house, don't want that accountability, rather they want to try and get that one cent tax passed for the roads, until they get it and don't spend that on them either...Ugh....It just pisses me off.

In the same newspaper that I read about the proposed tax increases, was this long article about what the state was going to do with all the surplus revenue that they had. Absolutely disgusting that we have a huge budget surplus, yet we are considering tax increases (especially during a weak economy).
 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. The United States Department of Labor (DOL) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government responsible for occupational safety, wage and hour standards, unemployment insurance benefits, re-employment services, and some economic statistics; many U.S. states also have such departments. The department is headed by the U.S. Secretary of Labor.

Thomas Perez is the current U.S. Secretary of Labor. He took office after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 18, 2013.

Perez's nomination was criticized by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Pat Roberts (R-KS),[115] as well as the The Wall Street Journal editorial board,[116] for his decision not to intervene in a whistleblower case against Saint Paul, Minnesota in return for the city dropping a case before the Supreme Court (Magner v. Gallagher), which could have undermined the disparate impact theory of discrimination.[117] His nomination was also opposed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) for his views on immigration and his association with Casa de Maryland, calling the nomination "an unfortunate and needlessly divisive nomination".[118][119]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, nothing possibly divisive to see there.....:doh
Republicans oppose a democrat nominee :shrug: Nothing exactly earth shattering here. I'm guessing that some Democrats objected to Bush's nominee for the position during his tenure as well. None of this changes the fact that the Bureau is an independent entity that does not cater to the administration in power at the moment. That's nothing more than a conspiracy born out of partisanship.
 
There is one surprise...And that is why not audit the BLS and its parent the Dept. of Labor and structure this wacky system to come up with more precise numbers on this crap...Hey, I got an idea, remove the BLS from the Dept of Labor...
BLS is actually older than DoL. But in any case the relationship is purely administrative...no one at DoL has anything to do with BLS data. Separate buildings, desperate servers, payroll and HR is the only connection.

And BLS is continuously trying to improve data quality, though that leads to complaints of "manipulation".
 
She works for the Dept of Labor. She always asks for the number of employees working in the week that includes the 12th. Normally she asks how many hours they worked and how much they are paid, but not this time since there was no employee.

She should say Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's a legal thing for confidentiality. And the reference period for the CES is the pay period that contains the 12th, not the week. And by now you should have been given the option of self-reporting. And it's odd that she would tell you what she was putting down. And I was thinking of hours and wages and female employees and the breakdown of production an supervisory.

Nothing so off for me to say you're not telling the truth, but it's odd.
 
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?

I guess we'll see if they take back the Senate. It worked in the 90s when they took it back and slowed spending, reformed welfare, and cut taxes. Even had a Democrat President. BUT, Obama is not Clinton.
 
yay! it only took Obama 6 and a half years to show very minor progress on turning around the economy. but hey, gay people can get married, so to hell with the unemployed anyway. am i right? let's keep electing democrats so we can make it a DECADE LONG economic malaise. come on! it's fun!
 
Republicans oppose a democrat nominee :shrug: Nothing exactly earth shattering here. I'm guessing that some Democrats objected to Bush's nominee for the position during his tenure as well. None of this changes the fact that the Bureau is an independent entity that does not cater to the administration in power at the moment. That's nothing more than a conspiracy born out of partisanship.

pinqy said:
BLS is actually older than DoL. But in any case the relationship is purely administrative...no one at DoL has anything to do with BLS data. Separate buildings, desperate servers, payroll and HR is the only connection.

And BLS is continuously trying to improve data quality, though that leads to complaints of "manipulation".

So you both say...The fact that the BLS is now under the control of the DoL, and that is a political appointee leaves pause in the way they report numbers...Remember in the 2012 election when it was being said by both demo, and conservative pundits that the UE rate just had to drop below 8% for Obama to overcome the stat for election? Then magically right before the election, presto the number dropped below 8%.... Then after the election it was adjusted back to 8%.

It's crap like that which makes people believe that the books are cooked....
 
Yeah ok...I am only going by what I see around me these days...Whenever these stats get reported, the argument is predictable...the Obamabots will say he's the greatest since sliced bread, and it was all Bush's fault in the first place, and the conservatives will say that Obama is hiding, and twisting numbers to lie to the public, then you'll have about a hundred pages of stat after stat being posted until my eyes are bleeding and I just need a drink....When I see someone in a position of leadership start pushing lower taxes, and see real welfare reform so that half the damn country isn't collecting it in one form or another, then I'll say it's getting better. Til then this is election year bull ****.

Personally, I don't believe anything that comes out of either camp (dem or rep) unless it is factually proven. Why any adult who would do otherwise is beyond me.

All I pay attention to (usually) are facts and stats.

Political cat fighting and endless promises mean little to me.
 
Personally, I don't believe anything that comes out of either camp (dem or rep) unless it is factually proven. Why any adult who would do otherwise is beyond me.

All I pay attention to (usually) are facts and stats.

Political cat fighting and endless promises mean little to me.

I'm getting there....Working on my cynicism...
 
So, you have no proof that I knowingly made false statements.
I've already given you the proof multiple times. I'm not surprised you refuse to acknowledge it.

Noted.

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

We are done here.


Good day.
And there's your standard response when you've been shown to be completely wrong and your posts shown to be absurd, the DA60 "noted and good day". Just like I said a couple of posts ago. Thank you for being consistent.
 
A part time job...that pays minimum wage. There's something to brag about! More celebration of mediocrity. ;)

Whatever happened with a job is a job and people working even part-time is a step in the right direction towards paving the way off public assistance? Interesting that every time the unemployment figures shift downward the argument is shifted from people finding some kind of work to get off welfare and start doing for themselves to the jobs numbers are fixed, that they don't factor in people who have stopped looking for work, that the majority of workers cover people in specific age ranges or that most of those employed are only working part-time?

The employment argument is always convoluted from the Right. The mere fact that unemployment is down is never a cause for celebration for them...unless they're the ones who can claim the moved they unemployment figures southward.

Now, if given the choice I, too, would much rather more people are working full-time for better pay, but for some people even a small victory isn't good enough. So, tell me what would you rather have: more people working even part-time so they can depend more on their own labor to move themselves forward or more people continuing to say "screw it...working part-time isn't worth it. I'd rather cheat and keep the welfare check"?
 
Whatever happened with a job is a job and people working even part-time is a step in the right direction towards paving the way off public assistance? Interesting that every time the unemployment figures shift downward the argument is shifted from people finding some kind of work to get off welfare and start doing for themselves to the jobs numbers are fixed, that they don't factor in people who have stopped looking for work, that the majority of workers cover people in specific age ranges or that most of those employed are only working part-time?

The employment argument is always convoluted from the Right. The mere fact that unemployment is down is never a cause for celebration for them...unless they're the ones who can claim the moved they unemployment figures southward.

Now, if given the choice I, too, would much rather more people are working full-time for better pay, but for some people even a small victory isn't good enough. So, tell me what would you rather have: more people working even part-time so they can depend more on their own labor to move themselves forward or more people continuing to say "screw it...working part-time isn't worth it. I'd rather cheat and keep the welfare check"?

We've had 6 years of small victories. At what point that not good enough?
 
We've had 6 years of small victories. At what point that not good enough?

"One small step for man. One giant leap for man-kind."

Sometimes small victories lead to winning the war, in this case the "war" is a lost decade of economic growth in America. That argument aside, I noticed you haven't refuted anything I've said above. Guess that means you agree that working any job even part-time and not being on welfare is better than sitting around waiting for the mailman to come and collecting a paycheck.
 
And sometimes small victories are one step forward two steps back and lead to defeat.
 
"One small step for man. One giant leap for man-kind."

Sometimes small victories lead to winning the war, in this case the "war" is a lost decade of economic growth in America. That argument aside, I noticed you haven't refuted anything I've said above. Guess that means you agree that working any job even part-time and not being on welfare is better than sitting around waiting for the mailman to come and collecting a paycheck.

It's only been 6 years, not a full decade. Hopefully, in the next couple of years, we'll find ourselves with a real president, instead of the counter-productive idiot we have now. He's probably the only president in our history that used the government bureaucracy to stimy, and even halt growth.
 
Back
Top Bottom