• 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!

Dont beleive those phony job numbers!

Visbek said:
Oh, and he also broke a rule dating back to the Reagan years, by publicly discussing economic releases less than an hour after release. Via Twitter, of course.

I can't even be surprised by this bull**** anymore.
Click to expand...
In today's world, with information speed that's not bad. He can get a copy of the report the night before. Although that would instantly stop if he ever leaked anything before release.
 
pinqy said:
What makes the U-6 better at measuring the percent of currently available labor not being used?

Ok, so neither are trying to get a job. So what does the fact that they do not get hired tell us? Nothing. Even if there were jobs for them, they would not be hired because they are not looking. So their lack of employment doesn't tell us anything about the current job market.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. I represents a jobs market that has shrinking opportunity. Losing skilled higher paying jobs and replacing them with minimum wage fast food types of jobs is not a healthy economy. That's not difficult to understand.

Because he has a job. Now, as a student, I had jobs where I worked fewer than 6 hours a week, but I would not have been included in the U-6 numerator because it was voluntary. So you would want to call the person in your example unemployed, and me employed, even though I worked fewer hours.

A waitress who normally works 38 hours a week has a few shifts cut short so that, for the survey reference week, she only works 34 hours. She is recorded as "Part time for economic reasons" for that month and is in the numerator of the U-6. Do you consider her to be unemployed? She's in the numerator of the U-6.
At the same time her co-worker voluntarily works 20 hours a week while going to school. By any definition, she is employed. Does it make sense to you to call the first waitress unemployed and the second waitress, working fewer hours, to be employed?

There are reasons the U-6 is not the real unemployment rate....it's too subjective, it includes people with jobs, and it doesn't measure what we want to measure in an unemployment rate. It's function is to measure how much available and potentially available labor is not used to its fullest extent.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's much more representative and the U6 numbers are less subjective that the artificially narrowly defined U3 numbers.
 
Fishking said:
Not even close. For example, those who looked for work, but could not find it and stop, are not counted.
Click to expand...
They are counted, but not in the U-3. And why should they be? Why should someone not looking for a job be considered the same as someone actively looking for a job? That doesn't make sense at all.
Fishking said:
There are better and more representative numbers to use.

The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3 | Investopedia
Click to expand...
But those are official numbers as well. So how can you say the statistics are not accurate and then use the same statistics and claim they are accurate?

It appears you're trying to claim U-6 is more valid than U-3, but the U-6 is not a better definition of unemployed. You cannot call people who are working part-time unemployed, that's just silly. How can you say someone is unemployed when they are clearly employed?

I'm sorry, but I suspect you're doing what too many people do, which is trying to interpret the BLS data through a political lens, rather than an economic one. Through an economic lens, it does not make sense at all to count people who are not looking for work as the same as those who are and it CERTAINLY doesn't make sense to count persons who are employed as unemployed.

Does that make sense? I'm in a rush, but I'll happily explain further if you'd like. Genuine offer.
 
Visbek said:
So, apparently Spicer was asked about this at today's presser:

“I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote them very clearly,” Spicer said. “They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.”

Oh, and he also broke a rule dating back to the Reagan years, by publicly discussing economic releases less than an hour after release. Via Twitter, of course.

I can't even be surprised by this bull**** anymore.
Click to expand...

You know, when I first read what you posted about Spicer I truly thought you were being facetious. I figured you had to be facetious. Then I just looked. You aren't being facetious. He really said that. Really did.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/white-houses-spicer-trump-says-jobs-report-may-have-been-phony-in-the-past-but-its-very-real-now.html

This is the most ****ed up White House in the history of the world.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't think anyone questions why.

Completion of the transformation of California into a fully operational Socialist Progressive State has provided results the Founding Fathers protected the country from.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Any other day you guys would be telling us how california is a failing state and everyone is moving out of it in droves. But now because it's a convenient whipping boy for you, they are a super strong tyrannical oppressor of all the other states.

Make up your minds.
 
Fishking said:
I'm not even talking about the comments on the EC. I'm talking about job numbers vs unemployment. If it's reported that 290K jobs where created, that's not a reference to unemployment.
Click to expand...

But it's all produced by the same sampling process, in the same reports, compiled by the same people, in the same agency, seasonally adjusted, etc. What you're saying is the "jobs" part of that sample is correct, but not the rest of it, such as the measure of the labor market. How does that work?

BTW, Spicer says Trump now trusts the BLS numbers - made a joke about it - recognizing the hypocrisy going on, I guess as long as the numbers continue to look OK.

Ah...you touched on the issue. We used the U3 statistics as our official number but it's very narrowly defined and creates an artificial number that's not representative of reality. At the very least, we should use U6 numbers.
Click to expand...

"Artificial" and "representative of reality" are entirely subjective. We've used U-3 with the same definitions of the numerator and denominator for at least a couple decades now and no one complained until OBAMA!! Furthermore, if you're going to compare "unemployment" in 2017 versus "unemployment" in 1995, then to show the trend you use the same 'official' rate.

And U-6 is right there for you or anyone else to quote when talking about "unemployment." Bernie uses U-6 just about exclusively.

FWIW, I don't know what would be somehow better than U-6 - we guess how many aren't looking, haven't looked for over a year, but if offered this primo job at great pay MIGHT go back to work?

The point for all those versions is they're not based on subjective questions like 'do you want a job' but (mostly) on objective factors - when was the last time you APPLIED for a job. Should we include people who last looked for a job 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Because they say 'sure, I'd like a job!'
 
Fishking said:
Sure it does. I represents a jobs market that has shrinking opportunity. Losing skilled higher paying jobs and replacing them with minimum wage fast food types of jobs is not a healthy economy. That's not difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

If that's true, you're not going to find the answer in the unemployment rate, nor would one expect to. You're asking a number with a task - represent a very specific and limited piece of information related to the labor market, the % unemployed, to tell you things about the wage rate, quality of jobs, etc. It's not intended to do that and should not try because it will fail.

It's like looking at "Earnings per share" then complaining that the number doesn't tell us that the company's sales went down, or their growth rate will slow because they lost a patent, or much of it is financial gains not operations, so there are better measures of EPS, which is not designed to tell us that other important information. And even EPS has various definitions, such as EBITDA, which is supposed to better tell us earnings from operations.

I disagree. It's much more representative and the U6 numbers are less subjective that the artificially narrowly defined U3 numbers.
Click to expand...

There are lots of reasons why you might prefer U-6, but that ain't a valid one. U-6 is clearly and obviously more "subjective."

1) Did you work last week? Yes or no?
2) You worked 28 hours. Would you like to work 40 hours?

1) Have you taken defined steps to look for a job in the past 4 weeks? Yes or no?
2) You haven't applied for a job in nearly a year - do you still want a job if one comes available?

Which one is more subjective?
 
Last edited:
Vetplus40 said:
Not my words folks, these are Trumps..........:)

Donald Trump Says 'Real' Unemployment Higher Than Government Figures Show : NPR

It will be interesting to see POTUS "flip-flop" on yet another issue, and the minions struggle to defend him. You know his super-ego will not be able to resist taking credit for the new numbers that are out today.

Lest we not forget that it was Democrat Trump who criticized the Electoral College when it cost Gore the election. Miraculously, Republican Trump called it "sheer genius" when it got him elected. Either Trump is so conceded that he doesn't care that folks remember his former comments, and believes that he can say anything and get away with it (which he has done fairly well of late with his followers) or he has some other type of mental disorder.
Click to expand...

We all know that Trump is a neophyte and has insufficient experience. He is like Obama was and we will pay a similarly high price. What did you expect? He is as handicapped as his predecessor.

But this going on and on is revolting and very harmful of the country and every one of us.
 
Puigb said:
Sorry dude, but Trump voters voted for a guy who blatantly insulted lots of people to get where he's at today. I don't like Hillary at all, but her comment was spot on.
Click to expand...

So... you are showing your disdain for a politician who insulted people by supporting and mimicking the behavior of another politician who also insulted a lot of people. I'm going to have to take some time to work out the logic behind that.... :shrug:
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't think the President is full of chit. I think the President speaks conversationally as many of us do. Can you rebut what I say I heard? Can you rebut what the President says he heard? Must everything he says be taken 100% literally as if it was a presidential proclamation or can he use general numbers like everybody on the planet tends to do when making a point?

But the tactic of the left is to take every syllable 100% literally and deflect pretty much every discussion to "Trump lies.' Heaven for bid we discuss an actual topic.
Click to expand...

I cant help you bud. You are too far gone. I wouldn't mind pulling you out of the shallow end of the Trump "kool-aid" pool, but you jumped head first into the deep end.

We both know Trump has a habit of lying. You are simply trying to justify it and looking pretty dumb in the process. God forbid that we expect the President to be above the childish name calling fray and act like an intelligent leader. Given that you have no problem with folks lying, you might want to seriously consider raising your own acceptance standards.

As far as actual topics go, care to start with discussing the fraudulent Trump University?
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
The other tactic of the left is to take what they think they heard him say, not what he actually said, and then report what they think they heard as fact.
I'd call that just blatant dishonesty, frankly.
Click to expand...

Did he or did he not say that he had the biggest EC win since Reagan? If you think for a minute that you can defend his lies, you are more brainwashed than I imagined.
 
Visbek said:
So, apparently Spicer was asked about this at today's presser:

“I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote them very clearly,” Spicer said. “They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.”

Oh, and he also broke a rule dating back to the Reagan years, by publicly discussing economic releases less than an hour after release. Via Twitter, of course.

I can't even be surprised by this bull**** anymore.[/QUOTE

The best part was that he was laughing as he said it. Even Spicer knew how ridiculous Trumps earlier comments were and couldn't defend the flip-flop with a straight face..............:)
Click to expand...
 
Vetplus40 said:
Did he or did he not say that he had the biggest EC win since Reagan? If you think for a minute that you can defend his lies, you are more brainwashed than I imagined.
Click to expand...

trump's own words and actions will catch up with him and his GOP lackeys in a 50-state campaign highlighting individual lies and promises per pertinent state.

trump voters in RED states are about to find out how badly they're going to get hammered by trumpscare, though GOPs are trying to kick the bad stuff back until after the 2020s so they keep the remaps .
 
Vetplus40 said:
The best part was that he was laughing as he said it. Even Spicer knew how ridiculous Trumps earlier comments were and couldn't defend the flip-flop with a straight face..............:)
Click to expand...

trumpcons, predominantly in RED trump states, won't be laughing when they stuck with this tax cut for the rich that explodes the deficit and hammers their health care.

And for those GOP posters who say do nothing and let ACA die on its own, I say "bring it on" .
 
Vetplus40 said:
Did he or did he not say that he had the biggest EC win since Reagan? If you think for a minute that you can defend his lies, you are more brainwashed than I imagined.
Click to expand...

trumpcons can't defend trump's blatant irrational lies, as well as the overall micro-managing influence of Leninist Bannon and his politburo .
 
NIMBY said:
trumpcons can't defend trump's blatant irrational lies, as well as the overall micro-managing influence of Leninist Bannon and his politburo .
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I had much more respect for Trump voters before I joined this message board. At the onset, I did respect their right to their voting preference considering that this election had only bad choices. I then started to watch the degree to which these folks would defend his outright lies without conscience. I am not quite sure I understand the "cult-like" influence that Trump can exert over a small minority. I am just thankful every day that he cant get to me.
 
JasperL said:
But it's all produced by the same sampling process, in the same reports, compiled by the same people, in the same agency, seasonally adjusted, etc. What you're saying is the "jobs" part of that sample is correct, but not the rest of it, such as the measure of the labor market. How does that work? '
Click to expand...
It's not the same sample. The monthly Employment Situation is made up of TWO completely different surveys. The "Jobs Numbers" are from the Current Employment Statistics...a survey of nonfarm businesses (634,000 worksites). Because of the huge sample size, it's very accurate, and is benchmarked every year to tax records. But it is limited to nonfarm businesses and only people on the payroll. No demographics, just number of employees, average hours, and average pay.

The Labor Force Statistics come from the Current Population Survey: a survey of 60,000 households. Less accurate, but gives a lot more information.....especially unemployment.
 
Like this?

C6lzuo3W0AAbZ6Z.jpg:large


Thanks Obama!
 
pinqy said:
It's not the same sample. The monthly Employment Situation is made up of TWO completely different surveys. The "Jobs Numbers" are from the Current Employment Statistics...a survey of nonfarm businesses (634,000 worksites). Because of the huge sample size, it's very accurate, and is benchmarked every year to tax records. But it is limited to nonfarm businesses and only people on the payroll. No demographics, just number of employees, average hours, and average pay.

The Labor Force Statistics come from the Current Population Survey: a survey of 60,000 households. Less accurate, but gives a lot more information.....especially unemployment.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification and for all your posts on this stuff. It's nice to have an expert in the house and I've learned a lot reading your replies. The only person I've learned more from is Bill McBride over at Calculated Risk, and that's his job. :peace

I did know about the different surveys but wasn't clear enough with 'same sampling process' which also probably isn't true, but the point was more general that one can't trust the parts you like about the employment situation report, and discard the parts you don't because THAT part is supposedly rigged cause Obama something globalists or whatever.... Through friends I've met a couple of people who did a stint there, and from what I understand they're some of the best in the country at what they do. I have a lot of respect for them and get tired of the ignorant complaints about their output.

As an aside, I knew VERY little about any of the details until a few years ago (early Obama years) when Zero Hedge kept pushing this story (sort of a monthly feature) about BLS always adjusting some part of the report (I forget the details) in one direction, directly asserting it was evidence of manipulation or something. I know it had to be BS but didn't know why. Long story short I started getting into the details, found out ZH is just a bunch of either willfully ignorant or dishonest hacks (no reason to reconsider that since then...), and it got me really oddly interested in those reports.
 
ibelsd said:
So... you are showing your disdain for a politician who insulted people by supporting and mimicking the behavior of another politician who also insulted a lot of people. I'm going to have to take some time to work out the logic behind that.... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Trump voters can't complain about being insulted...when they voted for a man who insulted everyone he could to win the presidency.
 
Puigb said:
lol.

Trump nor his low information minions wouldn't know anything about the founding fathers if it bit them in the ass.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Thank you for demonstrating what a well reasoned and thoughtful response looks like.
 
poweRob said:
:lamo

Any other day you guys would be telling us how california is a failing state and everyone is moving out of it in droves. But now because it's a convenient whipping boy for you, they are a super strong tyrannical oppressor of all the other states.

Make up your minds.
Click to expand...

If you take a step back, you might recognize both your statements apply. Oops!

Unfortunately for California, the people moving out are the ones with money.

Those left behind will just keep pulling the socialist progressive handle on election day, hoping it's a slot machine, rather than the stapler sealing their fate.
 
ocean515 said:
If you take a step back, you might recognize both your statements apply. Oops!

Unfortunately for California, the people moving out are the ones with money.

Those left behind will just keep pulling the socialist progressive handle on election day, hoping it's a slot machine, rather than the stapler sealing their fate.
Click to expand...

Same BS story you guys have been spinning for years. Yet california's economy just last year bypassed France to become the 6th largest economy in the entire world.
 
poweRob said:
Same BS story you guys have been spinning for years. Yet california's economy just last year bypassed France to become the 6th largest economy in the entire world.
Click to expand...

BS story?

France? Are you aware of the economic problems in France?

California is doomed. It's cause? Runaway Socialist Progressive policies and legislation.

Don't take my word for it, take theirs:

$1.9 billion error adds to California deficit projection

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/15/californias-boom-is-poised-to-go-bust-and-liberals-dream-of-scandinavia-on-the-pacific/#601b034a5cb6

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2016/07/26/camyth/#6b77e71c7113

California?s $400 billion debt worries analysts - San Francisco Chronicle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom