# How soon to the next big correction/crash?



## william the wie

Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Buy some English lessons instead. 

I know the answer, but I will not give it to you for free.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Watch the short term rates.


----------



## Politico

What the hell is a put?


----------



## eagle1462010

Deutsche Bank Hopes "Not All Margin Calls Come At Once In Case Of A Sell-Off" | Zero Hedge

Since the records started in the late 1950s, we observe margin debt tracked by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rose to an all-time high in April this year. Most interestingly, margin debt follows the pattern of exponential growth when equity markets surpass previous record historic levels and peaks ahead of the the equity market, i.e. 1/2 month ahead during the &#8220;new technologies market&#8221; around 1999/2000 and 3 months ahead during the &#8220;Great/Global Financial Crisis&#8221; (GFC) around 2007/2008. As it is difficult to identify such an absolute peak, we find it useful to look at more sensitive measures, i.e. month-on-month changes. It seems as if a threshold >10% in the m-o-m change delivers meaningful signals when the sequence starts. In this way, it is most alarming to see that the first signal lit up in January this year. Market analysts track margin-debt activity as an indication of investors' appetite for speculative trading. But a potential pitfall for those trading on margin is a sharp decline in stock prices, which can expose investors to margin calls, requiring them to post additional collateral or having their brokers sell their securities. That's why high levels of margin debt can be worrisome &#8211; a wave of margin calls triggered by a sharp market correction could exacerbate the selling pressure on stocks, making matters worse. Consequently, high margin debts show the effect of over-leveraging and mispricing of risk in our financial system.

*comment*

When will the Fed stop thowing money around...................Is the real question..................

Who knows.


----------



## eagle1462010

BTW.  According to Zero Hedge, Margin borrowing is at an all time high again.  Which is why I posted that article.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stock Market Crash - History of the Stock Market Crash of 1929

Buying on Margin

When someone did not have the money to pay the full price of stocks, they could buy stocks "on margin." Buying stocks on margin means that the buyer would put down some of his own money, but the rest he would borrow from a broker. In the 1920s, the buyer only had to put down 10 to 20 percent of his own money and thus borrowed 80 to 90 percent of the cost of the stock.

Buying on margin could be very risky. If the price of stock fell lower than the loan amount, the broker would likely issue a "margin call," which means that the buyer must come up with the cash to pay back his loan immediately.

In the 1920s, many speculators (people who hoped to make a lot of money on the stock market) bought stocks on margin. Confident in what seemed a never-ending rise in prices, many of these speculators neglected to seriously consider the risk they were taking.

Signs of Trouble

By early 1929, people across the United States were scrambling to get into the stock market. The profits seemed so assured that even many companies placed money in the stock market. And even more problematically, some banks placed customers' money in the stock market (without their knowledge). With the stock market prices upward bound, everything seemed wonderful. When the great crash hit in October, these people were taken by surprise. However, there had been warning signs.

On March 25, 1929, the stock market suffered a mini-crash. It was a prelude of what was to come. As prices began to drop, panic struck across the country as margin calls were issued. When banker Charles Mitchell made an announcement that his bank would keep lending, his reassurance stopped the panic. Although Mitchell and others tried the tactic of reassurance again in October, it did not stop the big crash.

By the spring of 1929, there were additional signs that the economy might be headed for a serious setback. Steel production went down; house construction slowed; and car sales waned.

At this time, there were also a few reputable people warning of an impending, major crash; however, as month after month went by without one, those that advised caution were labeled pessimists and ignored.


----------



## eagle1462010

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnN-SR_2ovA]Resistance is Futile - Star Trek: First Contact (8/9) Movie CLIP (1996) HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

I like to keep things simple. When the fed stops pumping them up, they will fall and fall hard.


----------



## william the wie

Politico said:


> What the hell is a put?


 A way of limiting your losses when shorting the market.


----------



## william the wie

SFC Ollie said:


> I like to keep things simple. When the fed stops pumping them up, they will fall and fall hard.


True but is the key rate, size of pumping or size of pumping relative to the size of the pumped up money supply? It do make a difference.


----------



## Zander

william the wie said:


> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.



The percentage of bulls in the Daily Sentiment index (trade-futures.com) peaked back in May at over 90%. In July it went to 89% and last tuesday (of this week) it hit 88%.  Investor sentiment is so bullish that the market is rising even on bad news.

Personally, I'd buy cheap, deep out of the money S&P500 puts with a long expiration- out to June or Sept 14.  

Happy trading!


----------



## william the wie

Zander said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage of bulls in the Daily Sentiment index (trade-futures.com) peaked back in May at over 90%. In July it went to 89% and last tuesday (of this week) it hit 88%.  Investor sentiment is so bullish that the market is rising even on bad news.
> 
> Personally, I'd buy cheap, deep out of the money S&P500 puts with a long expiration- out to June or Sept 14.
> 
> Happy trading!
Click to expand...


Thank you kindly sir. I am also selling SPLV (S&P low velocity fraction) puts while buying mini-S&P puts, LQD puts and VNQ puts. And good trading to you as wel.


----------



## Politico

william the wie said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is a put?
> 
> 
> 
> A way of limiting your losses when shorting the market.
Click to expand...


Then he should have said Put Options in which case he can set them out as far as he wants.


----------



## jwoodie

November 2014:  If the GOP loses the House, investor confidence will evaporate.


----------



## SFC Ollie

jwoodie said:


> November 2014:  If the GOP loses the House, investor confidence will evaporate.






November 2014:  If the GOP loses the House, investor confidence will *incinerate*. 

Fixed it for ya....


----------



## william the wie

jwoodie said:


> November 2014:  If the GOP loses the House, investor confidence will evaporate.


I don't think  that is politically possible.


----------



## Snouter

Next election.  They fleeced big time when Barry just got into office, but won't do anything until Barry is out of office.


----------



## Geaux4it

Figuring Out The Fed | Zero Hedge

Since 2008, the Federal Reserve has been trying one program after the other in order to kick-start the US economy. It culminated in currently buying around $1 trillion of bonds a year. But economic growth remains weak. Why does the Fed continue its ultra-lax monetary policy despite evidence it doesn't help much? The people at the Fed are not stupid, so there must be a rational explanation. This is an attempt to figure out their 'game plan'.


----------



## editec

Geaux4it said:


> Figuring Out The Fed | Zero Hedge
> 
> Since 2008, the Federal Reserve has been trying one program after the other in order to kick-start the US economy. It culminated in currently buying around $1 trillion of bonds a year. But economic growth remains weak. Why does the Fed continue its ultra-lax monetary policy despite evidence it doesn't help much? The people at the Fed are not stupid, so there must be a rational explanation. This is an attempt to figure out their 'game plan'.



Maybe it isn't the national economy they're helping?

After all none of this money is getting into the overall economy..its propping up the banks balance sheets and to some extent (maybe a lot, I do not know, not sure anuone does) preventing 
DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
................................... e
...................................... e
...........................................e
............................................ flation.


----------



## Iceman

I don't know. We lived in a controlled economy. Those that have the money will engineer the collapse when they can reap the greatest profit. When that is, I can't say.


----------



## Geaux4it

The laws of gravity come to mind. What goes up, must come down. This rising market is overbought and one day big money is going to want payday. When?

-Geaux


----------



## william the wie

Geaux4it said:


> The laws of gravity come to mind. What goes up, must come down. This rising market is overbought and one day big money is going to want payday. When?
> 
> -Geaux


 The average guess is June but Galton's law does not apply to stock market predictions.


----------



## sjay

SFC Ollie said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> November 2014:  If the GOP loses the House, investor confidence will evaporate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> November 2014:  If the GOP loses the House, investor confidence will *incinerate*.
> 
> Fixed it for ya....
Click to expand...


So what do  you propose,that we put our money under the matress.


----------



## rdean

Republicans think the crash caused by their deregulation and moving jobs to China and the redistribution of wealth to the top 1% is a "correction".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Fed will collapse the economy right after the 2014 shellacking


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. And all you nervous nellies predicted utter collapse if President Obama was re-elected. Didn't happen, won't happen.


----------



## Mr. H.

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. And all you nervous nellies predicted utter collapse if President Obama was re-elected. Didn't happen, won't happen.



Not as long as he's in office. Until then, he will keep pumping $85 billion every month into the economy. Too much funny money will ultimately prove to be the downfall of our entire economy... and possibly the economies of other nations.


----------



## william the wie

Mr. H. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. And all you nervous nellies predicted utter collapse if President Obama was re-elected. Didn't happen, won't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as long as he's in office. Until then, he will keep pumping $85 billion every month into the economy. Too much funny money will ultimately prove to be the downfall of our entire economy... and possibly the economies of other nations.
Click to expand...

 7% of GDP in stimulus each and every year cannot be maintained. That Fed inflation targets are not being reached is down right scary.


----------



## Moonglow

william the wie said:


> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.



If there was a a republican president I can guarantee it would be a cycle of every 4 years.


----------



## Animus

It's a great question. I have 0 idea when the "house of cards" will collapse. My only two guesses is either when the Fed stops QE or when the dollar loses its status as the reserve currency of the world. The dollar is already slowly losing its status as more and more countries trade using the Yaun. Not to mention that the Chinese announced that they're going to sell off Treasury Bonds. At this point in time I think a dollar collapse is more possible than a market correction.


----------



## william the wie

Animus said:


> It's a great question. I have 0 idea when the "house of cards" will collapse. My only two guesses is either when the Fed stops QE or when the dollar loses its status as the reserve currency of the world. The dollar is already slowly losing its status as more and more countries trade using the Yaun. Not to mention that the Chinese announced that they're going to sell off Treasury Bonds. At this point in time I think a dollar collapse is more possible than a market correction.


One will equal the other I suspect.


----------



## Mr Natural

Politico said:


> What the hell is a put?



It's a type of option you buy when you think the underlying security is going to go down.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Can we define "crash" here? Are you talking about a 10% correction, a 20% bear market, or a 1929/2008 type dealie?


----------



## JWBooth

I dunno, but I expect it in the next year.


----------



## william the wie

SteadyMercury said:


> Can we define "crash" here? Are you talking about a 10% correction, a 20% bear market, or a 1929/2008 type dealie?


 I think it depends on how fast and how far the price at the pump declines and that in turn depends on developments and advances in pipeline building. Not just Keystone but also with Mexican denationalization and East African pipeline deals on the table we could be looking at $40/bbl or less. That figure could destabilize a huge hunk of the world. 

Methane from coal fields also comes into play. I've heard figures as high as 500 year energy supplies for the UK and 1,000+ years for the US from just this one source. 

A slow price drop to $70/bbl equivalent by mid-term election 10% correction. 

$60/bbl Arab spring again.

$50/bbl Russia and/or China might see a revolution because of heavy investment in expensive energy.

$40-/bbl a huge blow off of value due to capital flight.

The amount of write offs of investment in expensive energy could be greater than $10 trillion and how quickly it is written down matters a great deal.


----------



## SteadyMercury

I guess I'll just keep on throwing money into the pit and rebalancing annually to maintain my AA. 

It has been about a +20% year for me, so could swallow a pretty big decline and still be close to square on the deal.


----------



## william the wie

Prefer a lazy man portfolio myself but to each his own.


----------



## MHunterB

SteadyMercury said:


> I guess I'll just keep on throwing money into the pit and rebalancing annually to maintain my AA.
> 
> It has been about a +20% year for me, so could swallow a pretty big decline and still be close to square on the deal.



We've only gotten about 17% this year - but then we're closing in on retirement age and trying to preserve what we've got so far.  Our alleged/purported/rumored retirement income will exceed our current monthly budget by a good sum (partly because we are putting the max into tax-deferred savings AND paying down the mortgage faster), so we are expecting to still 'put by' in the first few years of our actual retirement.


----------



## william the wie

Smart move. Marketwatch and Real Clear Markets are good resources on retirement account amounts.


----------



## JimBowie1958

eagle1462010 said:


> Deutsche Bank Hopes "Not All Margin Calls Come At Once In Case Of A Sell-Off" | Zero Hedge
> 
> Since the records started in the late 1950s, we observe margin debt tracked by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rose to an all-time high in April this year. Most interestingly, margin debt follows the pattern of exponential growth when equity markets surpass previous record historic levels and peaks ahead of the the equity market, i.e. 1/2 month ahead during the new technologies market around 1999/2000 and 3 months ahead during the Great/Global Financial Crisis (GFC) around 2007/2008. As it is difficult to identify such an absolute peak, we find it useful to look at more sensitive measures, i.e. month-on-month changes. It seems as if a threshold >10% in the m-o-m change delivers meaningful signals when the sequence starts. In this way, it is most alarming to see that the first signal lit up in January this year. Market analysts track margin-debt activity as an indication of investors' appetite for speculative trading. But a potential pitfall for those trading on margin is a sharp decline in stock prices, which can expose investors to margin calls, requiring them to post additional collateral or having their brokers sell their securities. That's why high levels of margin debt can be worrisome  a wave of margin calls triggered by a sharp market correction could exacerbate the selling pressure on stocks, making matters worse. Consequently, high margin debts show the effect of over-leveraging and mispricing of risk in our financial system.
> 
> *comment*
> 
> When will the Fed stop thowing money around...................Is the real question..................
> 
> Who knows.



Didn't Bernanke say he was going to Taper off the $85 billion QE by $10B a month? That would put the crash at around September, because the only thing keeping the market this high is  Federal Reserve cash. When that is gone what would keep the market going?


----------



## william the wie

There could be 6-7 more taper cuts this year. That's what causes the most uncertainty.


----------



## JimBowie1958

SteadyMercury said:


> Can we define "crash" here? Are you talking about a 10% correction, a 20% bear market, or a 1929/2008 type dealie?



A typical 'correction' is a retrace of about 25 to 45% of the climb, so for something to be a 'crash' it needs to exceed this normal move.

Dow Jones Industrial Average Last 10 Years | MacroTrends

The last correction of this kind of scale was in 2008 and the floor was around 7000. So the DOW has climbed to 16,000+, which means a normal large cycle retrace would bring the DOW as low as 12,000.

So a crash I think would be a panic retrace, where people are willing to sell stocks a lot cheaper than their real value as income producing stocks or their likely return to future values would other wise indicate. So I think a crash would have to hit the 9,000 range before it comes back, but this is likely to occur over a couple of years as  the market makers do everything they can to keep as much value in the markets as possible.


----------



## JimBowie1958

william the wie said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> November 2014:  If the GOP loses the House, investor confidence will evaporate.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think  that is politically possible.
Click to expand...


Nor economically.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Snouter said:


> Next election.  They fleeced big time when Barry just got into office, but won't do anything until Barry is out of office.



Wont do anything?

What do you call helping themselves to a free $85,000,000,000 each month of USD?

Sounds like ongoing fleecing to me.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Geaux4it said:


> The laws of gravity come to mind. What goes up, must come down. This rising market is overbought and one day big money is going to want payday. When?
> 
> -Geaux



When the Saudis abandon us? When tapering comes to completion?

Who knows?

The markets can stay stupid longer than most of us can afford to wait them out.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. And all you nervous nellies predicted utter collapse if President Obama was re-elected. Didn't happen, won't happen.



Lol, Obama just finished the first year of his second term. It's still a bit early to be saying anyone was wrong, dumb ass.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Moonglow said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a a republican president I can guarantee it would be a cycle of every 4 years.
Click to expand...


More leftwing nonsense in every discussion by these ideological nitwits, roflmao.

There is no significant difference between what Obama will do and what the RINOs want to do; no a shit's worth of difference.


----------



## william the wie

Also utter collapse has to be defined. as in anything short of extinction is not technically utter collapse.


----------



## DrainBamage

JimBowie1958 said:


> Didn't Bernanke say he was going to Taper off the $85 billion QE by $10B a month? That would put the crash at around September, because the only thing keeping the market this high is  Federal Reserve cash. When that is gone what would keep the market going?


Well we're over two years since QE ended... so much for this theory.


----------



## william the wie

DrainBamage said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Bernanke say he was going to Taper off the $85 billion QE by $10B a month? That would put the crash at around September, because the only thing keeping the market this high is  Federal Reserve cash. When that is gone what would keep the market going?
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're over two years since QE ended... so much for this theory.
Click to expand...

True instead of a stock market collapse we experienced we had a collapse of fulltime employment


----------



## JimBowie1958

DrainBamage said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Bernanke say he was going to Taper off the $85 billion QE by $10B a month? That would put the crash at around September, because the only thing keeping the market this high is  Federal Reserve cash. When that is gone what would keep the market going?
> 
> 
> 
> Well we're over two years since QE ended... so much for this theory.
Click to expand...

No, the market did the retrace I had been talking about, from a high in May 18, 2015 of 18,298 down to 16,285 Aug 26, and repeated down to 5,973 on Feb 12, 2016. That was two 2,000 point drops in less than a year.

Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart


----------



## DrainBamage

JimBowie1958 said:


> No, the market did the retrace I had been talking about, from a high in May 18, 2015 of 18,298 down to 16,285 Aug 26, and repeated down to 5,973 on Feb 12, 2016. That was two 2,000 point drops in less than a year.
> 
> Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart


QE ended in 2014, you predicted a "crash" as a result. The market has always gone up and down, it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute dips happening over a year later as a direct result, especially since they recovered (as market dips always have) and you questioned what could fuel the stock market without QE. Clearly the stock market can go up without QE.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the market did the retrace I had been talking about, from a high in May 18, 2015 of 18,298 down to 16,285 Aug 26, and repeated down to 5,973 on Feb 12, 2016. That was two 2,000 point drops in less than a year.
> 
> Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart
> 
> 
> 
> QE ended in 2014, you predicted a "crash" as a result. The market has always gone up and down, it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute dips happening over a year later as a direct result, especially since they recovered (as market dips always have) and you questioned what could fuel the stock market without QE. Clearly the stock market can go up without QE.
Click to expand...

It could be that the market has been Up for the last 8 or 9 months due to the construction bubble.
The bubble WILL burst eventually but no one ever wants to believe it.


----------



## DrainBamage

william the wie said:


> True instead of a stock market collapse we experienced we had a collapse of fulltime employment


We do? What is your definition of the word "collapse"?


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> True instead of a stock market collapse we experienced we had a collapse of fulltime employment
> 
> 
> 
> We do? What is your definition of the word "collapse"?
Click to expand...

The average wage for millions of new coffee pumpers?  $9.00/hour.
Would YOU like to serve food?


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> It could be that the market has been Up for the last 8 or 9 months due to the construction bubble.
> The bubble WILL burst eventually but no one ever wants to believe it.


First off I agree 100%, eventually the market will have a more severe downturn. Not something like an 11% correction that JimBowie is calling a "collapse" 'but a real bear market with over 20% drop.

However it doesn't seem useful to sit in here randomly attributing the current bull market to whatever pops into our heads while claiming that someday it'll go back down. I know construction has an outsized influence on the US economy (compared to market cap of companies directly in construction) but looking at the companies driving the stock market expansion do you really think that can be attributed to construction?


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be that the market has been Up for the last 8 or 9 months due to the construction bubble.
> The bubble WILL burst eventually but no one ever wants to believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> First off I agree 100%, eventually the market will have a more severe downturn. Not something like an 11% correction that JimBowie is calling a "collapse" 'but a real bear market with over 20% drop.
> 
> However it doesn't seem useful to sit in here randomly attributing the current bull market to whatever pops into our heads while claiming that someday it'll go back down. I know construction has an outsized influence on the US economy (compared to market cap of companies directly in construction) but looking at the companies driving the stock market expansion do you really think that can be attributed to construction?
Click to expand...

No one Credit Officer or Mortgage Broker I know sees anything but good times ahead.
Of course I remind them that that's how they felt before Sep 2008.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> The average wage for millions of new coffee pumpers?  $9.00/hour.
> Would YOU like to serve food?


If you're implying new jobs are only low wage part time jobs, BLS data doesn't agree.

People working part time for economic reasons (the ones who want to work full time but can't find a FT job) has been falling steadily since the great recession.






While real wages have been stagnant for much of the last decade they have been rising lately, if new jobs had significantly lower wages one would expect to see wages falling sharply.



> No one Credit Officer or Mortgage Broker I know sees anything but good times ahead.
> Of course I remind them that that's how they felt before Sep 2008.


Anecdotes of opinions of mortgage brokers is hardly a good gauge of the economy.

Personally I have no idea what lies ahead for US economy or stock market. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average wage for millions of new coffee pumpers?  $9.00/hour.
> Would YOU like to serve food?
> 
> 
> 
> If you're implying new jobs are only low wage part time jobs, BLS data doesn't agree.
> 
> People working part time for economic reasons (the ones who want to work full time but can't find a FT job) has been falling steadily since the great recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While real wages have been stagnant for much of the last decade they have been rising lately, if new jobs had significantly lower wages one would expect to see wages falling sharply.
Click to expand...


As an ex-software developer and non-Indian Business Visa, I couldn't care any less about the what the BLS has to say about anything.
Their phony data is fed to them by the very same small to large size entities that want the cheapest labor possible.
Not to mention that many Health Care professionals, including MDs, are being replaced by Indian Business Visas.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> As an ex-software developer and non-Indian Business Visa, I couldn't care any less about the what the BLS has to say about anything.


Well hey what do you know, I'm an ex-software developer too. I don't use that fact to try to add weight to my opinion, but nice to see a comrade of the industry.



Indeependent said:


> Their phony data is fed to them by the very same small to large size entities that want the cheapest labor possible.
> Not to mention that many Health Care professionals, including MDs, are being replaced by Indian Business Visas.


Okay explain this claim you're making because I'd be interested to learn about it. Who exactly is feeding BLS phony data? The BLS current population survey is accomplished by calling households, how exactly is any large entity feeding them anything?

Your personal anecdotes on your doctor is about as useful as your conversations with mortgage brokers here. Irrelevant.

So explain to me how the phony data works?


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an ex-software developer and non-Indian Business Visa, I couldn't care any less about the what the BLS has to say about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hey what do you know, I'm an ex-software developer too. I don't use that fact to try to add weight to my opinion, but nice to see a comrade of the industry.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their phony data is fed to them by the very same small to large size entities that want the cheapest labor possible.
> Not to mention that many Health Care professionals, including MDs, are being replaced by Indian Business Visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay explain this claim you're making because I'd be interested to learn about it. Who exactly is feeding BLS phony data? The BLS current population survey is accomplished by calling households, how exactly is any large entity feeding them anything?
> 
> Your personal anecdotes on your doctor is about as useful as your conversations with mortgage brokers here. Irrelevant.
> 
> So explain to me how the phony data works?
Click to expand...

My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
I personally know 200+ MDs and a few dozen of them in my Town have already been rendered unemployable by Hospitals, Clinics and by Pro-Health, which is buying medical practice and offering the Doctors 2 year contracts.
The contracts are rarely renewed as there are more than enough Business Visas flooding our borders.

The bottom line...The BLS is worthless.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.


You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.



Indeependent said:


> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".


Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.



Indeependent said:


> I personally know


I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.

So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how? You said it is phony, this steady downward trend of part time workers, how exactly is phony data making that trend happen?


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.
> 
> So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how?
Click to expand...


If you want to know how the BLS collects data, go to you local Department of Labor and they will tell you what I just told you.
The BLS gets it's data from companies and companies always want to look like the good guys.
The DOL of labor will admit they DON'T audit the input.
Really, take a trip and get the truth.


----------



## william the wie

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.
> 
> So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how? You said it is phony, this steady downward trend of part time workers, how exactly is phony data making that trend happen?
Click to expand...




DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.
> 
> So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how? You said it is phony, this steady downward trend of part time workers, how exactly is phony data making that trend happen?
Click to expand...


There are three major things wrong with BLS data that everyone agrees on:

Labor force participation rate is at its lowest rate in decades.

part time employment is the only growing section of employment.

The birth-death jobs model is so screwed up that no one believes it is anywhere near correct ever except for random chance.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> If you want to know how the BLS collects data, go to you local Department of Labor and they will tell you what I just told you.
> The BLS gets it's data from companies and companies always want to look like the good guys.


BLS is part of the Department of Labor, the data on part-time workers comes from the Current Population Survey conducted by Census Bureau. Here:

_The Current Population Survey (CPS)[1] is a monthly* survey of about 60,000 U.S. households* conducted monthly by the United States Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS uses the data to publish reports early each month called the Employment Situation.[2] This report provides estimates of the unemployment rate and the numbers of employed and unemployed people in the United States based on the CPS. A readable Employment Situation Summary[3] is provided monthly. _

Calling companies is done for CES, which is used for data on number of jobs not characteristics of employment like who is working part-time for economic reasons.




Indeependent said:


> The DOL of labor will admit they DON'T audit the input.
> Really, take a trip and get the truth.


None of this bolsters your argument. I'll again ask, how EXACTLY is the data on part-time workers that shows downward trend since the recession phony?


----------



## DrainBamage

william the wie said:


> There are three major things wrong with BLS data that everyone agrees on:
> 
> Labor force participation rate is at its lowest rate in decades.
> 
> part time employment is the only growing section of employment.
> 
> The birth-death jobs model is so screwed up that no one believes it is anywhere near correct ever except for random chance.


Yep, labor force participation rate has been trending lower since 2001, but I'd hardly call from 67% to 63% a "collapse" as you described. I'm not sure how this makes BLS data wrong, they public exactly what they measure with U-3 through U-6.

Full time employment hasn't been growing? Explain.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to know how the BLS collects data, go to you local Department of Labor and they will tell you what I just told you.
> The BLS gets it's data from companies and companies always want to look like the good guys.
> 
> 
> 
> BLS is part of the Department of Labor, the data on part-time workers comes from the Current Population Survey conducted by Census Bureau. Here:
> 
> _The Current Population Survey (CPS)[1] is a monthly* survey of about 60,000 U.S. households* conducted monthly by the United States Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS uses the data to publish reports early each month called the Employment Situation.[2] This report provides estimates of the unemployment rate and the numbers of employed and unemployed people in the United States based on the CPS. A readable Employment Situation Summary[3] is provided monthly. _
> 
> Calling companies is done for CES, which is used for data on number of jobs not characteristics of employment like who is working part-time for economic reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DOL of labor will admit they DON'T audit the input.
> Really, take a trip and get the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of this bolsters your argument. I'll again ask, how EXACTLY is the data on part-time workers that shows downward trend since the recession phony?
Click to expand...


2009 job losses already have topped 2 million mark - Apr. 3, 2009
You mean you don't know that millions of people lost their jobs in 2009 and that most of these jobs were taken by the business visas that were laid off and didn't go back home?
Do you live in La La Land?

I told you the truth and you don't want the truth.
I will no longer respond concerning this particular subject until you go to your local DOL and ask.


----------



## william the wie

Indeependent said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.
> 
> So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to know how the BLS collects data, go to you local Department of Labor and they will tell you what I just told you.
> The BLS gets it's data from companies and companies always want to look like the good guys.
> The DOL of labor will admit they DON'T audit the input.
> Really, take a trip and get the truth.
Click to expand...




Indeependent said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.
> 
> So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to know how the BLS collects data, go to you local Department of Labor and they will tell you what I just told you.
> The BLS gets it's data from companies and companies always want to look like the good guys.
> The DOL of labor will admit they DON'T audit the input.
> Really, take a trip and get the truth.
Click to expand...


Since this is more your area of expertise than mine I want to ask how difficult  would it be to set up a tell me three times rating of policy moves using Bayesian probability, fuzzy logic and Chaos theory and multiple iterations to reduce the amount of wishing it is so in so much of the bureaucracy?


----------



## Indeependent

william the wie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.
> 
> So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to know how the BLS collects data, go to you local Department of Labor and they will tell you what I just told you.
> The BLS gets it's data from companies and companies always want to look like the good guys.
> The DOL of labor will admit they DON'T audit the input.
> Really, take a trip and get the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal anecdotes run into the hundreds as I'm an Orthodox Jew who has family and friends all over the US.
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> My personal anecdotes concerning Trump becoming President were also ridiculed on this board...until Trump won.
> The Internet has enabled massive groups of Jews to communicate with each other on a daily basis and we share what's going on in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making a lot more effort trying to establish how you must be right since you know a lot of people,  but I would never accept claims of someone's social circle as evidence of their intellectual superiority, would you? Didn't think so, so why bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies and is at least 3 months behind in it's "accuracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah ha! This is what I'm looking for. Explain. You can put so much content in your post about how many advanced degrees your friends have, if you would take the time to instead back up your claims about how exactly the BLS data I posted on part-time workers is wrong I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll repeat again, who you claim to and personal anecdotes know doesn't make you right about macroeconomic measures. I'm fairly skeptical of someone actually knowing anything who's argument consists of 90% claims of how much they know and 10% actually demonstrating it.
> 
> So about the BLS data for part timers being wrong... how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to know how the BLS collects data, go to you local Department of Labor and they will tell you what I just told you.
> The BLS gets it's data from companies and companies always want to look like the good guys.
> The DOL of labor will admit they DON'T audit the input.
> Really, take a trip and get the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since this is more your area of expertise than mine I want to ask how difficult  would it be to set up a tell me three times rating of policy moves using Bayesian probability, fuzzy logic and Chaos theory and multiple iterations to reduce the amount of wishing it is so in so much of the bureaucracy?
Click to expand...


There is NO chaos in Government OR Business when it comes to making more by paying people less.
I suggest you take a trip to YOUR local DOL and ask from where the employment figures originate.


----------



## william the wie

UE does not measure the participation rate because the self employed, the military, the gray market or black market are not actually counted.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> ]2009 job losses already have topped 2 million mark - Apr. 3, 2009
> You mean you don't know that millions of people lost their jobs in 2009 and that most of these jobs were taken by the business visas that were laid off and didn't go back home?
> Do you live in La La Land?


So as evidence the trend of part time workers going down is phony, you present an article from 2009 saying how many jobs were lost?

I don't disagree that there were millions of jobs lost in the great recession.. My argument was that since said recession the number of people working part time for economic reasons has been falling, which obviously an article from 2009 wouldn't refute since it can't see into the future. I'm baffled as to how you think that link helps you out here,  nobody is arguing there wasn't a recession with lots of job losses.



Indeependent said:


> I told you the truth and you don't want the truth.
> I will no longer respond concerning this particular subject until you go to your local DOL and ask.


This isn't true, you said the BLS data is bunk and when I repeatedly ask you exactly how you've come up with:
- much text about how gloriously educated your friends are
- riveting details of your interactions with mortgage brokers
- a misunderstanding of how BLS calculates employment characteristics
- an article from 2009 stating the obvious

I'll ask again, how exactly is the BLS data on number of workers part time for economic reasons phony? Hint = an 8 year old article about the recession doesn't provide this.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]2009 job losses already have topped 2 million mark - Apr. 3, 2009
> You mean you don't know that millions of people lost their jobs in 2009 and that most of these jobs were taken by the business visas that were laid off and didn't go back home?
> Do you live in La La Land?
> 
> 
> 
> So as evidence the trend of part time workers going down is phony, you present an article from 2009 saying how many jobs were lost?
> 
> I don't disagree that there were millions of jobs lost in the great recession.. My argument was that since said recession the number of people working part time for economic reasons has been falling, which obviously an article from 2009 wouldn't refute since it can't see into the future. I'm baffled as to how you think that link helps you out here,  nobody is arguing there wasn't a recession with lots of job losses.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you the truth and you don't want the truth.
> I will no longer respond concerning this particular subject until you go to your local DOL and ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't true, you said the BLS data is bunk and when I repeatedly ask you exactly how you've come up with:
> - much text about how gloriously educated your friends are
> - riveting details of your interactions with mortgage brokers
> - a misunderstanding of how BLS calculates employment characteristics
> - an article from 2009 stating the obvious
> 
> I'll ask again, how exactly is the BLS data on number of workers part time for economic reasons phony?
Click to expand...

You are one stubborn guy...
Don't ask ME...go to your local DOL and ask THEM.
It's just that you want to think these BLS calculations are so complex it takes a PhD to figure them out.
I know enough PhDs to know it's all a pack of lies.

Now display some maturity and go to your local DOL and ask THEM.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]2009 job losses already have topped 2 million mark - Apr. 3, 2009
> You mean you don't know that millions of people lost their jobs in 2009 and that most of these jobs were taken by the business visas that were laid off and didn't go back home?
> Do you live in La La Land?
> 
> 
> 
> So as evidence the trend of part time workers going down is phony, you present an article from 2009 saying how many jobs were lost?
> 
> I don't disagree that there were millions of jobs lost in the great recession.. My argument was that since said recession the number of people working part time for economic reasons has been falling, which obviously an article from 2009 wouldn't refute since it can't see into the future. I'm baffled as to how you think that link helps you out here,  nobody is arguing there wasn't a recession with lots of job losses.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you the truth and you don't want the truth.
> I will no longer respond concerning this particular subject until you go to your local DOL and ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't true, you said the BLS data is bunk and when I repeatedly ask you exactly how you've come up with:
> - much text about how gloriously educated your friends are
> - riveting details of your interactions with mortgage brokers
> - a misunderstanding of how BLS calculates employment characteristics
> - an article from 2009 stating the obvious
> 
> I'll ask again, how exactly is the BLS data on number of workers part time for economic reasons phony? Hint = an 8 year old article about the recession doesn't provide this.
Click to expand...


I just realized by your hyphened points that you haven't been reading my posts with your mind, you've been reading them with your HEART.
The data comes from COMPANIES.
COMPANIES lie (that's how we get Market Crashes).


----------



## william the wie

double counting of those with multiple parttime jobs and that is where Chaos theory comes in. We do not have sufficient knowledge of initial much less present conditions to determine actual changes. A business start supported by part time work could be counted three different ways.


----------



## DrainBamage

william the wie said:


> UE does not measure the participation rate because the self employed, the military, the gray market or black market are not actually counted.


You're correct, UE doesn't measure labor force participation rate but that isn't what it is trying to measure. It is trying to calculate what percentage of people actively looking for work have jobs. It has no stated goal of measure LBF, so it isn't wrong in the sense of attempting to calculate what its trying to measure.

LBF is also published by BLS, using same data that derives U-3.

Either way I'm not sure how this supports your claim that only part time jobs have been growing.


----------



## Indeependent

william the wie said:


> double counting of those with multiple parttime jobs and that is where Chaos theory comes in. We do not have sufficient knowledge of initial much less present conditions to determine actual changes. A business start supported by part time work could be counted three different ways.



Most trespassers on Long Island work at least 2 jobs.
Their Citizen children are not doing much better.
The bottom line is that Off-Shoring, Visas and Trespassers have deflated wages.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> UE does not measure the participation rate because the self employed, the military, the gray market or black market are not actually counted.
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct, UE doesn't measure labor force participation rate but that isn't what it is trying to measure. It is trying to calculate what percentage of people actively looking for work have jobs. It has no stated goal of measure LBF, so it isn't wrong in the sense of attempting to calculate what its trying to measure.
> 
> LBF is also published by BLS, using same data that derives U-3.
> 
> Either way I'm not sure how this supports your claim that only part time jobs have been growing.
Click to expand...

I presume you live off of your portfolio.


----------



## william the wie

The fact is that if Trump is successful with his platform UE will increase for the next 12-18 months as more people rejoin the laborforce. That is the kind of counter-intuitive mess we are in because of the BLS model.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> The data comes from COMPANIES.
> COMPANIES lie (that's how we get Market Crashes).


No, it doesn't. You keep saying this but I quoted the exact source of the data from BLS. Since you seem determined to ignore this and continue arguing using a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject I'll do it again:

First the source of number of workers part time for economic reasons: Number of people working part time for economic reasons falls in June 2016 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

There were 20.5 million people in June 2016 who worked *part time for noneconomic reasons*. These people worked part time because of school or training, family or personal obligations, or other reasons. *These data are from the Current Population Survey.* For more information, see “The Employment Situation — June 2016” (HTML) (PDF). For more charts, see Graphics for Economic News Releases: The Employment Situation. Part-time workers are people who worked fewer than 35 hours during the survey reference week.


Now the definition of said Current Population Survey, from Current Population Survey (CPS)

The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly *survey of households conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics*. It provides a comprehensive body of data on the labor force, employment, unemployment, persons not in the labor force, hours of work, earnings, and other demographic and labor force characteristics.


More on CPS here: 

*Approximately 60,000 households are eligible for the CPS.* Sample households are selected by a multistage stratified statistical sampling scheme.[7] *A household is interviewed for 4 successive months,* then not interviewed for 8 months, then returned to the sample for 4 months after that. An adult member of each household provides information for all members of the household.


Given above , it takes a special kind of stubborn to be in denial about the source of the data on workers part time for economic reasons. You're thinking of CES survey for calling companies, which is not what is used for employment characteristics. I get that people misunderstand this data, but to plug your ears and keep chanting what is obviously incorrect is incredible.

So again for 10th time, how exactly is the BLS data on part timers phony? (Yes, I realize at this point you just threw that out but cannot back it up)


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> I presume you live off of your portfolio.


Irrelevant attempt at distraction. How I live has nothing to do with published methodologies of data collection and statistical analysis methods of BLS.

I ask again, how exactly is the BLS data on part time workers phony?


----------



## DrainBamage

william the wie said:


> The fact is that if Trump is successful with his platform UE will increase for the next 12-18 months as more people rejoin the laborforce. That is the kind of counter-intuitive mess we are in because of the BLS model.


The model for U-3 isn't from BLS, it is a model from UN's International Labor Organization. It attempts to measure how many actively looking for jobs can't find one, not LBF.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The data comes from COMPANIES.
> COMPANIES lie (that's how we get Market Crashes).
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. You keep saying this but I quoted the exact source of the data from BLS. Since you seem determined to ignore this and continue arguing using a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject I'll do it again:
> 
> First the source of number of workers part time for economic reasons: Number of people working part time for economic reasons falls in June 2016 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> There were 20.5 million people in June 2016 who worked *part time for noneconomic reasons*. These people worked part time because of school or training, family or personal obligations, or other reasons. *These data are from the Current Population Survey.* For more information, see “The Employment Situation — June 2016” (HTML) (PDF). For more charts, see Graphics for Economic News Releases: The Employment Situation. Part-time workers are people who worked fewer than 35 hours during the survey reference week.
> 
> 
> Now the definition of said Current Population Survey, from Current Population Survey (CPS)
> 
> The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly *survey of households conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics*. It provides a comprehensive body of data on the labor force, employment, unemployment, persons not in the labor force, hours of work, earnings, and other demographic and labor force characteristics.
> 
> 
> More on CPS here:
> 
> *Approximately 60,000 households are eligible for the CPS.* Sample households are selected by a multistage stratified statistical sampling scheme.[7] *A household is interviewed for 4 successive months,* then not interviewed for 8 months, then returned to the sample for 4 months after that. An adult member of each household provides information for all members of the household.
> 
> 
> Given above , it takes a special kind of stubborn to be in denial about the source of the data on workers part time for economic reasons. You're thinking of CES survey for calling companies, which is not what is used for employment characteristics. I get that people misunderstand this data, but to plug your ears and keep chanting what is obviously incorrect is incredible.
> 
> So again for 10th time, how exactly is the BLS data on part timers phony? (Yes, I realize at this point you just threw that out but cannot back it up)
Click to expand...

This is rich...You are quoting the BLS as to how the BLS operates.
The site is NOT telling the whole story.
Now get off your chair tomorrow and take a trip to your local DOL and get the truth.
This subject is closed until you do such.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you live off of your portfolio.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant attempt at distraction. How I live has nothing to do with published methodologies of data collection and statistical analysis methods of BLS.
> 
> I ask again, how exactly is the BLS data on part time workers phony?
Click to expand...

So you live off your portfolio and want to hypnotize yourself into thinking the companies you invest in are helping Americans.
They're not.


----------



## william the wie

Indeependent said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> double counting of those with multiple parttime jobs and that is where Chaos theory comes in. We do not have sufficient knowledge of initial much less present conditions to determine actual changes. A business start supported by part time work could be counted three different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most trespassers on Long Island work at least 2 jobs.
> Their Citizen children are not doing much better.
> The bottom line is that Off-Shoring, Visas and Trespassers have deflated wages.
Click to expand...


While true that wage drop is more a result of non-investment than illegals. Public and private investment has been dropping due to government policy mostly state but plenty of federal and municipal policy as well.


----------



## Indeependent

william the wie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> double counting of those with multiple parttime jobs and that is where Chaos theory comes in. We do not have sufficient knowledge of initial much less present conditions to determine actual changes. A business start supported by part time work could be counted three different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most trespassers on Long Island work at least 2 jobs.
> Their Citizen children are not doing much better.
> The bottom line is that Off-Shoring, Visas and Trespassers have deflated wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While true that wage drop is more a result of non-investment than illegals. Public and private investment has been dropping due to government policy mostly state but plenty of federal and municipal policy as well.
Click to expand...

China, India, Mexico...a plague upon the average American's financial stability.


----------



## william the wie

Indeependent said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you live off of your portfolio.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant attempt at distraction. How I live has nothing to do with published methodologies of data collection and statistical analysis methods of BLS.
> 
> I ask again, how exactly is the BLS data on part time workers phony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you live off your portfolio and want to hypnotize yourself into thinking the companies you invest in are helping Americans.
> They're not.
Click to expand...

actually my wife and I do live off our portfolios and pensions I normally invest where there is real investment and undervaluation combined. I do want real net investment to increase so that I can make more off my portfolio.


----------



## Indeependent

william the wie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you live off of your portfolio.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant attempt at distraction. How I live has nothing to do with published methodologies of data collection and statistical analysis methods of BLS.
> 
> I ask again, how exactly is the BLS data on part time workers phony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you live off your portfolio and want to hypnotize yourself into thinking the companies you invest in are helping Americans.
> They're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually my wife and I do live off our portfolios and pensions I normally invest where there is real investment and undervaluation combined. I do want real net investment to increase so that I can make more off my portfolio.
Click to expand...

And I admire anyone who admits such and at the same time sees reality.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> This is rich...You are quoting the BLS as to how the BLS operates.
> The site is NOT telling the whole story.
> Now get off your chair tomorrow and take a trip to your local DOL and get the truth.
> This subject is closed until you do such.


Ah, so now you are explaining your obvious confusion of the household versus establishment survey by implying there is some nefarious plot by BLS to mislead about the source of their data.

So now you're two levels deep. The data is phony because they ask companies, and if BLS specifically says the part-timer data comes from household survey we shouldn't believe this massive government agency with thousands of employees are all hiding some secret where they don't use household survey for that. You have further strength in your argument by repeatedly bragging about how many people with advanced degrees you know.

If it is possible for you to sound any more ridiculous I can't imagine what it would be.



Indeependent said:


> So you live off your portfolio and want to hypnotize yourself into thinking the companies you invest in are helping Americans.
> They're not.


Um, I didn't answer your question about whether I live off my portfolio and you know it, so here you've managed to both answer for me then form an opinion I have based on the answer you provided about my own personal finance situation.

Desperate much?

Here is what we know:

1. Indeependent believes BLS data on part timers is phony
2. Indeependent explains this by saying part-timers data comes from surveying businesses
3. When it is pointed out part-time data comes from Household Survey Indeependent discounts that as somehow false since it is BLS saying that

In other words, Indeependent is talking out of his ass and can't support any of his argument aside from constant references to how he knows people with advanced degrees and participates in a network of people who are in the know. Oh yeah also an article from 2009.

You're right, case closed.


----------



## william the wie

Indeependent said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> double counting of those with multiple parttime jobs and that is where Chaos theory comes in. We do not have sufficient knowledge of initial much less present conditions to determine actual changes. A business start supported by part time work could be counted three different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most trespassers on Long Island work at least 2 jobs.
> Their Citizen children are not doing much better.
> The bottom line is that Off-Shoring, Visas and Trespassers have deflated wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While true that wage drop is more a result of non-investment than illegals. Public and private investment has been dropping due to government policy mostly state but plenty of federal and municipal policy as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China, India, Mexico...a plague upon the average American's financial stability.
Click to expand...


Actually increasing household financial instability dates from the 1970s for sure and possibly the late 1960s. "High Wire" by Peter Gosselin is a bit dated but we have too many leftover memes from "The Great Inflation" 1966-82 and that is another important read.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is rich...You are quoting the BLS as to how the BLS operates.
> The site is NOT telling the whole story.
> Now get off your chair tomorrow and take a trip to your local DOL and get the truth.
> This subject is closed until you do such.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so now you are explaining your obvious confusion of the household versus establishment survey by implying there is some nefarious plot by BLS to mislead about the source of their data.
> 
> So now you're two levels deep. The data is phony because they ask companies, and if BLS specifically says the part-timer data comes from household survey we shouldn't believe this massive government agency with thousands of employees are all hiding some secret where they don't use household survey for that. You have further strength in your argument by repeatedly bragging about how many people with advanced degrees you know.
> 
> If it is possible for you to sound any more ridiculous I can't imagine what it would be.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you live off your portfolio and want to hypnotize yourself into thinking the companies you invest in are helping Americans.
> They're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, I didn't answer your question about whether I live off my portfolio and you know it, so here you've managed to both answer for me then form an opinion I have based on the answer you provided about my own personal finance situation.
> 
> Desperate much?
Click to expand...

There is NO nefarious motives in how the BLS operates.
It's a governmental agency with limited resources.
They do what they can do.
And they are NOT capable of analyzing or predicting ANYTHING when the US has a Global Employee Pool.


----------



## Indeependent

william the wie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> double counting of those with multiple parttime jobs and that is where Chaos theory comes in. We do not have sufficient knowledge of initial much less present conditions to determine actual changes. A business start supported by part time work could be counted three different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most trespassers on Long Island work at least 2 jobs.
> Their Citizen children are not doing much better.
> The bottom line is that Off-Shoring, Visas and Trespassers have deflated wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While true that wage drop is more a result of non-investment than illegals. Public and private investment has been dropping due to government policy mostly state but plenty of federal and municipal policy as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China, India, Mexico...a plague upon the average American's financial stability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually increasing household financial instability dates from the 1970s for sure and possibly the late 1960s. "High Wire" by Peter Gosselin is a bit dated but we have too many leftover memes from "The Great Inflation" 1966-82 and that is another important read.
Click to expand...

There has been a major difference in employment since post 9/11 regarding the 3 sources of non-American labor.
I know lots of people with advanced degrees who lost jobs in the 70s but they knew when the market recovered their career wasn't going to be sent overseas or taken by a business visa.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> There is NO nefarious motives in how the BLS operates.
> It's a governmental agency with limited resources.
> They do what they can do.
> And they are NOT capable of analyzing or predicting ANYTHING when the US has a Global Employee Pool.


You sure type a lot of stuff that doesn't prove your point.

When it was shown to you that part-timer data comes from Population Survey you dismissed it on the grounds the explanation came from BLS site. Now you somehow have these overworked people taking the time to fabricate the source of their data, but they aren't the ones doing the collecting for CPS that would be Census Bureau. Nobody has said anything about predicting anything, we're talking about actual data from surveys of current (or previous) employment status. Their data shows a clear and steady decline in the number of part time workers, which discounts your claim to the contrary.

Since then you''ve been spinning into a logic pretzel (and looking quite foolish) trying to dance around it. Let's keep it up, this thread is hilarious and a classic I'll probably revisit in future days for a good laugh at you.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> [
> There has been a major difference in employment since post 9/11 regarding the 3 sources of non-American labor.
> I know lots of people with advanced degrees who lost jobs in the 70s but they knew when the market recovered their career wasn't going to be sent overseas or taken by a business visa.


And this makes the data on number of workers part-time for economic reason phony how exactly?

Remember you said it is phony, and have since incorrectly claimed the data came from calling companies, which when proven wrong you now believe BLS isn't properly explaining when they say the data comes from calling 60,000 households.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO nefarious motives in how the BLS operates.
> It's a governmental agency with limited resources.
> They do what they can do.
> And they are NOT capable of analyzing or predicting ANYTHING when the US has a Global Employee Pool.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure type a lot of stuff that doesn't prove your point.
> 
> When it was shown to you that part-timer data comes from Population Survey you dismissed it on the grounds the explanation came from BLS site. Now you somehow have these overworked people taking the time to fabricate the source of their data, but they aren't the ones doing the collecting for CPS that would be Census Bureau. Nobody has said anything about predicting anything, we're talking about actual data from surveys of current (or previous) employment status. Their data shows a clear and steady decline in the number of part time workers, which discounts your claim to the contrary.
> 
> Since then you''ve been spinning into a logic pretzel (and looking quite foolish) trying to dance around it. Let's keep it up, this thread is hilarious and a classic I'll probably revisit in future days for a good laugh at you.
Click to expand...


How do we know these people were telling the truth?
How do we know the data from companies is true?
The BLS simply takes it's input and publishes what their bosses tell them to publish.
Now be a good little Portfolio Boy and visit your DOL.
I presume you are healthy enough to drive.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There has been a major difference in employment since post 9/11 regarding the 3 sources of non-American labor.
> I know lots of people with advanced degrees who lost jobs in the 70s but they knew when the market recovered their career wasn't going to be sent overseas or taken by a business visa.
> 
> 
> 
> And this makes the data on number of workers part-time for economic reason phony how exactly?
> 
> Remember you said it is phony, and have since incorrectly claimed the data came from calling companies, which when proven wrong you now believe BLS isn't properly explaining when they say the data comes from calling 60,000 households.
Click to expand...

The data is not audited...conclusions from unaudited data are phony.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> How do we know these people were telling the truth?
> How do we know the data from companies is true?
> The BLS simply takes it's input and publishes what their bosses tell them to publish.
> Now be a good little Portfolio Boy and visit your DOL.
> I presume you are healthy enough to drive.


1. What people? Are you suggesting that all these thousands of government workers, many of whom have worked through several adminstrations, are in some massive conspiracy to falsify data? Do you have proof of this?

2. Irrelevant, since we've already shown you misunderstood the source of the source of data on part time workers. It comes from household survey.

3. See #1, you're basically saying it is phony because you say so. Clearly you know nothing about how their analysis works so you're just making things up, which is no way to support a position.

4. DOL is a federal agency that includes BLS

5. More attempts at distraction, has nothing to do with what we're talking about



Indeependent said:


> The data is not audited...conclusions from unaudited data are phony.


How do you know it isn't audited? I submit you know absolutely nothing about the processes that go into taking Household Survey data and generating reports on the number of people working part time for economic reasons. This is nothing more than "its phony because I believe it is" argument that gets you nowhere.

You being clueless about their process is bolstered by you clearly misunderstanding the source of part-time data, you incorrectly thought it came from CES. Surely someone that naive about the unemployment data is also naive about whether they audit data.

Furthermore I'd disagree that non--audited data is phony, phony implies intentional deceit which while possible with any data set it is in no way implied just by not having been audited.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know these people were telling the truth?
> How do we know the data from companies is true?
> The BLS simply takes it's input and publishes what their bosses tell them to publish.
> Now be a good little Portfolio Boy and visit your DOL.
> I presume you are healthy enough to drive.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What people? Are you suggesting that all these thousands of government workers, many of whom have worked through several adminstrations, are in some massive conspiracy to falsify data? Do you have proof of this?
> 
> 2. Irrelevant, since we've already shown you misunderstood the source of the source of data on part time workers. It comes from household survey.
> 
> 3. See #1, you're basically saying it is phony because you say so. Clearly you know nothing about how their analysis works so you're just making things up, which is no way to support a position.
> 
> 4. DOL is a federal agency that includes BLS
> 
> 5. More attempts at distraction, has nothing to do with what we're talking about
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The data is not audited...conclusions from unaudited data are phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it isn't audited? I submit you know absolutely nothing about the processes that go into taking Household Survey data and generating reports on the number of people working part time for economic reasons. This is nothing more than "its phony because I believe it is" argument that gets you nowhere.
> 
> You being clueless about their process is bolstered by you clearly misunderstanding the source of part-time data, you incorrectly thought it came from CES. Surely someone that naive about the unemployment data is also naive about whether they audit data.
> 
> Furthermore I'd disagree that non--audited data is phony, phony implies intentional deceit which while possible with any data set it is in no way implied just by not having been audited.
Click to expand...


This is by far your dumbest post.
Even WilliamTheWie is ignoring your nonsense at this point.
Don't put words in my mouth,
Now go back and read my posts again.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> This is by far your dumbest post.
> Even WilliamTheWie is ignoring your nonsense at this point.
> Don't put words in my mouth,
> Now go back and read my posts again.


I've read them, and you STILL haven't been able to explain how part-timer data is phony despite that being the point of contention.

Implying BLS employees lying, claiming lack of audits when you have no idea about their statistical process, all sorts of stuff you're throwing out without any proof doesn't help your position. Bottom line you have nothing to prove the data is phony, and it is fairly amusing to what you trying to dancing around that fact.

So I'll ask again, how EXACTLY is BLS data on part timers phony? Taking wild ass guesses that they must be lying or don't audit when you have no idea isn't an answer, that is tantamount to saying you're right because you are right.


----------



## william the wie

Indeependent said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There has been a major difference in employment since post 9/11 regarding the 3 sources of non-American labor.
> I know lots of people with advanced degrees who lost jobs in the 70s but they knew when the market recovered their career wasn't going to be sent overseas or taken by a business visa.
> 
> 
> 
> And this makes the data on number of workers part-time for economic reason phony how exactly?
> 
> Remember you said it is phony, and have since incorrectly claimed the data came from calling companies, which when proven wrong you now believe BLS isn't properly explaining when they say the data comes from calling 60,000 households.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The data is not audited...conclusions from unaudited data are phony.
Click to expand...


There are various censuses so every 3-10 years there is defensible data on one or more inputs of the BLS model so everyone in more or less their right mind uses data from analysts. If you can afford to spend $10K a year for a Reuters terminal or $25K for a Bloomberg one you can get reasonably good data in a more or less timely fashion. However Bloomberg runs a TV channel that mainly acts as a tutorial to help you find the data if the help desk is busy.


----------



## william the wie

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is by far your dumbest post.
> Even WilliamTheWie is ignoring your nonsense at this point.
> Don't put words in my mouth,
> Now go back and read my posts again.
> 
> 
> 
> I've read them, and you STILL haven't been able to explain how part-timer data is phony despite that being the point of contention.
> 
> Implying BLS employees lying, lack of audits, all sorts of stuff you're throwing out without any proof doesn't help your position. Bottom line you have nothing to prove the data is phony, and it is fairly amusing to what you trying to dancing around that fact.
Click to expand...


The problem is that UE is defined by organizations such as the World Bank, IMF and the Bank of International Settlements in ways that are not particularly useful in the US.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is by far your dumbest post.
> Even WilliamTheWie is ignoring your nonsense at this point.
> Don't put words in my mouth,
> Now go back and read my posts again.
> 
> 
> 
> I've read them, and you STILL haven't been able to explain how part-timer data is phony despite that being the point of contention.
> 
> Implying BLS employees lying, claiming lack of audits when you have no idea about their statistical process, all sorts of stuff you're throwing out without any proof doesn't help your position. Bottom line you have nothing to prove the data is phony, and it is fairly amusing to what you trying to dancing around that fact.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how EXACTLY is BLS data on part timers phony? Taking wild ass guesses that they must be lying or don't audit when you have no idea isn't an answer, that is tantamount to saying you're right because you are right.
Click to expand...


Point out the post(s) where I claim the BLS is lying.


----------



## DrainBamage

william the wie said:


> The problem is that UE is defined by organizations such as the World Bank, IMF and the Bank of International Settlements in ways that are not particularly useful in the US.


No, the common measure of unemployment (U-3) is defined by International Labor Organization and has been adapted by BLS.

It measures the number of people who have jobs / (people with jobs + actively looking for work)

From that they derive a percentage of labor force that cannot find work despite actively looking.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> Point out the post(s) where I claim the BLS is lying.





Indeependent said:


> This is rich...You are quoting the BLS as to how the BLS operates.



If you're dismissing an explanation by BLS of how their data is collected, then you are implying deception. It is fairly cut and dry, they say part-timer data comes from the Household Survey, while you say it comes from the Establishment Survey. You are discounting their explanation of CB calling 60k households by saying they are in fact calling companies which fits more easily into your narrative that the data is wrong because companies want to look good. By doing this you are saying they are lying by actually using company surveys for part-time workers instead of what they say they are using, the household.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point out the post(s) where I claim the BLS is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is rich...You are quoting the BLS as to how the BLS operates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're dismissing an explanation by BLS of how their data is collected, then you are implying deception. It is fairly cut and dry, they say part-timer data comes from the Household Survey, while you say it comes from the Establishment Survey. You are discounting their explanation of CB calling 60k households by saying they are in fact calling companies which fits more easily into your narrative that the data is wrong because companies want to look good. By doing this you are saying they are lying by actually using company surveys for part-time workers instead of what they say they are using, the household.
Click to expand...

Their data is collected by those who deem to submit to their request for data.
There is no auditing of the accuracy of this data.
The fact is that 16 years of the BLS analyzing this "data" and making predictions based upon it caused Trump to win the election.


----------



## william the wie

The ILO operates on the following assumptions:

That the average country has a population 3 million true but since the world's three largest countries by population: China, India and the US; account for 48% of the world's population the ILO model does not work in any of them without a lot of modifications. In fact even the 11th largest country, Mexico, needs a lot of modifications.

Those modifications are provided by the competing international banking regulators. The ILO operates on the principle that most of the world lives in a Denmark or similar country.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> Their data is collected by those who deem to submit to their request for data.
> There is no auditing of the accuracy of this data.
> The fact is that 16 years of the BLS analyzing this "data" and making predictions based upon it caused Trump to win the election.


1. Correct, which in no way backs up your claim that the consistent long term trend of part-timers since the recession is "phony"
2. You have no idea whether there is auditing and you know it, you didn't even know the data came from Household not Establishment
3. Logic fail and argument flail, there are many contributing factors to Trump winning the elction


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their data is collected by those who deem to submit to their request for data.
> There is no auditing of the accuracy of this data.
> The fact is that 16 years of the BLS analyzing this "data" and making predictions based upon it caused Trump to win the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct, which in no way backs up your claim that the consistent long term trend of part-timers since the recession is "phony"
> 2. You have no idea whether there is auditing and you know it, you didn't even know the data came from Household not Establishment
> 3. Logic fail and argument flail, there are many contributing factors to Trump winning the elction
Click to expand...


You are being intellectually dishonest on all 3 points.
I presume you haven't been watching Trump's speeches and Thank You tour and listening to his platform and WHY he developed such a platform and WHY he won despite the fact that BOTH parties wanted him to lose.
Are you going to visit your local DOL and ask or are you a message board economist?


----------



## DrainBamage

william the wie said:


> The ILO operates on the following assumptions:
> 
> That the average country has a population 3 million true but since the world's three largest countries by population: China, India and the US; account for 48% of the world's population the ILO model does not work in any of them without a lot of modifications. In fact even the 11th largest country, Mexico, needs a lot of modifications.
> 
> Those modifications are provided by the competing international banking regulators. The ILO operates on the principle that most of the world lives in a Denmark or similar country.


I'd love to see your source on this as I find it interesting, please provide. I've read the entire definition of unemployment on ILO's website and it makes no references to assumptions about population. It does mention relaxing criteria for definition of people seeking work in countries with more informal less organized labor system but in the definition I saw this is population agnostic since many smaller population countries like Singapore or Denmark have more organized labor systems while other populous countries like Indonesia or Vietnam not so much.

The ILO model for measuring unemployment has already been explained, as it is the basis for U-3. It is useful as a measure of slack in the labor market, and I don't see how this formula of people-with-jobs / (people-with-jobs + people-actively-seeking jobs) needs modification based on population, it should measure the same regardless. What part of that definition is modified by banking regulators?The definition is from Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians in Geneva, 1982.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> [
> You are being intellectually dishonest on all 3 points.
> I presume you haven't been watching Trump's speeches and Thank You tour and listening to his platform and WHY he developed such a platform and WHY he won despite the fact that BOTH parties wanted him to lose.
> Are you going to visit your local DOL and ask or are you a message board economist?


No I'm not, I'm directly pointing out the flaws in your argument. You're dismissing it as dishonest because it sinks them and you don't like it.

Trump's platform has nothing to do with your claim the part-timer data by BLS is phony, and you know it.

I make no claim to be an economist, but I sure smell BS when it's being shoveled and you have done nothing but talk in circles trying to avoid backing up your claims of phony data by BLS. Bragging about how many of your friends have advanced degrees didn't work, falsely claiming the data comes from surveying companies didn't work, pretending some enlightenment will arrive by driving to a local Dept of Labor branch didn't work, throwing out random speculation about how BLS audits their data when you clearly have no idea what they do didn't work.

This thread is wonderful, let's keep it up you are more entertaining than anything else I've got going on today.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You are being intellectually dishonest on all 3 points.
> I presume you haven't been watching Trump's speeches and Thank You tour and listening to his platform and WHY he developed such a platform and WHY he won despite the fact that BOTH parties wanted him to lose.
> Are you going to visit your local DOL and ask or are you a message board economist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're dismissing it as dishonest because it sinks them and you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I do not need to resort to ad hominems.
Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.


I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.

1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data

So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?

You've thrown out so many different random explanations of why BLS data is phony it is difficult to keep track of which one you currently have as the reason. I'm pretty sure companies lying has been shot down since you finally understand part-timer data doesn't come from CEP, and so is it this lack of auditing that you have no idea if true or maybe still the people on the phone lying in a consistent trend downwards over 8 years?


----------



## JimBowie1958

DrainBamage said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the market did the retrace I had been talking about, from a high in May 18, 2015 of 18,298 down to 16,285 Aug 26, and repeated down to 5,973 on Feb 12, 2016. That was two 2,000 point drops in less than a year.
> 
> Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart
> 
> 
> 
> QE ended in 2014, you predicted a "crash" as a result. The market has always gone up and down, it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute dips happening over a year later as a direct result, especially since they recovered (as market dips always have) and you questioned what could fuel the stock market without QE. Clearly the stock market can go up without QE.
Click to expand...

Dude a whole lot of people would call a 2000+ point drop a 'crash', duh.


----------



## JimBowie1958

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.
> 
> 1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
> 2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
> 3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data
> 
> So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?
Click to expand...

Citing three points he disagrees with them on does not equate to calling them dishonest, dude.

My Gawd, grow a brain or just shut the fuck up, how about it?


----------



## Indeependent

JimBowie1958 said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the market did the retrace I had been talking about, from a high in May 18, 2015 of 18,298 down to 16,285 Aug 26, and repeated down to 5,973 on Feb 12, 2016. That was two 2,000 point drops in less than a year.
> 
> Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart
> 
> 
> 
> QE ended in 2014, you predicted a "crash" as a result. The market has always gone up and down, it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute dips happening over a year later as a direct result, especially since they recovered (as market dips always have) and you questioned what could fuel the stock market without QE. Clearly the stock market can go up without QE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude a whole lot of people would call a 2000+ point drop a 'crash', duh.
Click to expand...

Now, now, narcissistic, sociopathic Portfolio Neo-Conservatives don't believe in crashes...just "Adjustments".
You know, the adjustments where 4 million people lose their homes and Directors escape unscathed.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.
> 
> 1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
> 2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
> 3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data
> 
> So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?
> 
> You've thrown out so many different random explanations of why BLS data is phony it is difficult to keep track of which one you currently have as the reason. I'm pretty sure companies lying has been shot down since you finally understand part-timer data doesn't come from CEP, and so is it this lack of auditing that you have no idea if true or maybe still the people on the phone lying in a consistent trend downwards over 8 years?
Click to expand...

All 3 are facts of life but you won't go to a real person to validate those facts.
You must be an avid reader of The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.
> 
> 1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
> 2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
> 3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data
> 
> So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?
> 
> You've thrown out so many different random explanations of why BLS data is phony it is difficult to keep track of which one you currently have as the reason. I'm pretty sure companies lying has been shot down since you finally understand part-timer data doesn't come from CEP, and so is it this lack of auditing that you have no idea if true or maybe still the people on the phone lying in a consistent trend downwards over 8 years?
Click to expand...

Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.


----------



## rdean

Correction?  Is that what Republicans call the mess they left Obama?


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
> Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
> It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.


He has been talking in circles for about 30 posts now and he still has not addressed those two key points.

Do you think he gets paid by the post?


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> [
> All 3 are facts of life but you won't go to a real person to validate those facts.
> You must be an avid reader of The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.


The methodology is is right on the BLS website,  so there is no need to go to a DOL and ask some admin how BLS collects data. 

Fact: you said they survey companies to get part-timer data
Fact: BLS says that is from the household survey

From above facts we can conclude you really don't know much about this subject, and the constant suggesting to drive to a local DoL office don't change that.



Indeependent said:


> Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
> Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
> It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.


I already did, you just ignore it.

You have no idea whether their data is audited and you know it, remember you're the one confused about CES vs CPS so you can't expect anyone to believe you have some intimate knowledge of BLS statistical auditing procedures.

You're the only one talking about predictions in here, I'm taking about historical part-time worker data that say is phony but in 10 pages of a thread can't prove.


----------



## JimBowie1958

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> All 3 are facts of life but you won't go to a real person to validate those facts.
> You must be an avid reader of The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.
> 
> 
> 
> The methodology is is right on the BLS website,  so there is no need to go to a DOL and ask some admin how BLS collects data.
> 
> Fact: you said they survey companies to get part-timer data
> Fact: BLS says that is from the household survey
> 
> From above facts we can conclude you really don't know much about this subject, and the constant suggesting to drive to a local DoL office don't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
> Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
> It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did, you just ignore it.
> 
> You have no idea whether their data is audited and you know it, remember you're the one confused about CES vs CPS so you can't expect anyone to believe you have some intimate knowledge of BLS statistical auditing procedures.
> 
> You're the only one talking about predictions in here, I'm taking about historical part-time worker data that say is phony but in 10 pages of a thread can't prove.
Click to expand...

Translation: "Blah, blah, blah, blah,  the unaudited data could be audited by little elves at the North Pole, blah, blah, blah, and if the unaudited data is piled all on top of each other five times and shaken not stirred, it becomes good blah blah blah..."

Dude, give it up already, you are humiliating yourself.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> All 3 are facts of life but you won't go to a real person to validate those facts.
> You must be an avid reader of The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.
> 
> 
> 
> The methodology is is right on the BLS website,  so there is no need to go to a DOL and ask some admin how BLS collects data.
> 
> Fact: you said they survey companies to get part-timer data
> Fact: BLS says that is from the household survey
> 
> From above facts we can conclude you really don't know much about this subject, and the constant suggesting to drive to a local DoL office don't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
> Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
> It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did, you just ignore it.
> 
> You have no idea whether their data is audited and you know it, remember you're the one confused about CES vs CPS so you can't expect anyone to believe you have some intimate knowledge of BLS statistical auditing procedures.
> 
> You're the only one talking about predictions in here, I'm taking about historical part-time worker data that say is phony but in 10 pages of a thread can't prove.
Click to expand...

Listen...moron...(Oops!  ad hominem)
I worked on Wall Street for 16 years for Banks and Brokerage Firms and they lie through their teeth on their web sites and the material they send you.
I met government auditors who unofficially authorized the creation of database audit trails to cover up deeds that should not be done.
I also read the same publications you read...the ones that keep telling us everything is great.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> I worked on Wall Street for 16 years for Banks and Brokerage Firms and they lie through their teeth on their web sites and the material they send you.
> I met government auditors who unofficially authorized the creation of database audit trails to cover up deeds that should not be done.
> I also read the same publications you read...the ones that keep telling us everything is great.


One might say that lying is the _lingua franca_ on Wall Street, from what I have heard.


----------



## Indeependent

JimBowie1958 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked on Wall Street for 16 years for Banks and Brokerage Firms and they lie through their teeth on their web sites and the material they send you.
> I met government auditors who unofficially authorized the creation of database audit trails to cover up deeds that should not be done.
> I also read the same publications you read...the ones that keep telling us everything is great.
> 
> 
> 
> One might say that lying is the _lingua franca_ on Wall Street, from what I have heard.
Click to expand...

You just failed your Narcissist, Sociopath, Neo-Conservative Exam.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> Listen...moron...(Oops!  ad hominem)
> I worked on Wall Street for 16 years for Banks and Brokerage Firms and they lie through their teeth on their web sites and the material they send you.
> I met government auditors who unofficially authorized the creation of database audit trails to cover up deeds that should not be done.
> I also read the same publications you read...the ones that keep telling us everything is great.


We'll file this right next to your "I know lots of people with advanced degrees" in terms of relevance here... zero. I don't read publications telling us everything is great (it isn't) although it is pretty amusing watching you alternate between bragging about your CV and inventing aspects of my life to attack. There is a big difference between thinking everyting is great (I don't) and being skeptical about your claims that BLS data is phony.

Maybe later we can have a thread about how glorious your career was, how smart your friends are, etc. but for now let's talk the subject on hand, BLS data on part timers.

So far your "proof" (aside from personal accolades) about phony data is being wrong about the data's source and having unfounded assumptions about auditing procedures. Do you actually have anything concrete here?


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> You just failed your Narcissist, Sociopath, Neo-Conservative Exam.


You mean I dont make a good money grubbing chicken hawk?

Oh, well.

Making money is respectable, but not if it is made with the blood of young people.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen...moron...(Oops!  ad hominem)
> I worked on Wall Street for 16 years for Banks and Brokerage Firms and they lie through their teeth on their web sites and the material they send you.
> I met government auditors who unofficially authorized the creation of database audit trails to cover up deeds that should not be done.
> I also read the same publications you read...the ones that keep telling us everything is great.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll file this right next to your "I know lots of people with advanced degrees" in terms of relevance here... zero. I don't read publications telling us everything is great (it isn't) although it is pretty amusing watching you alternate between bragging about your CV and inventing aspects of my life to attack. There is a big difference between thinking everyting is great (I don't) and being skeptical about your claims that BLS data is phony.
> 
> Maybe later we can have a thread about how glorious your career was, how smart your friends are, etc. but for now let's talk the subject on hand, BLS data on part timers.
> 
> So far your "proof" (aside from personal accolades) about phony data is being wrong about the data's source and having unfounded assumptions about auditing procedures. Do you actually have anything concrete here?
Click to expand...


No one says the input is outright fake or phony.
We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.
I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping.
Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.
> I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping.
> Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile.



You swing a deft scalpel, friend, a quick sharp scalpel.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.


Nope, it has already been demonstrated in this thread many times that the data cited for part-timers comes from the Household Survey, so what businesses report isn't relevant. Your ability to soldier on leaning on an assumption that has been proven false warrants applause for perspicacity.



Indeependent said:


> I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping. Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile


You assume wrong in your latest feeble attempt to portray aspects of my life negatively. I've never been to a golf club in my life, except for some software testing of GPS tracking devices over ten years ago.

Either way personal perceptions of shopping habits don't make BLS data on part time workers phony, but we'll add that to your ever growing list of flailing reasons why it could be and continue to hope that at some point you've provide actual evidence to support your claim instead of conjecture and needling at aspect of my personal life.


----------



## Indeependent

JimBowie1958 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.
> I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping.
> Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You swing a deft scalpel, friend, a quick sharp scalpel.
Click to expand...

I deal with tons of people; I am fascinated with people.
Some people can't tolerate my honesty;  I can't tolerate their inability to deal with my honesty.
But there are LOTS of good people out there...some wealthy, some poor.
It's the person that counts, NOT the assets.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it has already been demonstrated in this thread many times that the data cited for part-timers comes from the Household Survey, so what businesses report isn't relevant. Your ability to soldier on leaning on an assumption that has been proven false warrants applause for perspicacity.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping. Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You assume wrong in your latest feeble attempt to portray aspects of my life negatively. I've never been to a golf club in my life, except for some software testing of GPS tracking devices over ten years ago.
> 
> Either way personal perceptions of shopping habits don't make BLS data on part time workers phony, but we'll add that to your ever growing list of flailing reasons why it could be and continue to hope that at some point you've provide actual evidence to support your claim instead of conjecture and needling at aspect of my personal life.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it.
Are the household surveys audited?
What we REALLY need is standardized electronic tracking of employment.
Honest employers wouldn't mind.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it has already been demonstrated in this thread many times that the data cited for part-timers comes from the Household Survey, so what businesses report isn't relevant. Your ability to soldier on leaning on an assumption that has been proven false warrants applause for perspicacity.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping. Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You assume wrong in your latest feeble attempt to portray aspects of my life negatively. I've never been to a golf club in my life, except for some software testing of GPS tracking devices over ten years ago.
> 
> Either way personal perceptions of shopping habits don't make BLS data on part time workers phony, but we'll add that to your ever growing list of flailing reasons why it could be and continue to hope that at some point you've provide actual evidence to support your claim instead of conjecture and needling at aspect of my personal life.
Click to expand...

Don't lose sight of the fact that YOU resorted to ad hominems WAY before I became in any way subjective.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> You just don't get it.
> Are the household surveys audited?


Okay wait, does this mean you are conceding you were wrong about the part-timer data coming from the establishment survey?

Regarding the household numbers, I have no idea what the auditing process of BLS is but not knowing sure wouldn't make me declare as fact that the numbers are phony because they aren't audited. Do you know that they aren't audited? Given your confusion CPS vs. CES I doubt you know much at all on how BLS manages their processes.



Indeependent said:


> Don't lose sight of the fact that YOU resorted to ad hominems WAY before I became in any way subjective.


I couldn't care less how subjective you are, if anything it is funny watching someone stuck in a poor argument position desperately attempting to make it about me by making claims about me going to golf clubs (hah hah wtf) how my personal finances are managed, what publications send me stuff, whether I think everything is fine you just look worse because you've been wrong every time.

If you're trying to bolster your claim about phony data by attacking me it has proven as useless as the repeated bragging about your friends education levels.

So, where is that concrete proof that BLS data is phony?


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't get it.
> Are the household surveys audited?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay wait, does this mean you are conceding you were wrong about the part-timer data coming from the establishment survey?
> 
> Regarding the household numbers, I have no idea what the auditing process of BLS is but not knowing sure wouldn't make me declare as fact that the numbers are phony because they aren't audited. Do you know that they aren't audited? Given your confusion CPS vs. CES I doubt you know much at all on how BLS manages their processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lose sight of the fact that YOU resorted to ad hominems WAY before I became in any way subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less how subjective you are, if anything it is funny watching someone stuck in a poor argument position desperately attempting to make it about me by making claims about me going to golf clubs (hah hah wtf) how my personal finances are managed, what publications send me stuff, whether I think everything is fine you just look worse because you've been wrong every time.
> 
> If you're trying to bolster your claim about phony data by attacking me it has proven as useless as the repeated bragging about your friends education levels.
> 
> So, where is that concrete proof that BLS data is phony?
Click to expand...

Once again, no one said phony data.
Unaudited data is NOT to be used to determine the fiscal and economic policies of a nation.
Especially since the conclusions of that input have failed for almost a decade to improve our economy.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> Once again, no one said phony data.


Ooops, short memory = 



Indeependent said:


> As an ex-software developer and non-Indian Business Visa, I couldn't care any less about the *what the BLS has to say about anything. Their phony data *is fed to them by the very same small to large size entities that want the cheapest labor possible.






Indeependent said:


> Unaudited data is NOT to be used to determine the fiscal and economic policies of a nation.


Not that you have any idea whether it is audited, so you're basing your argument on an assumption that you have used as fact about a dozen times now.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

william the wie said:


> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.



I do leaps. You don't get the Big Bang with shorter term options but if your confident in major moves within the next year or more than can payoff nicely. I have call leaps on  GDX   they are moving nicely.  It's hard to short this market right now, so much insanity. I like the gold play over the next 3-7 years tho.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, no one said phony data.
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops, short memory =
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an ex-software developer and non-Indian Business Visa, I couldn't care any less about the *what the BLS has to say about anything. Their phony data *is fed to them by the very same small to large size entities that want the cheapest labor possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unaudited data is NOT to be used to determine the fiscal and economic policies of a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that you have any idea whether it is audited, so you're basing your argument on an assumption that you have used as fact about a dozen times now.
Click to expand...

It's not audited.
The ONLY audit trail is the piece of paper itself.
Just like there are no audit trails for the millions of bad mortgages given during the housing bubble.
Speaking of which, I presume you believe that all the sub-prime mortgages were electronically approved and audited.
After all, Sarbanes-Oxley says it "gots ta be!"
Please tell me yes because I need a good laugh.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

JakeStarkey said:


> Watch the short term rates.



Which rates? 2-5 year Tbills?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Politico said:


> What the hell is a put?


 If you have to ask they are not for you. It is the right to sell at a set price by a certain date.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

eagle1462010 said:


> Stock Market Crash - History of the Stock Market Crash of 1929
> 
> Buying on Margin
> 
> When someone did not have the money to pay the full price of stocks, they could buy stocks "on margin." Buying stocks on margin means that the buyer would put down some of his own money, but the rest he would borrow from a broker. In the 1920s, the buyer only had to put down 10 to 20 percent of his own money and thus borrowed 80 to 90 percent of the cost of the stock.
> 
> Buying on margin could be very risky. If the price of stock fell lower than the loan amount, the broker would likely issue a "margin call," which means that the buyer must come up with the cash to pay back his loan immediately.
> 
> In the 1920s, many speculators (people who hoped to make a lot of money on the stock market) bought stocks on margin. Confident in what seemed a never-ending rise in prices, many of these speculators neglected to seriously consider the risk they were taking.
> 
> Signs of Trouble
> 
> By early 1929, people across the United States were scrambling to get into the stock market. The profits seemed so assured that even many companies placed money in the stock market. And even more problematically, some banks placed customers' money in the stock market (without their knowledge). With the stock market prices upward bound, everything seemed wonderful. When the great crash hit in October, these people were taken by surprise. However, there had been warning signs.
> 
> On March 25, 1929, the stock market suffered a mini-crash. It was a prelude of what was to come. As prices began to drop, panic struck across the country as margin calls were issued. When banker Charles Mitchell made an announcement that his bank would keep lending, his reassurance stopped the panic. Although Mitchell and others tried the tactic of reassurance again in October, it did not stop the big crash.
> 
> By the spring of 1929, there were additional signs that the economy might be headed for a serious setback. Steel production went down; house construction slowed; and car sales waned.
> 
> At this time, there were also a few reputable people warning of an impending, major crash; however, as month after month went by without one, those that advised caution were labeled pessimists and ignored.



Along those lines, I'd read or heard recently that retail buyers are pouring back into the market....things that make you go hmmm.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> It's not audited.
> The ONLY audit trail is the piece of paper itself.


Okay, prove it. You say this, but given how naive you were when thinking BLS data on part time workers came from CEP instead of CPS Household Survey I'm more than a bit skeptical that you have any knowledge of how BLS manages their analytics.

Hint = "because I say so" over and over is not concrete evidence that supports your claim.



Indeependent said:


> Speaking of which, I presume you believe that all the sub-prime mortgages were electronically approved and audited.


Yet another attempt to distract by assigning an opinion to me, will be ignored like all the rest.

This straw man thing seems almost kneejerk for eh? Caught in a poor place, just start forming opinions others have to attack! Charge! Can't think of a strawman to build? Let's start talking about how glorious our career was and how smart our friends were! Weee!

So how exactly do you know BLS doesn't perform audits on their data?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

SFC Ollie said:


> I like to keep things simple. When the fed stops pumping them up, they will fall and fall hard.


 
Well it should be coming soon, because they stopped QE and have had a rate increase. It is starting to smell like a top. Look what the 10 year Tbill has done in the last 6 months.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not audited.
> The ONLY audit trail is the piece of paper itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, prove it. You say this, but given how naive you were when thinking BLS data on part time workers came from CEP instead of CPS Household Survey I'm more than a bit skeptical that you have any knowledge of how BLS manages their analytics.
> 
> Hint = "because I say so" over and over is not concrete evidence that supports your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I presume you believe that all the sub-prime mortgages were electronically approved and audited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another attempt to distract by assigning an opinion to me, will be ignored like all the rest.
> 
> This straw man thing seems almost kneejerk for eh? Caught in a poor place, just start forming opinions others have to attack! Charge!
Click to expand...

It DOESN'T matter where the data came from...it's NOT audited.
How would you react if you found out your broker was not auditing your investments?
You'd be upset...as an INDIVIDUAL.
Imagine unaudited data being used to determine policy for a NATION.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

william the wie said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage of bulls in the Daily Sentiment index (trade-futures.com) peaked back in May at over 90%. In July it went to 89% and last tuesday (of this week) it hit 88%.  Investor sentiment is so bullish that the market is rising even on bad news.
> 
> Personally, I'd buy cheap, deep out of the money S&P500 puts with a long expiration- out to June or Sept 14.
> 
> Happy trading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you kindly sir. I am also selling SPLV (S&P low velocity fraction) puts while buying mini-S&P puts, LQD puts and VNQ puts. And good trading to you as wel.
Click to expand...


  You're making liberal minds catch on fire.....


----------



## Indeependent

HereWeGoAgain said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage of bulls in the Daily Sentiment index (trade-futures.com) peaked back in May at over 90%. In July it went to 89% and last tuesday (of this week) it hit 88%.  Investor sentiment is so bullish that the market is rising even on bad news.
> 
> Personally, I'd buy cheap, deep out of the money S&P500 puts with a long expiration- out to June or Sept 14.
> 
> Happy trading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you kindly sir. I am also selling SPLV (S&P low velocity fraction) puts while buying mini-S&P puts, LQD puts and VNQ puts. And good trading to you as wel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making liberal minds catch on fire.....
Click to expand...

They're already burnt.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> It DOESN'T matter where the data came from...it's NOT audited.


Yes, you've said this over and over. But after about a dozen requests for you to provide evidence of it you've come up with nothing more than the "because I said so" argument. 

We both know you are completely clueless about how BLS manages their data, yet you are quite comfortable leaning on conjecture to support your argument. I would expect more from someone with so many PhD friends.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It DOESN'T matter where the data came from...it's NOT audited.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you've said this over and over. But after about a dozen requests for you to provide evidence of it you've come up with nothing more than the "because I said so" argument.
> 
> We both know you are completely clueless about how BLS manages their data, yet you are quite comfortable leaning on conjecture to support your argument. I would expect more from someone with so many PhD friends.
Click to expand...

Show me proof of millions of approved sub-prime mortgages.
Pieces of paper run through paper shredders.

You inability to connect dots is boring me to tears...go read The Wall Street Journal with Ted Cruz and his wife at Goldman-Sachs.
I'll hang out with the people who voted for Trump.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Indeependent said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage of bulls in the Daily Sentiment index (trade-futures.com) peaked back in May at over 90%. In July it went to 89% and last tuesday (of this week) it hit 88%.  Investor sentiment is so bullish that the market is rising even on bad news.
> 
> Personally, I'd buy cheap, deep out of the money S&P500 puts with a long expiration- out to June or Sept 14.
> 
> Happy trading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you kindly sir. I am also selling SPLV (S&P low velocity fraction) puts while buying mini-S&P puts, LQD puts and VNQ puts. And good trading to you as wel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making liberal minds catch on fire.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're already burnt.
Click to expand...


  Since the second Bush was elected I've made it a policy not sell when a dem is in office.
     It's served me well as an amateur trader.


----------



## william the wie

Indeependent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.
> I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping.
> Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You swing a deft scalpel, friend, a quick sharp scalpel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with tons of people; I am fascinated with people.
> Some people can't tolerate my honesty;  I can't tolerate their inability to deal with my honesty.
> But there are LOTS of good people out there...some wealthy, some poor.
> It's the person that counts, NOT the assets.
Click to expand...




Indeependent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know it is because the result of the input almost always results in upping the Business Visa limit and severely underreporting the number of those earning minimum wage and/or being purposely employed less than 35 hours a week to avoid providing health benefits.
> I presume you don't leave your house too often or when you do you're hobnobbing at the golf club because you seem to be severing lacking in seeing what's right in front of your face when you go shopping.
> Of course, you MAY be shopping on Miracle Mile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You swing a deft scalpel, friend, a quick sharp scalpel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with tons of people; I am fascinated with people.
> Some people can't tolerate my honesty;  I can't tolerate their inability to deal with my honesty.
> But there are LOTS of good people out there...some wealthy, some poor.
> It's the person that counts, NOT the assets.
Click to expand...


Except for members of the opposite sex.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> Show me proof of millions of approved sub-prime mortgages.
> Pieces of paper run through paper shredders.


Yet another attempt at distraction by a man looking utterly foolish. Focus, my question was related to your (since denied) claim that BLS has phony data, not mortgages.



Indeependent said:


> You inability to connect dots is boring me to tears...go read The Wall Street Journal with Ted Cruz and his wife at Goldman-Sachs.
> I'll hang out with the people who voted for Trump.


Your political leanings is about as interesting as your fascinating narratives about how many of your friends have advanced education, but back to the point I think we've clearly established that you cannot support you claim that BLS has phony data. Your feeble attempts to back up your argument have been nothing more than demonstrations of being naive and pathetic references to the wonderful education levels achieved by your peers.

Obviously you have no idea if BLS data is phony, and no evidence it isn't audited. Keep on trucking, and hey... tell me more about how you run in educated circles that shit convinces me every time!


----------



## william the wie

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to determine how far out to buy puts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage of bulls in the Daily Sentiment index (trade-futures.com) peaked back in May at over 90%. In July it went to 89% and last tuesday (of this week) it hit 88%.  Investor sentiment is so bullish that the market is rising even on bad news.
> 
> Personally, I'd buy cheap, deep out of the money S&P500 puts with a long expiration- out to June or Sept 14.
> 
> Happy trading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you kindly sir. I am also selling SPLV (S&P low velocity fraction) puts while buying mini-S&P puts, LQD puts and VNQ puts. And good trading to you as wel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making liberal minds catch on fire.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're already burnt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the second Bush was elected I've made it a policy not sell when a dem is in office.
Click to expand...


sorry about the edit, quote is duping bad tonight. whether you should sell or not depends on portfolio size, whether you are value investing, what type and most importantly if you know your downside. For example, virtually all of my current puts are set to expire inaugeration day.  One word about deregulation and/or Jawboning 90% of them will expire worthless.


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof of millions of approved sub-prime mortgages.
> Pieces of paper run through paper shredders.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another attempt at distraction by a man looking utterly foolish. Focus, my question was related to your (since denied) claim that BLS has phony data, not mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You inability to connect dots is boring me to tears...go read The Wall Street Journal with Ted Cruz and his wife at Goldman-Sachs.
> I'll hang out with the people who voted for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your political leanings is about as interesting as your fascinating narratives about how many of your friends have advanced education, but back to the point I think we've clearly established that you cannot support you claim that BLS has phony data. Your feeble attempts to back up your argument have been nothing more than demonstrations of being naive and pathetic references to the wonderful education levels achieved by your peers.
> 
> Obviously you have no idea if BLS data is phony, and no evidence it isn't audited. Keep on trucking, and hey... tell me more about how you run in educated circles that shit convinces me every time!
Click to expand...

Yawn...


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> Yawn...


Hmm to keep you awake I'll post my nominees for funniest shit you shoveled in this thread. There are so many to choose from but I think I can narrow it down to three.


1. Your belief that constantly bragging about how smart your friends are is going to win an argument



Indeependent said:


> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.





Indeependent said:


> I personally know 200+ MDs





Indeependent said:


> I know enough PhDs




2. Your utterly asinine belief that data on part-time for economic reasons comes from CEP, when it was clearly shown it comes from CPS Household Survey



Indeependent said:


> The BLS gets it's data from companies





Indeependent said:


> The data comes from COMPANIES





Indeependent said:


> How do we know the data from companies is true?





Indeependent said:


> The BLS get massaged data from companies




3. The attempts at lying about what you said when backed into a corner



Indeependent said:


> Once again, no one said phony data.





Indeependent said:


> I couldn't care any less about the what the BLS has to say about anything. Their phony data




I'm sure our panel of experts on fail-posting can come up with a winner from these fine candidates!


----------



## Indeependent

DrainBamage said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm to keep you awake I'll post my nominees for funniest shit you shoveled in this thread. There are so many to choose from but I think I can narrow it down to three.
> 
> 
> 1. Your belief that constantly bragging about how smart your friends are is going to win an argument
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will never personally know as many people with advanced degrees as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally know 200+ MDs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough PhDs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Your utterly asinine belief that data on part-time for economic reasons comes from CEP, when it was clearly shown it comes from CPS Household Survey
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS gets it's data from companies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The data comes from COMPANIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know the data from companies is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BLS get massaged data from companies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The attempts at lying about what you said when backed into a corner
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, no one said phony data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't care any less about the what the BLS has to say about anything. Their phony data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure our panel of experts on fail-posting can come up with a winner from these fine candidates!
Click to expand...


I bow to your superior intellect and real-life experience.


----------



## DrainBamage

Indeependent said:


> I bow to your superior intellect and real-life experience.


A good move.

Anyone who compulsively brings up how many of their friends have PhDs should bow to just about anyone, I'm pretty sure that is in the douche-bag guidelines for the forum.


----------



## Mac1958

Many "experts" have been "predicting" a "crash" since early February.

The S&P is up 22.53% since February 11 (Ref: SPY).

Trying to time the market is a fool's errand.
.


----------



## martybegan

Mac1958 said:


> Many "experts" have been "predicting" a "crash" since early February.
> 
> The S&P is up 22.53% since February 11 (Ref: SPY).
> 
> Trying to time the market is a fool's errand.
> .



I don't have my own stock investments, but as a 401k person at age 41, market corrections are no big deal as you get more shares per $ when the market tanks, and before age 55 or so, share count is more important than value. The key is to begin to move your assets over to safer funds at the right times.


----------

