Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand

[LA RAM FAN]

It's still a better employment scene than 2008-09

We're talking about Obama's policies right now. He's president. Not Bush.

Bush had really good employment rates at one point.

This thread is about Obama.

You can derail it all you want but I'll keep bringing it back to OOOOOOOOOOOO

He is right,this is obviously a republican trick by you because that is an outright lie that Bush had good employment rates at one point.Yes Obama has made thins worse like each president from thsi corrupt two party system always does,but stop lying,Bush was the one who got us into the worst recession in us history since the great depression.Obama just accelerated whats Bush originally got us into.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

The facts li

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

So what makes sense now shouldn't even be considered?

Obama is very clever, or he has friends that are.

They see the flaws in the system and they take advantage of them.

Goddam you're retarded.

So Obama's grand scheme was to use the same reporting methodology that everyone else has for the past 20 years?

You might be the worst derangement sufferer on this forum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

No, that has changed.

Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?

From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.

Ah see, classic derangement.

Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.

Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny that the claim is Obama is hiding something, when his administration put out a comprehensive report on the labor participation rate decline a few months ago:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf

lol

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

The facts li
So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

So what makes sense now shouldn't even be considered?

Obama is very clever, or he has friends that are.

They see the flaws in the system and they take advantage of them.

Goddam you're retarded.

So Obama's grand scheme was to use the same reporting methodology that everyone else has for the past 20 years?

You might be the worst derangement sufferer on this forum.

Sorry, but you can't see it. You can't see how clever and counterproductive his administration is.

Why is the market so high? Because he's been putting $85 billion monthly into the bond market since 2012.

Why is the UE3 lower yet a lower percentage of workers participate? Because Obama made it easy to apply for Social Security.

He always claims that every policy he turns into a disaster is a Bush policy.

The IRS has been going around the law to steal millions from law-abiding citizens because of loopholes in IRS law.

It's a steady pattern. He goes around laws by finding it's weaknesses and exploiting them.

 

[mudwhistle]

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

No, that has changed.

Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?

From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.

Ah see, classic derangement.

Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.

Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.

No, both sides skated, but Obozo is abusing the letter of the law by monkeying with the system.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

So what makes sense now shouldn't even be considered?

Obama is very clever, or he has friends that are.

They see the flaws in the system and they take advantage of them.

Goddam you're retarded.

So Obama's grand scheme was to use the same reporting methodology that everyone else has for the past 20 years?

You might be the worst derangement sufferer on this forum.

Sorry, but you can't see it. You can't see how clever and counterproductive his administration is.

Why is the market so high? Because he's been putting $85 billion monthly into the bond market since 2012.

Why is the UE3 lower yet a lower percentage of workers participate? Because Obama made it easy to apply for Social Security.

He always claims that every policy he turns into a disaster is a Bush policy.

The IRS has been going around the law to steal millions from law-abiding citizens because of loopholes in IRS law.

It's a steady pattern. He goes around laws by finding it's weaknesses and exploiting them.

Wrong on every count.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

No, that has changed.

Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?

From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.

Ah see, classic derangement.

Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.

Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.

No, both sides skated, but Obozo is abusing the letter of the law by monkeying with the system.

He hasn't done anything to the 'system'. The BLS operates on its own.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

So what makes sense now shouldn't even be considered?

Obama is very clever, or he has friends that are.

They see the flaws in the system and they take advantage of them.

Goddam you're retarded.

So Obama's grand scheme was to use the same reporting methodology that everyone else has for the past 20 years?

You might be the worst derangement sufferer on this forum.

Sorry, but you can't see it. You can't see how clever and counterproductive his administration is.

Why is the market so high? Because he's been putting $85 billion monthly into the bond market since 2012.

Why is the UE3 lower yet a lower percentage of workers participate? Because Obama made it easy to apply for Social Security.

He always claims that every policy he turns into a disaster is a Bush policy.

The IRS has been going around the law to steal millions from law-abiding citizens because of loopholes in IRS law.

It's a steady pattern. He goes around laws by finding it's weaknesses and exploiting them.

Wrong on every count.

Yeah, as if calling Bullshit to every indisputable fact is an effective response.

 

[mudwhistle]

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

No, that has changed.

Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?

From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.

Ah see, classic derangement.

Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.

Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.

No, both sides skated, but Obozo is abusing the letter of the law by monkeying with the system.

He hasn't done anything to the 'system'. The BLS operates on its own.

And you must believe in Unicorns as well.

 

[zeke]

The IRS has been going around the law to steal millions from law-abiding citizens because of loopholes in IRS law.

The IRS put a loophole in their own law to let them go around that loophole to collect taxes, I mean steal millions from law abiding citizens. Is that what you are saying? That don't make any sense. Did Obama do that himself?
Who gets the millions they are stealing?

Man, the shit I learn on here is better'n Jerry Springer.

 

[pinqy]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

You know nothing about polling.

I know a lot about having spent over a decade working at BLS and teaching the methodology.

People do not listen to questions and give technical answers to them. That isn't the way it works. They aren't telling a "lie" they just aren't looking for a job, so they say no, they don't want one. Others say yes, they do. When asked the same question, some say yes, some say no. Polling is an art, not a science. I'm a six sigma black belt, I'm an expert in this. It's the challenge, phrasing questions to get the right answer, it's very difficult because people interpret the same question so many different ways.

Do you really think that no one at BLS or Census in the over 70 years of the survey thought of that?

First people are asked what they did to look for work in the previous 4 weeks.

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

You know nothing about polling. People do not listen to questions and give technical answers to them. That isn't the way it works. They aren't telling a "lie" they just aren't looking for a job, so they say no, they don't want one. .

Oh, I know a lot about surveys. It was my job for over a decade. I am well aware of how people answer or don't answer questions.
Because there is a stigma against being able to work but not working, people are more likely to say they want a job, even though they're not looking for one. Do you really think that all of the over 3 million people who say they want a job but haven't done anything at all to get one in over a year really want a job?

The order questions are asked is also very important. The question about wanting a job is asked after a person's status of retired or disabled is asked. And for those not retired or disabled, they are first asked what they did to find work, then if they could have started work, and then if they actually want a job.

Of course there is still non-sampling error and people misunderstanding or misinterpreting questions...there's no way out of that....but I think you're going to far in thinking there are a great deal of people who would say they don't want a job even though they actually do. That's not my experience with people.

 

[pinqy]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

The facts li

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

So what makes sense now shouldn't even be considered?

Obama is very clever, or he has friends that are.

They see the flaws in the system and they take advantage of them.

How do they take advantage of them? What exactly are you claiming they do?

 

[mudwhistle]

The IRS has been going around the law to steal millions from law-abiding citizens because of loopholes in IRS law.

The IRS put a loophole in their own law to let them go around that loophole to collect taxes, I mean steal millions from law abiding citizens. Is that what you are saying? That don't make any sense. Did Obama do that himself?
Who gets the millions they are stealing?

Man, the shit I learn on here is better'n Jerry Springer.

Well it helps if you know what you're talking about.

Using a law, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, that allows the feds to seize money from suspected gangsters, drug dealers and terrorists, the IRS has put innocent people into bankruptcy and massive debt and taken the money a military father saved from his paychecks to put his kids through college, solely by tracking the amounts that people put into their bank accounts.

When no criminal activity is charged, The New York Times reports, the IRS often negotiates to return only part of the seized money, leaving impoverished citizens with little option but to either accept the IRS’ offer or continue a lengthy and very expensive legal battle to try to get their legitimately earned money back.

… One involved a 27-year-old Long Island candy and cigarette distribution company, Bi-County Distributors, which made daily cash deposits, usually under $10,000. When the IRS seized $447,000 from the company, it refused to return it, despite the fact that there was no crime to prosecute, and instead offered a partial settlement.

The company is now $300,000 in debt and attorney Joseph Potashnik told the Times, “I don’t think they’re (the IRS) really interested in anything. They just want the money.”

Army Sgt. Jeff Cortazzo was saving up for his daughters’ college education when the IRS seized $66,000 of his money – it cost him $21,000 to get the remainder back.

Yet somehow, these thefts aren’t being widely covered in the mainstream media. Gee, why ever could that be?
The IRS is Seizing the Bank Accounts of Innocent Americans John Hawkins Right Wing News
​

 

[kaz]

You know nothing about polling.

I know a lot about having spent over a decade working at BLS and teaching the methodology.

And I had to explain to you that people will say no when they mean yes? Seriously? That doesn't pass the smell test.

You are either a liar or you are just being an ass like when you asked me what underemployed meant and said you didn't know more people are underemployed now than at the start of the recession. Frankly I'd believe either the liar or the ass hypothesis, but you are not an expert in polling and you don't know that, both those statements are not true.

Seriously, you can look someone in the face who knows about polling and say duh, no one who is discouraged would say no, they don't want a job. Seriously, you don't know that. And you're an expert in polling. No one who is an expert in polling would bat an eye at that. It's a classic issue and a major discussion point for every poll design. And you're like duh, I didn't know that, someone discouraged wouldn't say no they aren't looking for a job. You are full of shit, you're lying about something.

 

[kaz]

Of course there is still non-sampling error and people misunderstanding or misinterpreting questions...there's no way out of that....but I think you're going to far in thinking there are a great deal of people who would say they don't want a job even though they actually do. That's not my experience with people.

Well, then you need to get to know more people. A mother would be interested in a part time job, but she hasn't gotten anywhere and isn't looking, but she's taking care of her kids. Does she "want" a job? Sort of. There are a lot of people in that and similar situations. And as you said, there is a lot of stigma to the question. Would you rather say you don't want a job or you can't find one? Every poll design I've been part of has involved endlessly figuring out trying to get accurate answers, that you're just brushing it off as people wouldn't lie about that or give emotional answers is preposterous for someone experienced in polls over such a sensitive subject.

 

[Siete]

just yesterday RW's were giving businesses credit for creating those jobs..

all you freakin idiots better get on the same page... the funny part is your book only has 2 pages ..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, here's your answer, RWnuts:

CEA (Council of Economic Advisors) economists note that they believe immigration reform is the single most powerful policy that could counteract a declining labor force.
Immigrants tend to be younger and participate more in the job market, and a report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office last year estimates that the Senate's immigration reform bill could increase the labor force by 6 million people by 2023.

A rising labor force That s unlikely say White House economists - Jul. 17 2014

Happy now?

lol

 

[pinqy]

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

No, that has changed.

Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?

From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.

Ah see, classic derangement.

Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.

Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.

No, both sides skated, but Obozo is abusing the letter of the law by monkeying with the system.

He hasn't done anything to the 'system'. The BLS operates on its own.

And you must believe in Unicorns as well.

No one outside the specific program office at BLS has any kind of access to the raw or pre-release data of that program. There are strict rules and laws governing the handling of statistical data.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

No, that has changed.

Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?

From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.

Ah see, classic derangement.

Give you a good number, it can't have anything to do with Obama.

Give you a bad number, and it's all Obama.

No, both sides skated, but Obozo is abusing the letter of the law by monkeying with the system.

What "monkeying" are you claiming and what is your evidence?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

The facts li
So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

So what makes sense now shouldn't even be considered?

Obama is very clever, or he has friends that are.

They see the flaws in the system and they take advantage of them.

How do they take advantage of them? What exactly are you claiming they do?

He's claiming they take advantage of them by letting them happen exactly the same way Bush did, and presidents before Bush did.

It's called derangement.