"Its my way or the hiway" thank you BHO

[Geaux4it]

Youre being a hack. If we really do not know what UE is now - where reporting is tighter and more streamlined than ever - we certainly did NOT know over the 40 years that you claim that it was 5%.

Using the SAME SEASONAL ADJUSTMENTS....THE SAME FORMULA AS WE USE NOW.....is where the 5% number comes from. And that SAME FORMULA now yields us 7%, not 14 or 15.

You dont get to use the mathematical logistics to arrive at your 5% and then call the formula bunk now, at 7%. Its the same formula. Youre being dishonest. The presidency and politics have nothing to do with where the number comes from, and the same employees are at the same agency under Obama as were under Bush.

The Department of Labor does produce a report, Table-15, that does show what the unemployment rate is including those no longer looking for work and combined with the 7.4% feel good statistic, the actual rate is ~doubled at 14%

Table is located here

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

his demographic are what is called 'marginally attached to the labor force'

Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Once again, this is the real Unemployment number, 14%

The labor participation rate is a dismal 63.4%. The lowest on record since 1979.

Fed official: Improved labor market not as good as jobless rate suggests

Fed official: Improved labor market not as good as jobless rate suggests - Capitol Report - MarketWatch

The chief of the San Francisco Federal Reserve worries that the falling U.S. unemployment rate makes the jobs market look better than it is, although he still thinks that the pace of hiring is on the upswing.

John Williams acknowledged in a speech Wednesday that there’s been a “big exodus of young people and so-called prime-age adults” from the labor force. That’s contributed to a sharp decline in the participation rate to a nearly 30-year low. Read speech.

You do understand that I know the statistics, do you not?

If you're calling 7.4% the "feel good" number, you're also calling the "historical 5%" in the OP the "feel good" number, and you should be advising the OP that the OP was dishonest in his comparison.

If you're an honest person.

My post was just for informational purposes for folks to apply to this conversation as they see fit

-Geaux

 

[JRK]

The REPUBLICANS own this shutdown.

You guys can tell yourselves otherwise, but the American people know what's going on.

The GOP decided to make ACA their do or die battle in Congress over the last year and they lost it.

Now like petulant children they cause the gov shutdown?

Assholes

The majority of people in NYC and LA feel the way
rest of us do not
the house has sent many bills to congress that went over 50% of the way
yesterday the truth came out when the senate voted down the 3 bills the house sent over to get people back to work and get veterans benefits going
be careful for what you wish for

 

[G.T.]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

[Geaux4it]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I do not formulate the numbers presented. They come from the Department of Labor who deem them to be metrics of merit.

They are what they are for folks to apply as needed.

We can pick this up another time as I am heading off to the salt mine.

-Geaux

 

[G.T.]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I do not formulate the numbers presented. They come from the Department of Labor who deem them to be metrics of merit.

They are what they are for folks to apply as needed.

We can pick this up another time as I am heading off to the salt mine.

-Geaux

Thank you sir, for I am a salt FIEND

 

[Edgetho]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Yer a genius.....

What the numbers DON'T include are the people who have given up.

The people who can't find work and are just staying home. Especially homemakers and people nearing the retirement age.

Especially younger people fresh out of College with nowhere to go, no job, no hope and no direction.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

What is U6 unemployment rate ?

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

The current U6 Unemployment rate is 13.7%

That's a lot. And it doesn't even include the millions of people who took early retirement at a reduced pension rate and who had to dip into their 401k years earlier than they had planned on and who will never realize their dream of comfortable retirement.

obama is an abject failure. A loser.

Just like the people who voted for him.

Except you can add 'stupid' to their list

 

[G.T.]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Yer a genius.....

What the numbers DON'T include are the people who have given up.

The people who can't find work and are just staying home. Especially homemakers and people nearing the retirement age.

Especially younger people fresh out of College with nowhere to go, no job, no hope and no direction.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

What is U6 unemployment rate ?

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

The current U6 Unemployment rate is 13.7%

That's a lot. And it doesn't even include the millions of people who took early retirement at a reduced pension rate and who had to dip into their 401k years earlier than they had planned on and who will never realize their dream of comfortable retirement.

obama is an abject failure. A loser.

Just like the people who voted for him.

Except you can add 'stupid' to their list

Nothing you just said negates the dishonesty in the OP.

Because the way you just adjusted the 7.4% up to the 13%?

Go ahead and do the same thing for the historical 5%.

See the point? It's hacksmanship. You are no longer comparing "14-15%" to "5%"

And further - even if it were 20%!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

That's still nowhere near the fucking NINETY MILLION sir thread creator is trumpeting to make a shady point.

No need to take sideswipes, either. I can stay cordial with anyone else who can stay cordial, it's not that hard. If an OP's OP is dishonest, it deserves to be called dishonest.

 

[Edgetho]

What the fuck, dewd?

You don't watch the news? Are you illiterate and can't read?

90,473,000: Record Number Not in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama | CNS News

And they got their numbers from the BLS.

 

[G.T.]

What the fuck, dewd?

You don't watch the news? Are you illiterate and can't read?

90,473,000: Record Number Not in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama | CNS News

And they got their numbers from the BLS.

I'm very literate.

The 90million number is meaningless, in context.

Let's even.......adjust UP, and say that there are 350million people in this country.

MMMkay?

That would make "Real" unemployment 26% !!!!!!!!!!!



And even the doom and gloomers aren't so ignorant as to use that number.

And how come?


Because it's meaningless without adjustments. Jesus Christ.


Now adjust it back down to 300million people.

lol 30%!!!!!!! ohhhhg mee gawwwdzz!!!! Civil War!!

 

[Edgetho]

Ridiculous.

Implementing Federal law in existence for three years, a law passed by this very House, upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court, and endorsed again by the voters in 2012, is not ‘my way or the highway.’

the 2010 election I guess does not count
when RR was the Pres he worked with Tip to prevent these events
thats BHO job

I guess Tip was someone you could work with.

You got it backwards..... As usual.

Reagan was someone Tip could work with and trusted.

If Reagan made a deal, he kept it.

He also didn't have Tip running back and forth from the House to the White House like he was some kind of servant.

obama did that to Boehner. He made Boehner trot from the House to the White House and multiple occasions to the point that Boehner publicly stated that he would no longer, never again, work personally with a lying sack of shit like the Stuttering Clusterfuck.


It takes a lot to piss Boehner off, but the Stuttering Clussterfuck managed.

We're talking about a dictator here, fellas.

Boehner tells GOP he?s through negotiating one-on-one with Obama - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is signaling that at least one thing will change about his leadership during the 113th Congress: he’s telling Republicans he is done with private, one-on-one negotiations with the Stuttering Clusterfuck.

During both 2011 and 2012, the Speaker spent weeks shuttling between the Capitol and the White House for meetings with the president in hope of striking a grand bargain on the deficit.

Those efforts ended in failure, leaving Boehner feeling burned by Obama and, at times, isolated within his conference.

 

[pinqy]

when you say "5% for 40 years" you are using the formula that seasonally adjusts, that leaves off people who have given up looking, etc. - as that is where the 5% number comes from.

when you say "to 14-15 now" you are not using same said formula, calling same said formula fake, a sham, hogwash, etc.

you, sir, are comparing apples to oranges to paint a rosier picture for your theory. when you begin with that level of dishonesty......................dishonesty to yourself even, in probably believing in such slight of hand..........................you betray your integrity.

you really do.

GT we have 90 million out of the work force today

And how many of those want to work?
And of those who say they do, how many haven't looked for work in over a year?(making their claim pretty week)
And of those who have looked in the last year, how many couldn't accept a job if handed to them?
And of those who could, how many stopped looking for personal reasons?
Your 90 million Isn't quite so impressive in context.

 

[G.T.]

when you say "5% for 40 years" you are using the formula that seasonally adjusts, that leaves off people who have given up looking, etc. - as that is where the 5% number comes from.

when you say "to 14-15 now" you are not using same said formula, calling same said formula fake, a sham, hogwash, etc.

you, sir, are comparing apples to oranges to paint a rosier picture for your theory. when you begin with that level of dishonesty......................dishonesty to yourself even, in probably believing in such slight of hand..........................you betray your integrity.

you really do.

GT we have 90 million out of the work force today

And how many of those want to work?
And of those who say they do, how many haven't looked for work in over a year?(making their claim pretty week)
And of those who have looked in the last year, how many couldn't accept a job if handed to them?
And of those who could, how many stopped looking for personal reasons?
Your 90 million Isn't quite so impressive in context.

The 90million also includes retirees.

Which is a weird as fuck way to try to "indicate" the economic outlook of a country via UE rates.

 

[Wildman]

one thing that is carved in stone is the fact we Conservative Christians will never convince you scumbag liberal heathens that we are right..., AND you liarberal heathen scumbags will never convince us RIGHTIES you have a brain.

this shut down is due to democriminals failure to compromise or negotiate, it's in your hero's lap and being a muslime mulatto he will not give an inch, just like his terrorist brothers

 

[JRK]

when you say "5% for 40 years" you are using the formula that seasonally adjusts, that leaves off people who have given up looking, etc. - as that is where the 5% number comes from.

when you say "to 14-15 now" you are not using same said formula, calling same said formula fake, a sham, hogwash, etc.

you, sir, are comparing apples to oranges to paint a rosier picture for your theory. when you begin with that level of dishonesty......................dishonesty to yourself even, in probably believing in such slight of hand..........................you betray your integrity.

you really do.

GT we have 90 million out of the work force today

And how many of those want to work?
And of those who say they do, how many haven't looked for work in over a year?(making their claim pretty week)
And of those who have looked in the last year, how many couldn't accept a job if handed to them?
And of those who could, how many stopped looking for personal reasons?
Your 90 million Isn't quite so impressive in context.

what?
so your excuse for the economy is that people starving to death do not want a job?
okay

 

[JRK]

Democrats Turn Back GOP's Piecemeal Funding Strategy | 218

 

[JRK]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

no retired people have no place in that number and yes that is a big part of the 90 milliion
7% UE is a lie and you know it
I over stated 14?
I cannot prove it either way because so many people are not in the number
90 million is close to 30% of the total population

 

[TooTall]

"Its my way or the hiway" thank you BHO

Ridiculous.

Implementing Federal law in existence for three years, a law passed by this very House, upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court, and endorsed again by the voters in 2012, is not ‘my way or the highway.’

Are you seriously saying that the voters would vote for the Obamacare tax bill if they were allowed too?

 

[pinqy]

GT we have 90 million out of the work force today

And how many of those want to work?
And of those who say they do, how many haven't looked for work in over a year?(making their claim pretty week)
And of those who have looked in the last year, how many couldn't accept a job if handed to them?
And of those who could, how many stopped looking for personal reasons?
Your 90 million Isn't quite so impressive in context.

what?
so your excuse for the economy is that people starving to death do not want a job?
okay

Huh? Are you claiming 90 million are starving? I was pointing out that 90 million Not in the Labor Force does not mean things are terrible. Those are people not trying to work.

If you b want bad numbers turn to duration of unemployment...that's a figure that's appalling.

 

[G.T.]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

no retired people have no place in that number and yes that is a big part of the 90 milliion
7% UE is a lie and you know it
I over stated 14?
I cannot prove it either way because so many people are not in the number
90 million is close to 30% of the total population

You need to revise your OP.

5% is not historically accurate, if you're stating that the formula is flawed.

It wasn't even a "nice try."

 

[Edgetho]

What the fuck, dewd?

You don't watch the news? Are you illiterate and can't read?

90,473,000: Record Number Not in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama | CNS News

And they got their numbers from the BLS.

I'm very literate.

The 90million number is meaningless, in context.

Let's even.......adjust UP, and say that there are 350million people in this country.

MMMkay?

That would make "Real" unemployment 26% !!!!!!!!!!!



And even the doom and gloomers aren't so ignorant as to use that number.

And how come?


Because it's meaningless without adjustments. Jesus Christ.


Now adjust it back down to 300million people.

lol 30%!!!!!!! ohhhhg mee gawwwdzz!!!! Civil War!!

Math is not your strong suit, is it?

I give up. You need to be transferred to the Special Ed class and ride the Short Bus every morning.

Not kidding.