Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[Faun]

The polls said no such thing.

were you unconscious during 2016?

Prove me wrong.

Show me the polls that PREDICTED a Clinton landslide.

Show me the polls that said Trump had no path to 270.

Show me the polls that said Trump would not win the nomination.

those were media conclusions based on polls, with a large helping of media bias thrown in. They were all wrong.

So after lying by claiming the polls said that, you now admit it was the media and not the polls.

The polls, on average, nailed it.

wake the fuck up. the media and the pollsters are the same people.

No, usually they're not. The media [typically] hires pollsters to do the research for them and then the media reports on the results.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Over 1 million jobs have been added since Trump was elected. There were over 235,000 added in May! lol

Trump is doing everything right. I couldn't be happier with him.

That's not what the op's link says.

You damn near always see a good jobs report for May and June because of seasonal hiring.

You know jobs reports are seasonally adjusted, right debbiedummy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Aww, I'm a legend to you? Thank you.

You're a regular Pol Pot, Fawn.

 

[Faun]

Aww, I'm a legend to you? Thank you.

You're a regular Pol Pot, Fawn.

Oh? You think I've killed millions of people, do you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oh? You think I've killed millions of people, do you?

You wish.

But you have never gained enough power to make your dreams come true.

 

[Faun]

[
Oh? You think I've killed millions of people, do you?

You wish.

But you have never gained enough power to make your dreams come true.

As if the forum needed s reminder of how fucked in the head you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oh? You think I've killed millions of people, do you?

You wish.

But you have never gained enough power to make your dreams come true.

As if the forum needed s reminder of how fucked in the head you are.

Coming from one as respected as you that really stings, hack boi..

 

[Faun]

[
Oh? You think I've killed millions of people, do you?

You wish.

But you have never gained enough power to make your dreams come true.

As if the forum needed s reminder of how fucked in the head you are.

Coming from one as respected as you that really stings, hack boi..

You're the deranged one who's posting about how I want to kill millions of people, not me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oh? You think I've killed millions of people, do you?

You wish.

But you have never gained enough power to make your dreams come true.

As if the forum needed s reminder of how fucked in the head you are.

Coming from one as respected as you that really stings, hack boi..

You're the deranged one who's posting about how I want to kill millions of people, not me.

I just stated the fact that your politics most closely match those of Pol Pot.

 

[Faun]

[
Oh? You think I've killed millions of people, do you?

You wish.

But you have never gained enough power to make your dreams come true.

As if the forum needed s reminder of how fucked in the head you are.

Coming from one as respected as you that really stings, hack boi..

You're the deranged one who's posting about how I want to kill millions of people, not me.

I just stated the fact that your politics most closely match those of Pol Pot.

And I keep pointing out how your own posts reveal just how fucked in the head you are.

 

[danielpalos]

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

How useful is U3?

 

[Faun]

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

How useful is U3?

It's very useful in terms of what it represents -- the percentage of people who don't have a job and are actively looking for one.

 

[pinqy]

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

How useful is U3?

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

 

[Redfish]

bullshit, it depends on the size of the total population. A sample of 1000 is accurate within 3-5% for a population of 20,000 but not for 330 million. Did you drop out of school in the 8th grade?

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

four decimal places? so in your small mind a sample of .0005% is statistically meaningful? Amazing.

LOLOL

No, not just in my mind... in the minds of skilled mathematicians who claim scientific polling is accurate to within a small margin of error, 95% of the time.

you keep confirming what I am saying, "who claim" Yes, they "claim" that their methods overcome the facts of math and statistical calculations. Buy it if you want, but its BS.

 

[Redfish]

We have been through this in the past
You are a statistical retard lacking even the basic understanding of sampling theory

You almost have it. your words "sampling theory" Note the word "theory" whereas I am using mathematical FACTS. The pollsters are using a theory whereby they rationalize the validity of a tiny sample because THEY carefully select the sample and make the foolish claim that it proportionally represents all demographics in a population of 330 million people. Its actually laughable to anyone who understands basic statistics.

thanks for once again displaying your inane ignorance for all to see.

Please stop talking statistics........you are embarrassing yourself

True, but he embarrasses himself no matter what the topic.

LOL, its you and your butt buddy winger who should be embarrassed. Your stupidity is legend on this message board. You two are a source of continuous hilarity. In short, you are jokes and you are too dumb to know it.

Aww, I'm a legend to you? Thank you.

yes, you and winger are legendary idiots. If that makes you proud, you must be a liberal.

 

[Redfish]

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

Why then are the polls so accurate?

they aren't, that's the point. they said Hillary would win a landslide, they said Trump had no path to 270 EC votes, they said Trump would not win the GOP nomination.

the polls and pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not report on it. sometimes it works, this time it did not.

No, they didn't. You were shown they predicted she would win the popular vote by 2.1 points and she did. Now stop lying.

no dipshit, they said she would win the ELECTION, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

You're such an imbecile. Some in the media were saying that. The polls weren't. During the last few days leading up to Election Day, not a single poll predicted an electoral victory for either candidate. Nationally they predicted Hillary would win the popular vote, on average, by 2.1 points -- which she did.

are you really that ignorant? The pollsters and the media are the same people. They were desperately trying to convince America that Clinton would win. They failed and now you are trying to cover for them--------------either that or you are really really stupid.

 

[Faun]

Stop making shit up.

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

four decimal places? so in your small mind a sample of .0005% is statistically meaningful? Amazing.

LOLOL

No, not just in my mind... in the minds of skilled mathematicians who claim scientific polling is accurate to within a small margin of error, 95% of the time.

you keep confirming what I am saying, "who claim" Yes, they "claim" that their methods overcome the facts of math and statistical calculations. Buy it if you want, but its BS.

You dill, their math is confirmed by results. Again, the part you wish wasn't true ... with an average of around 1000 respondents per poll, which is roughly 0.00003% of the population, the polls accurately predicted Hillary would win the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points.

 

[Redfish]

no one can make up math, it is what it is. its absolute. its the pollsters who are trying to make up math to justify their use to tiny meaningless sample sizes.

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

four decimal places? so in your small mind a sample of .0005% is statistically meaningful? Amazing.

LOLOL

No, not just in my mind... in the minds of skilled mathematicians who claim scientific polling is accurate to within a small margin of error, 95% of the time.

you keep confirming what I am saying, "who claim" Yes, they "claim" that their methods overcome the facts of math and statistical calculations. Buy it if you want, but its BS.

You dill, their math is confirmed by results. Again, the part you wish wasn't true ... with an average of around 1000 respondents per poll, which is roughly 0.00003% of the population, the polls accurately predicted Hillary would win the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points.

avoiding the absolutes of mathematics cannot be confirmed by results. That's a foolish statement. 2+2 is always 4. but if you combine 2 cells and get 5 that does not disprove math or validate that result as a valid conclusion.

I am done with this, you don't know what you are talking about and I am not going to waste any more time on you. Math is absolute, the rules of statistical analysis are absolute. the political pollsters follow neither. Yes, many times they get it almost right but that does not make their methods statistically accurate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, but they can make up numbers, which is what you're doing. No mathematician on Earth claims a sample size of 3-5 percent is required for accurate polling. Nowhere near, in fact. You're off by about 4 decimal places.

four decimal places? so in your small mind a sample of .0005% is statistically meaningful? Amazing.

LOLOL

No, not just in my mind... in the minds of skilled mathematicians who claim scientific polling is accurate to within a small margin of error, 95% of the time.

you keep confirming what I am saying, "who claim" Yes, they "claim" that their methods overcome the facts of math and statistical calculations. Buy it if you want, but its BS.

You dill, their math is confirmed by results. Again, the part you wish wasn't true ... with an average of around 1000 respondents per poll, which is roughly 0.00003% of the population, the polls accurately predicted Hillary would win the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points.

avoiding the absolutes of mathematics cannot be confirmed by results. That's a foolish statement. 2+2 is always 4. but if you combine 2 cells and get 5 that does not disprove math or validate that result as a valid conclusion.

I am done with this, you don't know what you are talking about and I am not going to waste any more time on you. Math is absolute, the rules of statistical analysis are absolute. the political pollsters follow neither. Yes, many times they get it almost right but that does not make their methods statistically accurate.

Why don't you provide us with a link to some actual statistics professional experts who agree with you that polls are MEANINGLESS because they don't take big enough samples.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny that Trump's approval rating is falling with the unemployment rate falling.

Imagine where his approval rating goes when the UE rate starts going up.