Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So ALL pollsters in America are engaged in a vast liberal conspiracy that involves every one of them falsifying the numbers?

lol, good one.

 

[Faun]

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.

What are you smoking asking for proof? How's he supposed to spread his bullshit if you're demanding proof?

 

[Redfish]

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.

for the final time. they are statistically meaningless because they use tiny samples. They do a good job of selecting the samples and many times get it almost right.

Getting it almost right does not work in mathematics. 2+2 isn't almost 4. It is absolutely 4. Trying to keep it simple for you.

It is also true that the pollsters have an agenda and are trying to get the result that the group paying for the poll wants. Some may be unbiased, but many are not.

The end.

 

[Redfish]

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.

you buy into the hype. baaa baaa baaa, move on little sheeple.

 

[Faun]

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.

Your problem is we're not discussing math. We're discussing your bullshit claims that 3 to 5% of the population is required to achieve accurate polling. You've been show where 0.00003% produces accurate polling. You've shown nothing that contradicts that.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Your problem is we're not discussing math. We're discussing your bullshit claims that 3 to 5% of the population is required to achieve accurate polling. You've been show where 0.00003% produces accurate polling. You've shown nothing that contradicts that.

we are, and have been, discussing math. I understand that you want to believe the pollsters and allow them to influence your thinking. I get it. In this country, at least now, you are free to believe whatever makes you happy. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Faun]

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.

Your problem is we're not discussing math. We're discussing your bullshit claims that 3 to 5% of the population is required to achieve accurate polling. You've been show where 0.00003% produces accurate polling. You've shown nothing that contradicts that.

we are, and have been, discussing math. I understand that you want to believe the pollsters and allow them to influence your thinking. I get it. In this country, at least now, you are free to believe whatever makes you happy. Ignorance is bliss.

Idiot, you still have proven your made up claim that a sample size of 1000 is insufficient to produce fairly accurate results.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Your problem is we're not discussing math. We're discussing your bullshit claims that 3 to 5% of the population is required to achieve accurate polling. You've been show where 0.00003% produces accurate polling. You've shown nothing that contradicts that.

we are, and have been, discussing math. I understand that you want to believe the pollsters and allow them to influence your thinking. I get it. In this country, at least now, you are free to believe whatever makes you happy. Ignorance is bliss.

Idiot, you still have proven your made up claim that a sample size of 1000 is insufficient to produce fairly accurate results.

geez, man. do you understand the difference between "fairly accurate" and "accurate" ?

Yes, tiny samples can produce "fairly accurate" results. But they are not "statistically and mathematically accurate". Math is absolute, polling is theory and assumption.

Please, educate yourself.

 

[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?

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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

 

[Faun]

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.

Your problem is we're not discussing math. We're discussing your bullshit claims that 3 to 5% of the population is required to achieve accurate polling. You've been show where 0.00003% produces accurate polling. You've shown nothing that contradicts that.

we are, and have been, discussing math. I understand that you want to believe the pollsters and allow them to influence your thinking. I get it. In this country, at least now, you are free to believe whatever makes you happy. Ignorance is bliss.

Idiot, you still have proven your made up claim that a sample size of 1000 is insufficient to produce fairly accurate results.

geez, man. do you understand the difference between "fairly accurate" and "accurate" ?

Yes, tiny samples can produce "fairly accurate" results. But they are not "statistically and mathematically accurate". Math is absolute, polling is theory and assumption.

Please, educate yourself.

Fairly accurate, which is roughly within 3 percentage points, is all polling ever seeks. Glad to see you finally get that. Which is what the polls achieved in the 2016 election where they accurately predicted Hillary would win the popular by 2.1 percentage points.

 

[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?

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?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

 

[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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

It's a national view of the health of the job market. You're conflating it with something it's not.

 

[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?

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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

It's a national view of the health of the job market. You're conflating it with something it's not.

By ignoring U6? Seems like special pleading.

 

[Faun]

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?

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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

It's a national view of the health of the job market. You're conflating it with something it's not.

By ignoring U6? Seems like special pleading.

The U-6 is also a national figure which also doesn't speak at-will employment states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

It's a national view of the health of the job market. You're conflating it with something it's not.

By ignoring U6? Seems like special pleading.

U-6 fell 8 points during Obama's term.

 

[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?

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?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

Sounds like the U-3. Certainly not the U-6, which includes people who are working.

 

[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?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

It's a national view of the health of the job market. You're conflating it with something it's not.

By ignoring U6? Seems like special pleading.

The U-6 is also a national figure which also doesn't speak at-will employment states.

Red herring? Why do you believe that is the case, with a federal Doctrine, regarding the legal concept of employment at will?

 

[Faun]

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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

It's a national view of the health of the job market. You're conflating it with something it's not.

By ignoring U6? Seems like special pleading.

The U-6 is also a national figure which also doesn't speak at-will employment states.

Red herring? Why do you believe that is the case, with a federal Doctrine, regarding the legal concept of employment at will?

If you can't comprehend a national poll cannot speak to varying laws among states, I can't help you understand.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Why is that useful in any at-will employment State?

It's a national view of the health of the job market. You're conflating it with something it's not.

By ignoring U6? Seems like special pleading.

U-6 fell 8 points during Obama's term.

The point is, if a public policy regarding a capital gains tax preference to ensure labor is employed doesn't accomplish full employmnet; it must be supplemented with something that does, simply for the sake of promoting the general welfare.