More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[8537]

It was a question do you know thew difference in a question and a accusation?

Yes, of course. You mentioned Democrats because....well, to be fair and balanced. Definitely not an attempt to bait or offer a loaded question.

Then, of course, you denied mentioning either party before you agreed you mentioned the Democrats. It was just a question, kinda like "when did you stop beating your wife" is just a question.

I asked you about the democrats because you support democrats. This is not making an accusation it's asking you a question to see how partisan you are

OK, so - If I said: Do you beat up all kids, or do you allow the kids of Republican parents to go unscathed would you consider that a loaded question?

But anyway, we're off topic.

 

[8537]

And there is that fuzzy math. unemployed means without a job. If you are receiving a check for unemployment you are unemployed. If you are not receiving a check because you have run out of benefits but are not working you still are unemployed. No job no taxes .

Well using this calculation, the US Unemployment rate would be over 50%. With a workforce of 130M+/- and a population of 310M, the rate would be almost 58%!

Holy shit man! We're sunk! 58%!

Bigreb and others have clearly demonstrated they have no interest in the facts. It's breathtaking to watch the spin and denial.

There you go, you almost have it until you got to the last part.

So you believe the government should be publishing an official unemployment rate of 58%?

So people who don't want to work, people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

If your goal is to measure the health of the labor market, wouldn't it make far more sense to use a measure that counts people in the labor force?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well using this calculation, the US Unemployment rate would be over 50%. With a workforce of 130M+/- and a population of 310M, the rate would be almost 58%!

Holy shit man! We're sunk! 58%!

Bigreb and others have clearly demonstrated they have no interest in the facts. It's breathtaking to watch the spin and denial.

There you go, you almost have it until you got to the last part.

So you believe the government should be publishing an official unemployment rate of 58%?

So people who don't want to work, people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

If your goal is to measure the health of the labor market, wouldn't it make far more sense to use a measure that counts people in the labor force?

So you believe the government should be publishing an official unemployment rate of 58%?

I believe the government should publish the truth for better or worse, so people can prepare if it bad news.

So people who don't want to work

How many people do you know who has a job still don't want to work? but if you do not have a job you are unemployed.


people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

Retired people as I said were the only exception. house wives have a job, and so do students it's called an education. You are trying to stretch that fuzzy math again. The UE number is much higher than the distributed government numbers.

 

[8537]

There you go, you almost have it until you got to the last part.

So you believe the government should be publishing an official unemployment rate of 58%?

So people who don't want to work, people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

If your goal is to measure the health of the labor market, wouldn't it make far more sense to use a measure that counts people in the labor force?

So you believe the government should be publishing an official unemployment rate of 58%?

I believe the government should publish the truth for better or worse, so people can prepare if it bad news.

well, publishing a 58% unemployment rate isn't the truth. Publishing a statistic that says "58% of people aren't working, mainly because they don't want to work" is useless.

So people who don't want to work

How many people do you know who has a job still don't want to work? but if you do not have a job you are unemployed.


people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

Retired people as I said were the only exception. house wives have a job, and so do students it's called an education. You are trying to stretch that fuzzy math again. The UE number is much higher than the distributed government numbers.

So then we shouldn't count retired people. We shouldn't count students. Shouldn't count housewives. What about a guy who quit looking for work a few years ago because he's living off his investment income. Should we count him? What about other people who, for various reasons, aren't interested in finding a job. Should we count them?

 

[editec]

I can't believe there's a debate about these numbers,


The benefit of counting the EMPLOYED as a percentage of the total population is obvious.

That tells us just exactly how hard the working pipulation must work to support the non working population.

It is a good metric to know.

The unemployment numbers are also useful.

Taken in combination those two statistics can give a an idea of how the nation is doing generally.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you believe the government should be publishing an official unemployment rate of 58%?

So people who don't want to work, people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

If your goal is to measure the health of the labor market, wouldn't it make far more sense to use a measure that counts people in the labor force?

I believe the government should publish the truth for better or worse, so people can prepare if it bad news.

well, publishing a 58% unemployment rate isn't the truth. Publishing a statistic that says "58% of people aren't working, mainly because they don't want to work" is useless.

So people who don't want to work

How many people do you know who has a job still don't want to work? but if you do not have a job you are unemployed.


people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

Retired people as I said were the only exception. house wives have a job, and so do students it's called an education. You are trying to stretch that fuzzy math again. The UE number is much higher than the distributed government numbers.

So then we shouldn't count retired people. We shouldn't count students. Shouldn't count housewives. What about a guy who quit looking for work a few years ago because he's living off his investment income. Should we count him? What about other people who, for various reasons, aren't interested in finding a job. Should we count them?

Report them all even students and explain what they do as to why they are unemployed.
Students Housewives and retiree's. But you are trying to fuzz up the issue of why the government does not count people who are no longer on unemployment compensation as unemployed.

 

[8537]

I believe the government should publish the truth for better or worse, so people can prepare if it bad news.

well, publishing a 58% unemployment rate isn't the truth. Publishing a statistic that says "58% of people aren't working, mainly because they don't want to work" is useless.

How many people do you know who has a job still don't want to work? but if you do not have a job you are unemployed.


people too young to work, people who are retired, people who stay home and raise their kids....In order to get an accurate picture of the labor market, they should be included in the count of unemployed?

Retired people as I said were the only exception. house wives have a job, and so do students it's called an education. You are trying to stretch that fuzzy math again. The UE number is much higher than the distributed government numbers.

So then we shouldn't count retired people. We shouldn't count students. Shouldn't count housewives. What about a guy who quit looking for work a few years ago because he's living off his investment income. Should we count him? What about other people who, for various reasons, aren't interested in finding a job. Should we count them?

Report them all even students and explain what they do as to why they are unemployed.

This is already done in other surveys. The BLS Household Survey is meant assess the relative strength of the labor market. Therefore, there is no reason to include data on people who are not in the labor market.

But you are trying to fuzz up the issue of why the government does not count people who are no longer on unemployment compensation as unemployed.

This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie. Whether or not you collect unemployment is not a factor in determining whether the household survey considers you employed. They don't even ask if you're collecting unemployment.

Why would you continue to repeat that lie?

I'm not trying to make anything fuzzy. I'm trying to figure out how YOU would assess the health of the labor market and why you would include people who aren't in that market.

 

[pinqy]

Retired people as I said were the only exception. house wives have a job, and so do students it's called an education. You are trying to stretch that fuzzy math again. The UE number is much higher than the distributed government numbers.

Actually, if you're counting housewives and students as employed, then the UE rate would be much LOWER because you're adding so many more employed into the equation.

I'm not sure who you would want to add as unemployed (except for people who ran out of benefits and they're already included as unemployed).

So who has the fuzzy math?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well, publishing a 58% unemployment rate isn't the truth. Publishing a statistic that says "58% of people aren't working, mainly because they don't want to work" is useless.





So then we shouldn't count retired people. We shouldn't count students. Shouldn't count housewives. What about a guy who quit looking for work a few years ago because he's living off his investment income. Should we count him? What about other people who, for various reasons, aren't interested in finding a job. Should we count them?

Report them all even students and explain what they do as to why they are unemployed.

This is already done in other surveys. The BLS Household Survey is meant assess the relative strength of the labor market. Therefore, there is no reason to include data on people who are not in the labor market.

But you are trying to fuzz up the issue of why the government does not count people who are no longer on unemployment compensation as unemployed.

This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie. Whether or not you collect unemployment is not a factor in determining whether the household survey considers you employed. They don't even ask if you're collecting unemployment.

Why would you continue to repeat that lie?

I'm not trying to make anything fuzzy. I'm trying to figure out how YOU would assess the health of the labor market and why you would include people who aren't in that market.

This is already done in other surveys

Not in the unemployment reports so try again.

This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie.

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

Why would you continue to repeat that lie?

Why are you defending a lying report?

 

[pinqy]

This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie.

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

 

[pinqy]

Ok, since this thread has gotten so long, I've started a new one just to discuss Unemployment definitions over in the Economy Forum. http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/197676-who-should-be-counted-as-unemployed.html

 

[Full-Auto]

This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie.

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

Just a question.............

Why would the labor secretary state that if Unemployment benefits are not extended. It would mean higher unemployment.

 

[8537]

Report them all even students and explain what they do as to why they are unemployed.

This is already done in other surveys. The BLS Household Survey is meant assess the relative strength of the labor market. Therefore, there is no reason to include data on people who are not in the labor market.



This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie. Whether or not you collect unemployment is not a factor in determining whether the household survey considers you employed. They don't even ask if you're collecting unemployment.

Why would you continue to repeat that lie?

I'm not trying to make anything fuzzy. I'm trying to figure out how YOU would assess the health of the labor market and why you would include people who aren't in that market.

Not in the unemployment reports so try again.

So you want the government to duplicate its own efforts? They might as well ask if people prefer Coke or Pepsi in the household survey.

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

No, as has been pointed out to you several times the methodology to compute the unemployment rate does not involve ascertaining whether or not a person collects unemployment.

Seriously. It doesn't. It's not a factor in the survey. You demonstrate your ignorance a bit more each time you make that statement.

 

[8537]

This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie.

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

The source of the claim is his own inability to admit he's wrong.

 

[pinqy]

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

The source of the claim is his own inability to admit he's wrong.

Maybe he's talking about China. Their UE rate is based on urban population collecting benefits. Or maybe he's still in Eastern Europe or Germany or France in the 90's.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

Just a question.............

Why would the labor secretary state that if Unemployment benefits are not extended. It would mean higher unemployment.

Good question

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is about the tenth time you've repeated that lie.

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

Why are you defending a lie?

 

[8537]

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

Just a question.............

Why would the labor secretary state that if Unemployment benefits are not extended. It would mean higher unemployment.

Because cutting unemployment benefits leads to a decline in consumption and therefore a decline in demand for labor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a lying sack of shit if you say it's a lie.

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

The source of the claim is his own inability to admit he's wrong.

It's dishonest the defend information that is false and knowingly do it.
People go off unemployment the unemployment rate drops if new jobs are not added in the next report that would mean what?
It would mean that those people are still unemployed if no new tax are taken in then it would mean those people are still unemployed. But do continue with you defending this false information you amuse me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But it IS a lie. The US has NEVER EVER based the UE rate or level on Unemployment benefits. Why do you keep saying they do? Where are you getting that idea from? I've posted links proving it's a lie but you refuse to read them, so WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIM? Or will you admit you just made it up?

Just a question.............

Why would the labor secretary state that if Unemployment benefits are not extended. It would mean higher unemployment.

Because cutting unemployment benefits leads to a decline in consumption and therefore a decline in demand for labor.

and lower demand for labor would mean fewer jobs. You are defending people who claim food stamps as employment.