More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[8537]

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.

Indeed, lower demand for labor would mean fewer jobs. That's the answer to the "good question" posed earlier about why the labor secretary's statement.

 

[8537]

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.

Yet you continue to defend false information. That makes you dishonet.

People go off unemployment the unemployment rate drops if new jobs are not added in the next report that would mean what?

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

p is right in the calculations. I just thought it interesting the labor secretary would issue the statement. Must be that welfare dollar returning and extra 40 cents policy.

 

[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?

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

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

I believe what she meant was that lack of benefits means less spending by the new poor which means less revenue for small businesses which means more layoffs and thus more unemployment.

 

[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?

Why are you defending a lie?

I'm not. But go ahead, prove me wrong. Show me anything reliable to support your claim (meaning not just some other schmuck without actual evidence).

I've given you links, here they are again:
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Technical Notes to Employment and Earnings
BLS Handbook of Methods: Ch. 1: Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment from the Current Population Survey
Technical Paper 66

Yes those are government sources for how they collect and process the data. If you think they're lying about what they do, please show us where you're getting the "real info" from.

Of course if the BLS Handbook of Methods is lying, that means they're lying to their own people. Interesting.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

I believe what she meant was that lack of benefits means less spending by the new poor which means less revenue for small businesses which means more layoffs and thus more unemployment.

In other words a left wing opinion.

 

[pinqy]

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

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

I believe what she meant was that lack of benefits means less spending by the new poor which means less revenue for small businesses which means more layoffs and thus more unemployment.

In other words a left wing opinion.

Pretty much. There's some merit to the idea, but I'm unconvinced that it's a necessary effect. In general, people find work in the first few weeks or the last few weeks of benefits. So we would have two effects going on by not extending benefits: First, people losing benefits would be more likely to take a job, any job (or two or three) out of desperation, which would increase employment (but raise Underemployment) and at the same time the effects Sec Solis mentions. Anybody who claims for sure which effect would be more prevelant, without producing a peer-reviewed study, is not being entirely honest in my never humble opinion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yet you continue to defend false information. That makes you dishonet.

People go off unemployment the unemployment rate drops if new jobs are not added in the next report that would mean what?

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate

OH so if the entire nation became unemployed that would mean no unemployment.

 

[Chris]

It's dishonest the defend information that is false and knowingly do it.

Yet you continue to defend false information. That makes you dishonet.

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate

OH so if the entire nation became unemployed that would mean no unemployment.

Unemployment is improving and will continue to improve as the economy picks up.

You are just praying the economy will fail, so the Republicans will win the next election, and wreck the economy again.

 

[8537]

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate

[/LIST]
OH so if the entire nation became unemployed that would mean no unemployment.

I have no earthly idea where you arrive at these conclusions, but it's certainly not from my posts.

If the entire nation quit claiming unemployment insurance benefits, it would not impact the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's what I said. It's true. And that's because the number of people claiming UE insurance benefits is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

But of course I just said that...and you got busy misinterpreting once again.

 

[pinqy]

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate

[/LIST]
OH so if the entire nation became unemployed that would mean no unemployment.

I have no earthly idea where you arrive at these conclusions, but it's certainly not from my posts.

If the entire nation quit claiming unemployment insurance benefits, it would not impact the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's what I said. It's true. And that's because the number of people claiming UE insurance benefits is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

But of course I just said that...and you got busy misinterpreting once again.

His logic is not our Earth logic.
He makes a claim that he does not attempt to prove or back up.
When given links to contrary evidence proving his claim wrong, he refuses to read them on the grounds that they're lying.
He doesn't attempt to prove or back up the claim that the links are lies.
He calls us liars.

That's about the most bizzarre thing I've ever encountered, and I've believed as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast.

 

[JDzBrain]

...Except food, energy and clothing ARE included in the CPI!

Liars figure and figures lie!

If you consider some arbitrary COL figure based on the same kind of fuzzy math averaging, assumptions and guesses you sight as proof of life in this economy to be a TRUE inflationary index for REAL WORLD prices...then yeah, it's included.

The TRUTH is...it's just more fuzzy math that is manipulated to fit the agenda of whoever is in power at the moment!

Just keep watching Jethro. The unemployment figure WILL be adjusted UPWARD! And you can bet the farm and the workers that it will be closer to 8.8% than 8.6%!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[/LIST]
OH so if the entire nation became unemployed that would mean no unemployment.

I have no earthly idea where you arrive at these conclusions, but it's certainly not from my posts.

If the entire nation quit claiming unemployment insurance benefits, it would not impact the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's what I said. It's true. And that's because the number of people claiming UE insurance benefits is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

But of course I just said that...and you got busy misinterpreting once again.

His logic is not our Earth logic.
He makes a claim that he does not attempt to prove or back up.
When given links to contrary evidence proving his claim wrong, he refuses to read them on the grounds that they're lying.
He doesn't attempt to prove or back up the claim that the links are lies.
He calls us liars.

That's about the most bizzarre thing I've ever encountered, and I've believed as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast.

The governmental lies yes or no?

 

[pinqy]

...Except food, energy and clothing ARE included in the CPI!

Liars figure and figures lie!

And you're living proof.

If you consider some arbitrary COL figure based on the same kind of fuzzy math averaging, assumptions and guesses you sight as proof of life in this economy to be a TRUE inflationary index for REAL WORLD prices...then yeah, it's included.

It's not fuzzy math, it's not arbitrary, and no one claims it's a "TRUE inflationary index." It's an approximation of a COLI. BEA uses the PCE instead..based on the CPI raw data, but different weithts.

The TRUTH is...it's just more fuzzy math that is manipulated to fit the agenda of whoever is in power at the moment!

I'd love to see your evidence of that. There are simply too many variables, too many agencies and individuals involved to directly "cook the books." And the administration doesn't know before hand what the index will say, so they can hardly tell BLS what to publish...and there would be no time to make corrections anyway.

The unemployment figure WILL be adjusted UPWARD!!

No it won't. The UE figure doesn't get revised.

 

[Conservative]

[/LIST]
OH so if the entire nation became unemployed that would mean no unemployment.

I have no earthly idea where you arrive at these conclusions, but it's certainly not from my posts.

If the entire nation quit claiming unemployment insurance benefits, it would not impact the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's what I said. It's true. And that's because the number of people claiming UE insurance benefits is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

But of course I just said that...and you got busy misinterpreting once again.

His logic is not our Earth logic.
He makes a claim that he does not attempt to prove or back up.
When given links to contrary evidence proving his claim wrong, he refuses to read them on the grounds that they're lying.
He doesn't attempt to prove or back up the claim that the links are lies.
He calls us liars.

That's about the most bizzarre thing I've ever encountered, and I've believed as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast.

that would be because bigfuckingnarcissist1775 is a big fucking liar himself, as I have proven dozens of times in dozens of threads.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The entire population could go off unemployment insurance benefits tomorrow and it wouldn't change the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's because the number of people claiming unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate

[/LIST]
OH so if the entire nation became unemployed that would mean no unemployment.

I have no earthly idea where you arrive at these conclusions, but it's certainly not from my posts.

If the entire nation quit claiming unemployment insurance benefits, it would not impact the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's what I said. It's true. And that's because the number of people claiming UE insurance benefits is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

But of course I just said that...and you got busy misinterpreting once again.

no body works and no get's unemployment would be shown as zero unemployment is that what you are trying to say?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have no earthly idea where you arrive at these conclusions, but it's certainly not from my posts.

If the entire nation quit claiming unemployment insurance benefits, it would not impact the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's what I said. It's true. And that's because the number of people claiming UE insurance benefits is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

But of course I just said that...and you got busy misinterpreting once again.

His logic is not our Earth logic.
He makes a claim that he does not attempt to prove or back up.
When given links to contrary evidence proving his claim wrong, he refuses to read them on the grounds that they're lying.
He doesn't attempt to prove or back up the claim that the links are lies.
He calls us liars.

That's about the most bizzarre thing I've ever encountered, and I've believed as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast.

that would be because bigfuckingnarcissist1775 is a big fucking liar himself, as I have proven dozens of times in dozens of threads.

Read my signature you lying son of a bitch

 

[pinqy]

I have no earthly idea where you arrive at these conclusions, but it's certainly not from my posts.

If the entire nation quit claiming unemployment insurance benefits, it would not impact the calculation for the unemployment rate a single bit. That's what I said. It's true. And that's because the number of people claiming UE insurance benefits is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

But of course I just said that...and you got busy misinterpreting once again.

His logic is not our Earth logic.
He makes a claim that he does not attempt to prove or back up.
When given links to contrary evidence proving his claim wrong, he refuses to read them on the grounds that they're lying.
He doesn't attempt to prove or back up the claim that the links are lies.
He calls us liars.

That's about the most bizzarre thing I've ever encountered, and I've believed as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast.

The governmental lies yes or no?

Everybody lies. The question is whether or not they're lying about this particular thing and what your evidence is that they are lying. Surely even you are not stupid enough to claim that every single thing the government says is a lie?

So...why do you claim the government is lying about how they collect the UE data (they say they do not base it on UI benefits, and you say they really do) and what is your evidence to support this?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

His logic is not our Earth logic.
He makes a claim that he does not attempt to prove or back up.
When given links to contrary evidence proving his claim wrong, he refuses to read them on the grounds that they're lying.
He doesn't attempt to prove or back up the claim that the links are lies.
He calls us liars.

That's about the most bizzarre thing I've ever encountered, and I've believed as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast.

The governmental lies yes or no?

Everybody lies. The question is whether or not they're lying about this particular thing and what your evidence is that they are lying. Surely even you are not stupid enough to claim that every single thing the government says is a lie?

So...why do you claim the government is lying about how they collect the UE data (they say they do not base it on UI benefits, and you say they really do) and what is your evidence to support this?

Not everybody lies but to ask you one more time
The government lies yes or no?

So...why do you claim the government is lying about how they collect the UE data

Because the numbers do no match with the actual number of people not having a job.

 

[pinqy]

The governmental lies yes or no?

Everybody lies. The question is whether or not they're lying about this particular thing and what your evidence is that they are lying. Surely even you are not stupid enough to claim that every single thing the government says is a lie?

So...why do you claim the government is lying about how they collect the UE data (they say they do not base it on UI benefits, and you say they really do) and what is your evidence to support this?

Not everybody lies but to ask you one more time
The government lies yes or no?

I answered. The government would be included in "everybody." Funny how you insist I answer your questions but you refuse to answer mine.

So...why do you claim the government is lying about how they collect the UE data

Because the numbers do no match with the actual number of people not having a job.

That doesn't mean they're lying about how they collect the numbers and it certainly doesn't mean your specific claim that the numbers come from UI benefits.

Here is the government numbers: As of the week of Nov 6-12 there were 7,005,495
people receiving benefits from all programs (according to DoL Employment and Training Administration
There were 13,102,000 actual unemployed, adjusted for normal seasonal changes to 13,303,000. Getting more specific, the unadjusted number is between 12,782,418 and 13,421,582 at 90% confidence (between 8.3% and 8.7% UE rate) and the seasonally adjusted number is between 140,056,617 and 141,103,383 at 90% confidence (between 8.4% and 8.9% UE rate). Gallup's estimate of the Unadjusted UE rate is between 7.5% and 9.5% at 95% confidence.

So, what's the real number and where did you get it from and what defintions are you using?