More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[bigrebnc1775]

No, it's not fuzzy math. If you don't want to work, you aren't looking for work and you wouldn't take a job if it was offered, why would a study of the labor market include you as a member of the labor market?

GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW FUZZY MATH WORKS.^^^^^^^^^^
If you don't have a job no matter if you're looking or not you are unemployed. If not what would you be?

Not in the Labor Force.
The Labor Force is available labor. People not trying to work are obviously not available labor. Most of the 86 million people not in the labor force are over 65 or disabled or students or stay home spouses. A minority say they do want a job, though most of those couldn't take one if offered. A portion of those who say they want a job say they are available and they have looked in the last year but stopped looking (illness/injury/pregnancy/child care or transportation issues etc). These are called the Marginally Attached because there's a good chance they will become available soon. About half the Marginally Attached say the reason they quit looking was because they didn't think they'd find work (too old, too young, not the right skills, bad economy) and these are the discouraged (about a million currently). The U-4 measurement includes the discouraged and the U-5 measurement includes all Marginally Attached.

 

[pinqy]

The data is seasonally adjusted to account for the increased hiring at this time of year.

You're mixing apples and elephant turds.

The BLS seasonally adjusts employment rates, Bloomberg was reporting raw numbers.

No they weren't. Bloomberg was reporting the seasonally adjusted Unemployment Insurance claims (not used for employment rates, not done by BLS). If you go to the ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report you'll see that the unadjusted initial UI claims went up and the seasonally adjusted went down.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You suck as an analyst.

Really? Stay tuned.

First off, UI claims always go UP by a lot the first week of December (avg of 43% last 3 years) not down.

Really?

{Traditionally, there are more retail jobs available in New Hampshire during November and December than during any other time of the year. According to the Retail Merchants Association of New Hampshire, 67 percent of their members are hiring extra help during the holidays, many at the same pay rate or higher than that offered last year.}

Seasonal jobs open, but demand is high | New Hampshire NEWS02

{Each year, seasonal hiring begins in October and continues through the end of the year to account for the holiday shopping rush. According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a global outplacement consultancy, hiring for the 2011 holiday season is expected to remain the same or lower than last year, when employers brought on 627,600 temporary workers.

Read more on the Simply Hired Blog: http://blog.simplyhired.com/2011/10/seasonal-jobs-2011-companies-hiring-for-the-holidays.html#ixzz1fyMsWZJ1}

As with most of what you post, the facts are virtually 180° of what you claim.

Secondly, the numbers are seasonally adjusted to eliminate the effect of normal seasonal changes. So while initial claims did go up by 151,000 (41%), that's a lot fewer than normal, so seasonal adjustment shows that as a decrease.

Wait a minute, YOU just said unemployment claims RISE in December, so why the need to seasonally adjust?

The answer is, of course, that what you claimed is false and contradicts what you claim here. The adjustment is to account for 600,000 retail workers ADDED, not for increases in claims.

So you were wrong by claiming it was an effect of Christmas

You suck as an analyst, mostly because you don't bother to read what is written. First off, Bloomberg was reporting raw numbers, not percentages. Is it your claim that Bloomberg or the BLS reported false numbers?

(since the numbers are seasonally adjusted to eliminate that effect) and you were wrong about what the effect was (claims go UP 1st week of Dec, not down).

No, I was not wrong. I didn't dispute that employment percentages are seasonally adjusted.

You are merely erecting a straw man.

You have to have actual knowledge before you can belittle the statements of others.

Irony, I love it.

 

[8537]

The data is seasonally adjusted to account for the increased hiring at this time of year.

You're mixing apples and elephant turds.

The BLS seasonally adjusts employment rates, Bloomberg was reporting raw numbers.

It's really hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is this fucking ignorant.

The Bloomberg figures are not raw numbers. Please do the most basic research before you make yourself look this stupid again. The data set is called "seasonally adjusted".

 

[8537]

GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW FUZZY MATH WORKS.^^^^^^^^^^
If you don't have a job no matter if you're looking or not you are unemployed. If not what would you be?

So you're back to wanting to include students, retired people and housewives in the unemployment rate?

The only rational way to measure the health of the labor market is to measure people interested in participating in the labor market.

No you are.

It's really absurd to even have a discussion with you. You just said you wanted to include people who don't have a job no matter if they are looking or not.

I give you examples of people who are not looking for jobs but, by your own definition, you want to count.

And you respond by saying I'm the one who wants to count them.

I must ask where does the government get these numbers from

13.3 million unemployed, was down by 594,000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

It doesn't matter where they get the numbers from - you've been given that information. You just don't care.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you're back to wanting to include students, retired people and housewives in the unemployment rate?

The only rational way to measure the health of the labor market is to measure people interested in participating in the labor market.

No you are.

It's really absurd to even have a discussion with you. You just said you wanted to include people who don't have a job no matter if they are looking or not.

I give you examples of people who are not looking for jobs but, by your own definition, you want to count.

And you respond by saying I'm the one who wants to count them.

I must ask where does the government get these numbers from

13.3 million unemployed, was down by 594,000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

It doesn't matter where they get the numbers from - you've been given that information. You just don't care.

It doesn't matter where they get the numbers from - you've been given that information. You just don't care.

So now it doesn't matter where they get those numbers from? It matters if those numbers are from the working number of adults or all the population in the U.S.
sO WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?

 

[pinqy]

You suck as an analyst.

Really? Stay tuned.

First off, UI claims always go UP by a lot the first week of December (avg of 43% last 3 years) not down.

Really?

{Traditionally, there are more retail jobs available in New Hampshire during November and December than during any other time of the year. According to the Retail Merchants Association of New Hampshire, 67 percent of their members are hiring extra help during the holidays, many at the same pay rate or higher than that offered last year.}

Seasonal jobs open, but demand is high | New Hampshire NEWS02

{Each year, seasonal hiring begins in October and continues through the end of the year to account for the holiday shopping rush. According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a global outplacement consultancy, hiring for the 2011 holiday season is expected to remain the same or lower than last year, when employers brought on 627,600 temporary workers.

Read more on the Simply Hired Blog: http://blog.simplyhired.com/2011/10/seasonal-jobs-2011-companies-hiring-for-the-holidays.html#ixzz1fyMsWZJ1}

I'm sorry, where in any of that did it mention Unemployment Insurance claims? You're talking about hiring for a broad time frame, I'm pointing out UI claims for a specific week. Go to Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor pull a few years, look at the Not Seasonally Adjusted claims for the last week in November and the first week in Dec. You will see a large increase in the number of UI claims every year.

Wait a minute, YOU just said unemployment claims RISE in December, so why the need to seasonally adjust?

Because they usually rise the first week of December, that's a seasonal pattern. Seasonal patterns need to be accounted for to look at the underlying trend.

The answer is, of course, that what you claimed is false and contradicts what you claim here. The adjustment is to account for 600,000 retail workers ADDED, not for increases in claims.

Why would you need to adjust for people hired in a report on UI claims???? Hires are no part of it.

You suck as an analyst, mostly because you don't bother to read what is written. First off, Bloomberg was reporting raw numbers, not percentages. Is it your claim that Bloomberg or the BLS reported false numbers?

Bloomberg was NOT reporting raw numbers. They were reporting the Seasonally Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims. Nothing to do with any BLS data. Look at the ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report

No, I was not wrong. I didn't dispute that employment percentages are seasonally adjusted.

But we weren't talking about (un)employment percentages. Your post was about Unemployment Insurance claims (which are not used at all for calculating the UE rate.

You don't know the difference between the different reports, you don't know the agencies involved, you talk about hiring as an effect on UI claims. It's just odd.

One more time: Regardless of any hiring, the number of Initial Unemployment Insurance claims always goes up from the last week of November to the first week of December, most likely because of Thanksgiving. Therefore they are seasonally adjusted. These numbers have nothing to do with the Unemployment rate calculations and are not done by the same agency (though both fall under DOL)

 

[8537]

No you are.

It's really absurd to even have a discussion with you. You just said you wanted to include people who don't have a job no matter if they are looking or not.

I give you examples of people who are not looking for jobs but, by your own definition, you want to count.

And you respond by saying I'm the one who wants to count them.

I must ask where does the government get these numbers from

It doesn't matter where they get the numbers from - you've been given that information. You just don't care.

It doesn't matter where they get the numbers from - you've been given that information. You just don't care.

So now it doesn't matter where they get those numbers from? It matters if those numbers are from the working number of adults or all the population in the U.S.
sO WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?

No - it doesn't matter because you are wholly incapable of accepting the truth about where the numbers come from. It's been explained to you numerous times. Because a set of 60,000 monthly observations over 50 years disagrees with your experience in your town interacting with a few folks, you dismiss the 60,000 person survey.

When it's explained why certain people are not included in the count, you claim they must be included or its fuzzy math. Then, when asked why those people should be included you claim that I was the one who said they should. You have no interest in the truth if that truth doesn't meet your own bias.

 

[Conservative]

So you're back to wanting to include students, retired people and housewives in the unemployment rate?

The only rational way to measure the health of the labor market is to measure people interested in participating in the labor market.

No you are.

It's really absurd to even have a discussion with you. You just said you wanted to include people who don't have a job no matter if they are looking or not.

I give you examples of people who are not looking for jobs but, by your own definition, you want to count.

And you respond by saying I'm the one who wants to count them.

I must ask where does the government get these numbers from

13.3 million unemployed, was down by 594,000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

It doesn't matter where they get the numbers from - you've been given that information. You just don't care.

you will never get a rational conversation out of him. As soon as you prove him wrong, or catch him in a lie, he'll claim you are wrong, that he caught you in a lie, and claim victory. That, or put you on ignore because you PWNED him. He's got a classic narcissistic personality, according to the definition on MAYOCLINIC.COM.

 

[pinqy]

So now it doesn't matter where they get those numbers from? It matters if those numbers are from the working number of adults or all the population in the U.S.
sO WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?

I gave you the links, but here's the simple version.
Every month Census does a survey of 60,000 households. Excluded are people in prison, mental institutes, the military and anyone under 16.
That's the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population.
The Population is divided into 2 groups: Labor Force, Not in the Labor Force.
The Labor Force is everyone who is actually available to work either by working (Employed) or trying to get work (Unemployed).
People who are not working and not looking for work are Not in the Labor Force.
The Labor Force participation rate is the percent of the population that is in the Labor Force: 64%
The Employment Population ratio is the percent of the population that is employed: 58.5%
The Unemployment Rate is the percent of the Labor Force that is Unemployed: 8.6%

The purpose of the UE rate is to tell us how much available labor is not being used....how relatively easy/difficult it is to get a job if you're looking.

Is that clearer and less fuzzy?

 

[8537]

So now it doesn't matter where they get those numbers from? It matters if those numbers are from the working number of adults or all the population in the U.S.
sO WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?

I gave you the links, but here's the simple version.
Every month Census does a survey of 60,000 households. Excluded are people in prison, mental institutes, the military and anyone under 16.
That's the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population.
The Population is divided into 2 groups: Labor Force, Not in the Labor Force.
The Labor Force is everyone who is actually available to work either by working (Employed) or trying to get work (Unemployed).
People who are not working and not looking for work are Not in the Labor Force.
The Labor Force participation rate is the percent of the population that is in the Labor Force: 64%
The Employment Population ratio is the percent of the population that is employed: 58.5%
The Unemployment Rate is the percent of the Labor Force that is Unemployed: 8.6%

The purpose of the UE rate is to tell us how much available labor is not being used....how relatively easy/difficult it is to get a job if you're looking.

Is that clearer and less fuzzy?

LIES! all LIES! I was walking through town earlier and I saw:

1) TWO homeless people
2) THREE people who couldn't find a job
3) And I talked to a guy who knew a guy who's sister works at the 31 flavors, and he said they're laying people off.

So clearly your data is all lies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

you will never get a rational conversation out of him. As soon as you prove him wrong, or catch him in a lie, he'll claim you are wrong, that he caught you in a lie, and claim victory. That, or put you on ignore because you PWNED him. He's got a classic narcissistic personality, according to the definition on MAYOCLINIC.COM.

What the fuck, troll?

Is it your task to pretend to be conservative and then go pick fights with anyone center or right on the board?

Why don't you do everyone a favor and fuck off?

 

[G.T.]

you will never get a rational conversation out of him. As soon as you prove him wrong, or catch him in a lie, he'll claim you are wrong, that he caught you in a lie, and claim victory. That, or put you on ignore because you PWNED him. He's got a classic narcissistic personality, according to the definition on MAYOCLINIC.COM.

What the fuck, troll?

Is it your task to pretend to be conservative and then go pick fights with anyone center or right on the board?

Why don't you do everyone a favor and fuck off?

take your own advice ass hole.

let adults talk.

you're just here to be a "contrarian" of anything liberal, despite if the facts are against you.............despite not studying the topic....despite being ignorant and biased.

you're just a dick-head, straight up.

 

[Conservative]

you will never get a rational conversation out of him. As soon as you prove him wrong, or catch him in a lie, he'll claim you are wrong, that he caught you in a lie, and claim victory. That, or put you on ignore because you PWNED him. He's got a classic narcissistic personality, according to the definition on MAYOCLINIC.COM.

What the fuck, troll?

Is it your task to pretend to be conservative and then go pick fights with anyone center or right on the board?

Why don't you do everyone a favor and fuck off?

Because I think one guy is a fuckwad, I am a pretend conservative?

Please... show me 3 posts where I espoused typical liberal viepoints.

putz.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you will never get a rational conversation out of him. As soon as you prove him wrong, or catch him in a lie, he'll claim you are wrong, that he caught you in a lie, and claim victory. That, or put you on ignore because you PWNED him. He's got a classic narcissistic personality, according to the definition on MAYOCLINIC.COM.

What the fuck, troll?

Is it your task to pretend to be conservative and then go pick fights with anyone center or right on the board?

Why don't you do everyone a favor and fuck off?

 

[pinqy]

And I did start a new thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/197676-who-should-be-counted-as-unemployed.html just to discuss the definitions if you want to carry on that discussion there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you will never get a rational conversation out of him. As soon as you prove him wrong, or catch him in a lie, he'll claim you are wrong, that he caught you in a lie, and claim victory. That, or put you on ignore because you PWNED him. He's got a classic narcissistic personality, according to the definition on MAYOCLINIC.COM.

What the fuck, troll?

Is it your task to pretend to be conservative and then go pick fights with anyone center or right on the board?

Why don't you do everyone a favor and fuck off?

Because I think one guy is a fuckwad, I am a pretend conservative?

Please... show me 3 posts where I espoused typical liberal viepoints.

putz.

1. I am not a fuck wad for busting you for lying
2. You act like a liberal with your childish pursuits
3. Conservatives do not go after other conservatives unless they have hard evidence that the other person is not a conservative, they just ignore that person.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm sorry, where in any of that did it mention Unemployment Insurance claims?

Is it your impression that the employed file new UI claims?

You're talking about hiring for a broad time frame, I'm pointing out UI claims for a specific week. Go to Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor pull a few years, look at the Not Seasonally Adjusted claims for the last week in November and the first week in Dec. You will see a large increase in the number of UI claims every year.

Week to week variations add very little to the dialogue.

The fact is that over the last quarter of the year, employment increases due to retail and logistics adding head count to meet holiday demand.

Because they usually rise the first week of December, that's a seasonal pattern. Seasonal patterns need to be accounted for to look at the underlying trend.

Why would you need to adjust for people hired in a report on UI claims???? Hires are no part of it.

Once again, new hires don't fill out UI claims.

Bloomberg was NOT reporting raw numbers. They were reporting the Seasonally Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims. Nothing to do with any BLS data. Look at the ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report

Bloomberg reported {There were 381,000 first-time claims for unemployment insurance last week, down 23,000 from the previous week and the fewest since late February}

Now there are several possibilities, first that the first-time claims were actually 980,000 to adjust for seasonal hires - in which case we are all fucked. Or that Bloomberg is lying to make you look bad; highly unlikely: OR, using Occams Razor, that there were 381,000 first-time claims for unemployment insurance last week.

But we weren't talking about (un)employment percentages. Your post was about Unemployment Insurance claims (which are not used at all for calculating the UE rate.

And?

You and 8537 jumped in with the typical mantra of "BUT THEY'RE SEASONALLY ADJUSTED."

No, they're not. There were 381,000 first-time claims for unemployment insurance last week, it's rounded, but it's the actual number.

You don't know the difference between the different reports, you don't know the agencies involved, you talk about hiring as an effect on UI claims. It's just odd.

Once again, those who are hired don't file claims.

I'm hoping you can grasp this.

One more time: Regardless of any hiring, the number of Initial Unemployment Insurance claims always goes up from the last week of November to the first week of December, most likely because of Thanksgiving. Therefore they are seasonally adjusted.

Rates are adjusted. The number of claims is what the number of claims were.

These numbers have nothing to do with the Unemployment rate calculations and are not done by the same agency (though both fall under DOL)

You're slowly catching on. Good for you.

The Employment and Training Administration is not a statistical agency and reports the number of claims, period. BLS plays games with the numbers to create trends.

 

[Uncensored2008]

take your own advice ass hole.

let adults talk.

The adults will talk, as soon as you leave.

you're just here to be a "contrarian" of anything liberal, despite if the facts are against you.............despite not studying the topic....despite being ignorant and biased.

Son, you're a partisan hack. You spew a party line that you neither grasp nor care about.

you're just a dick-head, straight up.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, I know the subject and can argue intelligently - you cannot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because I think one guy is a fuckwad, I am a pretend conservative?

I don't give a flying fuck about your obsession with BigReb. However, you decided to attack me out of the blue. Clearly, you attack anyone who holds views or argues points that are center or right.

Please... show me 3 posts where I espoused typical liberal viepoints.

putz.

How about 10 posts where you troll those who fail to espouse the DNC talking points?

Troll.