Remember when Trump said 5% UE number was a hoax?

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a delightful retrospective on Trump's 'old' view of the unemployment numbers:

Sep. 7, 2012

“Unemployment rate only dropped because more people are out of labor force & have stopped looking for work. Not a real recovery, phony numbers”

Oct. 19, 2012
"7.8% unemployment number is a complete fraud as evidenced by the jobless claims number released yesterday. Real unemployment is at least 15%”

Aug. 11, 2013
“We can rev up this economy like it should be, not with false numbers like 7.4 percent unemployment. But with real numbers.”

May 31, 2014
“Unemployment is a totally phony number.”

June 16, 2015
“Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don't believe the 5.6. Don't believe it.”

Aug. 11, 2015
“Then you hear there's a 5.4 percent unemployment. It's really — if you add it up, it's probably 40 percent if you think about it.”

Aug. 30, 2015
“They show those phony statistics where we are 5.4 percent unemployment. The real number, I saw a number that could be 42 percent, believe it or not.”

Sept. 28, 2015
“I hear 5.3 percent unemployment, that is the biggest joke there is in this country. That number is so false.”

Sept. 29, 2015
“The number is not reflective. I have seen numbers of 24 percent. I saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. … That number is so false.”

Oct. 9, 2015
“They say 5.3 percent employment. The number is probably 32 percent.”

Oct. 11, 2015
“Nobody has jobs. … It is not a real economy. It is a phony set of numbers. They cooked the books.”

Jan. 17, 2016
“Look again, you hear these phony jobs numbers? People that gave up looking for jobs? They are considered employed.”

Feb. 9, 2016
“Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. As high as 35 — as in fact, I heard recently, 42 percent.”

March 12, 2016
“The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good. These are phony numbers.”

May 24, 2016
“You hear a 5 percent unemployment rate. It's such a phony number. That number was put in for presidents and for politicians so that they look good to the people.”

July 7, 2016
“The phony 5 percent numbers that we hear about with the unemployment.”

Aug. 8, 2016
“The 5 percent figure is one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics.”

Nov. 4, 2016
“The terrible jobs report that just came out … you can see phony numbers, 5 percent.”

Dec. 8, 2016
“The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”

Analysis | 19 times Trump called jobs numbers ‘fake’ before they made him look good

question really is here -- DO YOU understand the UE numbers and how the ONE of MANY that gets used is perhaps the LEAST USEFUL of all of them? If you DID -- you wouldn't be making this into a Felony speech.

You need to look at SEVERAL numbers to even have a CLUE what it means.
BUT --- you tribal warriors keep chucking them spears. Sooner or later, you MIGHT hit something.

Is Trump now touting the UE numbers he was using before he was elected?

YES OR NO??

Trump is smart enough to read ALL the UE numbers. The numbers that COUNT -- show the improvement.

There's not a single number that comes out of Wash DC nowadays that doesn't come with all that legal mumbo that you see at the bottom small print in commercials. Must of them are outright fabricated. Out of torturous definitions of stuff that SOUNDS important.

Unbelievable.

Which numbers. List them.

lol, any post that starts with "Trump is smart enough..." can be considered unbelievable.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you're trying to measure competition for jobs and how easy or difficult it is to find work, then why would you want to include people who aren't trying? If you're looking at potential future job seekers, though, then it is useful.

Because they are prime candidates for the workforce. They just moved

into Mother's basement. Doesn't MEAN they can be ignored. Or hadn't you pondered that? Or maybe a working spouse quit and forced the family to downsize their home. Doesn't mean the economy is great.. RIGHT? Or are you gonna spin this politically to your favor somehow?

I'm not seeming any significant increase in either multiple job holders or part time for economic reasons.

Then you're certainly not qualified to be ragging on me about interpreting DOE statistics. Because with the threat of employer mandates looming thru O-Care -- MANY businesses cut jobs to 29 hours. Forcing a LOT of folks to change into a 2nd insulting costume mid-day and finish their work at a 2nd job. It's not ECONOMIC force causing this. It's brain-dead Legislation that may never become fully enacted. A lot of low-skilled and low wage positions that opened up in the past 4 or 5 years were limited to 29 hours per week..

Why don't you KNOW this stuff? Here's a test. Is a 29 hour/week job COUNTED as "a job"???

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's a delightful retrospective on Trump's 'old' view of the unemployment numbers:

Sep. 7, 2012

“Unemployment rate only dropped because more people are out of labor force & have stopped looking for work. Not a real recovery, phony numbers”

Oct. 19, 2012
"7.8% unemployment number is a complete fraud as evidenced by the jobless claims number released yesterday. Real unemployment is at least 15%”

Aug. 11, 2013
“We can rev up this economy like it should be, not with false numbers like 7.4 percent unemployment. But with real numbers.”

May 31, 2014
“Unemployment is a totally phony number.”

June 16, 2015
“Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don't believe the 5.6. Don't believe it.”

Aug. 11, 2015
“Then you hear there's a 5.4 percent unemployment. It's really — if you add it up, it's probably 40 percent if you think about it.”

Aug. 30, 2015
“They show those phony statistics where we are 5.4 percent unemployment. The real number, I saw a number that could be 42 percent, believe it or not.”

Sept. 28, 2015
“I hear 5.3 percent unemployment, that is the biggest joke there is in this country. That number is so false.”

Sept. 29, 2015
“The number is not reflective. I have seen numbers of 24 percent. I saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. … That number is so false.”

Oct. 9, 2015
“They say 5.3 percent employment. The number is probably 32 percent.”

Oct. 11, 2015
“Nobody has jobs. … It is not a real economy. It is a phony set of numbers. They cooked the books.”

Jan. 17, 2016
“Look again, you hear these phony jobs numbers? People that gave up looking for jobs? They are considered employed.”

Feb. 9, 2016
“Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. As high as 35 — as in fact, I heard recently, 42 percent.”

March 12, 2016
“The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good. These are phony numbers.”

May 24, 2016
“You hear a 5 percent unemployment rate. It's such a phony number. That number was put in for presidents and for politicians so that they look good to the people.”

July 7, 2016
“The phony 5 percent numbers that we hear about with the unemployment.”

Aug. 8, 2016
“The 5 percent figure is one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics.”

Nov. 4, 2016
“The terrible jobs report that just came out … you can see phony numbers, 5 percent.”

Dec. 8, 2016
“The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”

Analysis | 19 times Trump called jobs numbers ‘fake’ before they made him look good

question really is here -- DO YOU understand the UE numbers and how the ONE of MANY that gets used is perhaps the LEAST USEFUL of all of them? If you DID -- you wouldn't be making this into a Felony speech.

You need to look at SEVERAL numbers to even have a CLUE what it means.
BUT --- you tribal warriors keep chucking them spears. Sooner or later, you MIGHT hit something.

Is Trump now touting the UE numbers he was using before he was elected?

YES OR NO??

Trump is smart enough to read ALL the UE numbers. The numbers that COUNT -- show the improvement.

There's not a single number that comes out of Wash DC nowadays that doesn't come with all that legal mumbo that you see at the bottom small print in commercials. Must of them are outright fabricated. Out of torturous definitions of stuff that SOUNDS important.

Was that a YES or a NO?

Don't troll me with your ignorance. I made a salient point about needing to see ALL (or most) of the UE numbers to understand employment numbers. The one YOU are force fed is pure horseshit without the context of the others. So be blissfully unawares of how this work. Just leave me out of elementary school quizes on UE numbers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a delightful retrospective on Trump's 'old' view of the unemployment numbers:

Sep. 7, 2012

“Unemployment rate only dropped because more people are out of labor force & have stopped looking for work. Not a real recovery, phony numbers”

Oct. 19, 2012
"7.8% unemployment number is a complete fraud as evidenced by the jobless claims number released yesterday. Real unemployment is at least 15%”

Aug. 11, 2013
“We can rev up this economy like it should be, not with false numbers like 7.4 percent unemployment. But with real numbers.”

May 31, 2014
“Unemployment is a totally phony number.”

June 16, 2015
“Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don't believe the 5.6. Don't believe it.”

Aug. 11, 2015
“Then you hear there's a 5.4 percent unemployment. It's really — if you add it up, it's probably 40 percent if you think about it.”

Aug. 30, 2015
“They show those phony statistics where we are 5.4 percent unemployment. The real number, I saw a number that could be 42 percent, believe it or not.”

Sept. 28, 2015
“I hear 5.3 percent unemployment, that is the biggest joke there is in this country. That number is so false.”

Sept. 29, 2015
“The number is not reflective. I have seen numbers of 24 percent. I saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. … That number is so false.”

Oct. 9, 2015
“They say 5.3 percent employment. The number is probably 32 percent.”

Oct. 11, 2015
“Nobody has jobs. … It is not a real economy. It is a phony set of numbers. They cooked the books.”

Jan. 17, 2016
“Look again, you hear these phony jobs numbers? People that gave up looking for jobs? They are considered employed.”

Feb. 9, 2016
“Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. As high as 35 — as in fact, I heard recently, 42 percent.”

March 12, 2016
“The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good. These are phony numbers.”

May 24, 2016
“You hear a 5 percent unemployment rate. It's such a phony number. That number was put in for presidents and for politicians so that they look good to the people.”

July 7, 2016
“The phony 5 percent numbers that we hear about with the unemployment.”

Aug. 8, 2016
“The 5 percent figure is one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics.”

Nov. 4, 2016
“The terrible jobs report that just came out … you can see phony numbers, 5 percent.”

Dec. 8, 2016
“The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”

Analysis | 19 times Trump called jobs numbers ‘fake’ before they made him look good

question really is here -- DO YOU understand the UE numbers and how the ONE of MANY that gets used is perhaps the LEAST USEFUL of all of them? If you DID -- you wouldn't be making this into a Felony speech.

You need to look at SEVERAL numbers to even have a CLUE what it means.
BUT --- you tribal warriors keep chucking them spears. Sooner or later, you MIGHT hit something.

Is Trump now touting the UE numbers he was using before he was elected?

YES OR NO??

Trump is smart enough to read ALL the UE numbers. The numbers that COUNT -- show the improvement.

There's not a single number that comes out of Wash DC nowadays that doesn't come with all that legal mumbo that you see at the bottom small print in commercials. Must of them are outright fabricated. Out of torturous definitions of stuff that SOUNDS important.

Was that a YES or a NO?

Don't troll me with your ignorance. I made a salient point about needing to see ALL (or most) of the UE numbers to understand employment numbers. The one YOU are force fed is pure horseshit without the context of the others. So be blissfully unawares of how this work. Just leave me out of elementary school quizes on UE numbers.

You're defending an indefensible flip flop. That's all the context needed here.

 

[flacaltenn]

question really is here -- DO YOU understand the UE numbers and how the ONE of MANY that gets used is perhaps the LEAST USEFUL of all of them? If you DID -- you wouldn't be making this into a Felony speech.

You need to look at SEVERAL numbers to even have a CLUE what it means.
BUT --- you tribal warriors keep chucking them spears. Sooner or later, you MIGHT hit something.

Is Trump now touting the UE numbers he was using before he was elected?

YES OR NO??

Trump is smart enough to read ALL the UE numbers. The numbers that COUNT -- show the improvement.

There's not a single number that comes out of Wash DC nowadays that doesn't come with all that legal mumbo that you see at the bottom small print in commercials. Must of them are outright fabricated. Out of torturous definitions of stuff that SOUNDS important.

Was that a YES or a NO?

Don't troll me with your ignorance. I made a salient point about needing to see ALL (or most) of the UE numbers to understand employment numbers. The one YOU are force fed is pure horseshit without the context of the others. So be blissfully unawares of how this work. Just leave me out of elementary school quizes on UE numbers.

You're defending an indefensible flip flop. That's all the context needed here.

Ain't no "flip flop" anywheres. Just the fact that most often quoted UE number, the one that YOU mistakenly think is a good measure of employment health is garbage without the other numbers. That's why when someone WHO UNDERSTANDS THIS -- like Trump -- Makes a comment on unemployment -- he's NOT referring to JUST the UE3 number that ALL the political pundits toss out because they're ignorant.

 

[pinqy]

If you're trying to measure competition for jobs and how easy or difficult it is to find work, then why would you want to include people who aren't trying? If you're looking at potential future job seekers, though, then it is useful.

Because they are prime candidates for the workforce. They just moved

into Mother's basement. Doesn't MEAN they can be ignored.

As far as current completion for jobs and as a current supply of available workers is concerned? They're no more likely to get hired than an 94 year old invalid. They should be tracked as potential labor, but they're not available now...they took themselves out.

Or maybe a working spouse quit and forced the family to downsize their home. Doesn't mean the economy is great.. RIGHT?

Nor does it mean the economy is bad...the spouse quit. But the labor market isn't the entire economy anyway, and only an idiot would spin it that way.

I'm not seeming any significant increase in either multiple job holders or part time for economic reasons.

Then you're certainly not qualified to be ragging on me about interpreting DOE statistics.[/quote]
DOE statistics don't cover employment. It's all gas, and coal, electricity.

Because with the threat of employer mandates looming thru O-Care -- MANY businesses cut jobs to 29 hours. Forcing a LOT of folks to change into a 2nd insulting costume mid-day and finish their work at a 2nd job. It's not ECONOMIC force causing this. It's brain-dead Legislation that may never become fully enacted. A lot of low-skilled and low wage positions that opened up in the past 4 or 5 years were limited to 29 hours per week..

Well, let's look at multiple job holders, excluding those working at least one full time job.

A slight increase, but not large. Doesn't look significant to me.

Here's a test. Is a 29 hour/week job COUNTED as "a job"???

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? Now, if the person holding that job would prefer to work at least 35 hours/week and is available to work that much, and is working 29 hours because his/her hours were cut or s/he couldn't find a full time job, then that person will be classified as "Part Time for Economic Reasons." Now IF there was a significant number of people who had been working 35+ hours and had their hours cut due to Obamacare, we should see that in "Part time for economic reason, slack work or business conditions." But we don't

So, where is your evidence of all these part time jobs and reduced hours?