Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, he didn't. What he meant (and I know what he meant because anyone in the field will tell you the same thing) is that the UE rate is misleading low in that there are many other factors, such as part time for economic reasons, large number of long term unemployed, and stagnant real wages that mean that the low UE rate is not a good reflection of the overall labor market. That doesn't mean there's any lies or deception or cooking of books (and Dr. Hall has stated that manipulating the data would be practically impossible), just that there is more than a single number.Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?
There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.
Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong
The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It
Does he say they're wrong? Let's look at the actual quotes from Dr. Hall from the orignal NY Post article your HufPo article references:
"Right now [it’s] misleadingly low"
"This has been a very slow, very bad recovery, And I think the numbers have really struggled as a result. In fact, I’ve been very disappointed in the coverage of the numbers"
That's it. Everything else is Crudele. Those two quotes aren't saying the numbers are wrong, it's saying the numbers don't tell the full story about the labor market or the economic situation. Which is true, but no one claims they do tell the full story.
He said they are most likely too low
Like they always are
And the fact that a single number is all that is used tells us that there is indeed deception when it comes to reporting UE
But you go ahead and believe the idiots in DC if you want
That is just horribleWhat "other guy" is being "blamed" by quoting ststistical facts???And you are another far left drone running your religious narratives!
Yes we know protect the far left/(D at all costs and only blame the other guy..
And you still run the narratives at all costs!
See chart 4:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf
Once again the far left will do all they can to protect their messiah!
Who was President in 2001 when the labor participation rate reversed itself?
What did Bush do to our Labor Participation rate that had been INCREASING for thirty years?That is just horribleWhat "other guy" is being "blamed" by quoting ststistical facts???
Yes we know protect the far left/(D at all costs and only blame the other guy..
And you still run the narratives at all costs!
See chart 4:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf
Once again the far left will do all they can to protect their messiah!
Who was President in 2001 when the labor participation rate reversed itself?
You see how the far left will do all it can to protect their messiah?
They just continue to prove my comments!
What did Bush do to our Labor Participation rate that had been INCREASING for thirty years?That is just horribleWhat "other guy" is being "blamed" by quoting ststistical facts???Yes we know protect the far left/(D at all costs and only blame the other guy..
And you still run the narratives at all costs!
See chart 4:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf
Once again the far left will do all they can to protect their messiah!
Who was President in 2001 when the labor participation rate reversed itself?
You see how the far left will do all it can to protect their messiah?
They just continue to prove my comments!
What was he thinking?
