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.
I work with Wall Street. Most are Republicans.
You work with Middle Management Wall Street..... At best.
I'm talking the elites. The Gulf Stream, 300 foot Yacht, Summer Home in the Hamptons, Swiss Chalet in the Winter set.
And yes, most Middle Management types everywhere are Republicans.
Most of the people that do the real work in this Country are Republicans.
the dimocrap scum party consists of a coalition between super-elites on Wall Street, in Hollywood, Academia, 'Journalism' (there's no such thing anymore), Entertainment, the Dirt Poor, the Gullible and the Stupid.
It's not about what is, it's about what they Assert...Sorry.
I know you have to rationalize that to yourself but it isn't correct.
Wall Street has been in the dimocrap scum pocket for decades.
Recent History: How The Democrats Became A Wall Street Party
Wall Street Bets on a Democrat for the First Time Since 2008
Clinton is the Wall Street candidate based on donation figures - report
Just a fact. In fact, FAR more Billionaires are dimocraps as opposed to Republicans.
Blue billionaires on top
I work with Wall Street. Most are Republicans.
"they", in that instance, being Edgetho and his posse.....It's not about what is, it's about what they Assert...Sorry.
I know you have to rationalize that to yourself but it isn't correct.
Wall Street has been in the dimocrap scum pocket for decades.
Recent History: How The Democrats Became A Wall Street Party
Wall Street Bets on a Democrat for the First Time Since 2008
Clinton is the Wall Street candidate based on donation figures - report
Just a fact. In fact, FAR more Billionaires are dimocraps as opposed to Republicans.
Blue billionaires on top
I work with Wall Street. Most are Republicans.
It's what they do, not what they assert.
Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.Yeah, pretty much everything on that site is wrong.Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Myth Busters: Unemployment is 5.5% - BlueOregon
Claim: In 1961, JFK removed "discouraged workers"--those folks who had quit looking for work--from the unemployment statistic.
Reality: A commission in 1961 recommended changes to the Labor Force statistics, but they were not implemented until 1967 and did not remove discouraged workers as such. Before 1967, the definition of Unemployed included people who "would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way."
But the current definition of discouraged does include those who were not looking for work because they were too old, young, handicapped or other discrimination. And note that the old definition was limited to places like factory towns where the factory shut down. The definition was too subjective, left to the interviewer's discretion, and not applied consistently.
Claim: Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Reality: Before 1984, military were not included in the sample universe, which was the "adult civilian noninstitutional population." From 1984-1994, the official Unemployment rate, the U-5, was published as the U-5a, which included the military, and the U-5b, which was civilian unemployment. Basically, everyone ignored the U-5a and in 1994 when the Current Population Survey was revamped, military were dropped.
Claim: JFK removed "discouraged workers" from unemployment rolls, but in 1994, the Clinton administration removed them from the labor rolls. As Kevin Phillips writes, "The longer-term discouraged—some 4 million U.S. adults—fell out of the main monthly tally."
Reality: I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean as there are no "rolls." In 1976, the category of Discouraged Worker was established and defined as those who want to work, are available to work, and are not currently looking for work because they thought they couldn't find work including age, disability, and other discrimination. There was no requirement for recent job search. But this was considered to subjective in that it was based entirely on opinion and not on recent experience. So a time requirement that the person must have looked for work in the last 12 months was added. But since they weren't considered unemployed anyway, it had no affect on the rate.
Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Note that this is the Household Survey.......its small sample makes it far less reliable than the establishment or ADP surveys....
Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.Yeah, pretty much everything on that site is wrong.Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Myth Busters: Unemployment is 5.5% - BlueOregon
Claim: In 1961, JFK removed "discouraged workers"--those folks who had quit looking for work--from the unemployment statistic.
Reality: A commission in 1961 recommended changes to the Labor Force statistics, but they were not implemented until 1967 and did not remove discouraged workers as such. Before 1967, the definition of Unemployed included people who "would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way."
But the current definition of discouraged does include those who were not looking for work because they were too old, young, handicapped or other discrimination. And note that the old definition was limited to places like factory towns where the factory shut down. The definition was too subjective, left to the interviewer's discretion, and not applied consistently.
Claim: Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Reality: Before 1984, military were not included in the sample universe, which was the "adult civilian noninstitutional population." From 1984-1994, the official Unemployment rate, the U-5, was published as the U-5a, which included the military, and the U-5b, which was civilian unemployment. Basically, everyone ignored the U-5a and in 1994 when the Current Population Survey was revamped, military were dropped.
Claim: JFK removed "discouraged workers" from unemployment rolls, but in 1994, the Clinton administration removed them from the labor rolls. As Kevin Phillips writes, "The longer-term discouraged—some 4 million U.S. adults—fell out of the main monthly tally."
Reality: I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean as there are no "rolls." In 1976, the category of Discouraged Worker was established and defined as those who want to work, are available to work, and are not currently looking for work because they thought they couldn't find work including age, disability, and other discrimination. There was no requirement for recent job search. But this was considered to subjective in that it was based entirely on opinion and not on recent experience. So a time requirement that the person must have looked for work in the last 12 months was added. But since they weren't considered unemployed anyway, it had no affect on the rate.
Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Note that this is the Household Survey.......its small sample makes it far less reliable than the establishment or ADP surveys....
True. but the Current Employment Survey is limited to nonfarm payroll employment and the ADP is limited to private sector nonfarm payroll employment. Those are the best for accuracy and trends of jobs, but they're useless for unemployment and lack any details except industry.
Of course. And since it's benchmarked to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, it becomes very accurate.Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.Yeah, pretty much everything on that site is wrong.Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Myth Busters: Unemployment is 5.5% - BlueOregon
Claim: In 1961, JFK removed "discouraged workers"--those folks who had quit looking for work--from the unemployment statistic.
Reality: A commission in 1961 recommended changes to the Labor Force statistics, but they were not implemented until 1967 and did not remove discouraged workers as such. Before 1967, the definition of Unemployed included people who "would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way."
But the current definition of discouraged does include those who were not looking for work because they were too old, young, handicapped or other discrimination. And note that the old definition was limited to places like factory towns where the factory shut down. The definition was too subjective, left to the interviewer's discretion, and not applied consistently.
Claim: Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Reality: Before 1984, military were not included in the sample universe, which was the "adult civilian noninstitutional population." From 1984-1994, the official Unemployment rate, the U-5, was published as the U-5a, which included the military, and the U-5b, which was civilian unemployment. Basically, everyone ignored the U-5a and in 1994 when the Current Population Survey was revamped, military were dropped.
Claim: JFK removed "discouraged workers" from unemployment rolls, but in 1994, the Clinton administration removed them from the labor rolls. As Kevin Phillips writes, "The longer-term discouraged—some 4 million U.S. adults—fell out of the main monthly tally."
Reality: I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean as there are no "rolls." In 1976, the category of Discouraged Worker was established and defined as those who want to work, are available to work, and are not currently looking for work because they thought they couldn't find work including age, disability, and other discrimination. There was no requirement for recent job search. But this was considered to subjective in that it was based entirely on opinion and not on recent experience. So a time requirement that the person must have looked for work in the last 12 months was added. But since they weren't considered unemployed anyway, it had no affect on the rate.
Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Note that this is the Household Survey.......its small sample makes it far less reliable than the establishment or ADP surveys....
True. but the Current Employment Survey is limited to nonfarm payroll employment and the ADP is limited to private sector nonfarm payroll employment. Those are the best for accuracy and trends of jobs, but they're useless for unemployment and lack any details except industry.
It's limited to non-farm with good reason.....
It all depends on what you want to know. The U-1 is the measure I've been most concerned about.Actually, I would argue that the various U's are useless without reference to the nominal jobs data (even when limited to private sector). Nominal jobs data is about the best single barometer for gauging the state of labor markets......(assuming you have a sense of the scale)
Of course. And since it's benchmarked to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, it becomes very accurate.Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.Yeah, pretty much everything on that site is wrong.Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Myth Busters: Unemployment is 5.5% - BlueOregon
Claim: In 1961, JFK removed "discouraged workers"--those folks who had quit looking for work--from the unemployment statistic.
Reality: A commission in 1961 recommended changes to the Labor Force statistics, but they were not implemented until 1967 and did not remove discouraged workers as such. Before 1967, the definition of Unemployed included people who "would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way."
But the current definition of discouraged does include those who were not looking for work because they were too old, young, handicapped or other discrimination. And note that the old definition was limited to places like factory towns where the factory shut down. The definition was too subjective, left to the interviewer's discretion, and not applied consistently.
Claim: Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Reality: Before 1984, military were not included in the sample universe, which was the "adult civilian noninstitutional population." From 1984-1994, the official Unemployment rate, the U-5, was published as the U-5a, which included the military, and the U-5b, which was civilian unemployment. Basically, everyone ignored the U-5a and in 1994 when the Current Population Survey was revamped, military were dropped.
Claim: JFK removed "discouraged workers" from unemployment rolls, but in 1994, the Clinton administration removed them from the labor rolls. As Kevin Phillips writes, "The longer-term discouraged—some 4 million U.S. adults—fell out of the main monthly tally."
Reality: I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean as there are no "rolls." In 1976, the category of Discouraged Worker was established and defined as those who want to work, are available to work, and are not currently looking for work because they thought they couldn't find work including age, disability, and other discrimination. There was no requirement for recent job search. But this was considered to subjective in that it was based entirely on opinion and not on recent experience. So a time requirement that the person must have looked for work in the last 12 months was added. But since they weren't considered unemployed anyway, it had no affect on the rate.
Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Note that this is the Household Survey.......its small sample makes it far less reliable than the establishment or ADP surveys....
True. but the Current Employment Survey is limited to nonfarm payroll employment and the ADP is limited to private sector nonfarm payroll employment. Those are the best for accuracy and trends of jobs, but they're useless for unemployment and lack any details except industry.
It's limited to non-farm with good reason.....
It all depends on what you want to know. The U-1 is the measure I've been most concerned about.Actually, I would argue that the various U's are useless without reference to the nominal jobs data (even when limited to private sector). Nominal jobs data is about the best single barometer for gauging the state of labor markets......(assuming you have a sense of the scale)
Partly the lag before the JOLTS data come out. But the structural part, which would be emphasized in the long term unemployed, is what the U-1 shows more.Of course. And since it's benchmarked to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, it becomes very accurate.Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.Yeah, pretty much everything on that site is wrong.
Claim: In 1961, JFK removed "discouraged workers"--those folks who had quit looking for work--from the unemployment statistic.
Reality: A commission in 1961 recommended changes to the Labor Force statistics, but they were not implemented until 1967 and did not remove discouraged workers as such. Before 1967, the definition of Unemployed included people who "would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way."
But the current definition of discouraged does include those who were not looking for work because they were too old, young, handicapped or other discrimination. And note that the old definition was limited to places like factory towns where the factory shut down. The definition was too subjective, left to the interviewer's discretion, and not applied consistently.
Claim: Under Reagan, military service was reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed."
Reality: Before 1984, military were not included in the sample universe, which was the "adult civilian noninstitutional population." From 1984-1994, the official Unemployment rate, the U-5, was published as the U-5a, which included the military, and the U-5b, which was civilian unemployment. Basically, everyone ignored the U-5a and in 1994 when the Current Population Survey was revamped, military were dropped.
Claim: JFK removed "discouraged workers" from unemployment rolls, but in 1994, the Clinton administration removed them from the labor rolls. As Kevin Phillips writes, "The longer-term discouraged—some 4 million U.S. adults—fell out of the main monthly tally."
Reality: I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean as there are no "rolls." In 1976, the category of Discouraged Worker was established and defined as those who want to work, are available to work, and are not currently looking for work because they thought they couldn't find work including age, disability, and other discrimination. There was no requirement for recent job search. But this was considered to subjective in that it was based entirely on opinion and not on recent experience. So a time requirement that the person must have looked for work in the last 12 months was added. But since they weren't considered unemployed anyway, it had no affect on the rate.
Claim: Beginning in '96, the sample for measuring unemployment dropped from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Reality: It was dropped for budget reasons, yes it mostly affected denser population areas, but it was returned to 60,000 and remains there.
Note that this is the Household Survey.......its small sample makes it far less reliable than the establishment or ADP surveys....
True. but the Current Employment Survey is limited to nonfarm payroll employment and the ADP is limited to private sector nonfarm payroll employment. Those are the best for accuracy and trends of jobs, but they're useless for unemployment and lack any details except industry.
It's limited to non-farm with good reason.....
It all depends on what you want to know. The U-1 is the measure I've been most concerned about.Actually, I would argue that the various U's are useless without reference to the nominal jobs data (even when limited to private sector). Nominal jobs data is about the best single barometer for gauging the state of labor markets......(assuming you have a sense of the scale)
Absent the possibility that the unemployment is "structural", why wouldn't you look at job openings?
"...to make sure that literally on day one it’s the end of business as usual
and immediate change comes to Washington across the entire government."
No doubt that statement sent chills down the spines of a lot of career bureaucrats, lobbyists, and political hacks. Their lives are about to change forever.
Time to #DrainTheSwamp
Exclusive — ‘Dream Team’: Sean Spicer Explains Donald Trump’s ‘Most Talented Cabinet in Modern History,’ White House Transition - Breitbart
From the article:
Spicer said the cabinet Trump has assembled, from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as Attorney General to Gen. John Kelly as Homeland Security Secretary to Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis at the Pentagon to Dr. Ben Carson at Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and more, is a “dream team
Morning is coming to America again. COUNTDOWN 10 Days baby!! The long nightmare is finally over..
From their Celebration Day concert.. The greatest rock band of all time..
Zeppelin ; Kashmir
Exclusive — ‘Dream Team’: Sean Spicer Explains Donald Trump’s ‘Most Talented Cabinet in Modern History,’ White House Transition - Breitbart
From the article:
Spicer said the cabinet Trump has assembled, from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as Attorney General to Gen. John Kelly as Homeland Security Secretary to Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis at the Pentagon to Dr. Ben Carson at Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and more, is a “dream team
Morning is coming to America again. COUNTDOWN 10 Days baby!! The long nightmare is finally over..
From their Celebration Day concert.. The greatest rock band of all time..
Zeppelin ; Kashmir
This thread is over a year old and as we see this administration has had a turnover rate that beats Der Weinersnichzel.
Exclusive — ‘Dream Team’: Sean Spicer Explains Donald Trump’s ‘Most Talented Cabinet in Modern History,’ White House Transition - Breitbart
From the article:
Spicer said the cabinet Trump has assembled, from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as Attorney General to Gen. John Kelly as Homeland Security Secretary to Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis at the Pentagon to Dr. Ben Carson at Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and more, is a “dream team
Morning is coming to America again. COUNTDOWN 10 Days baby!! The long nightmare is finally over..
From their Celebration Day concert.. The greatest rock band of all time..
Zeppelin ; Kashmir
