U6 or LFPR??

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As usual unemployment numbers came out yesterday and movement was positive, but then immediately blunted by LFPR which was negative, but then that was blunted by retiring baby boomers. There was no mention of U6 which was positive and far more useful and accurate it seems to me.

Can anyone explain why they commonly use LFPR and never use U6?

 

[danielpalos]

Only bad Capitalists (on the Right) can't make money with a Commerce Clause and an Official Mint.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Only bad Capitalists (on the Right) can't make money with a Commerce Clause and an Official Mint.

retard liberal is off topic

 

[danielpalos]

Don't worry, it only hurts when it is tough love; otherwise, it is something easily understood by political animals but maybe not mere social animals.
In any case, it is a shell-game with Statism instead of an investment in the general welfare that should produce a positive multiplier effect on our economy. I merely like to "blame the Right" for the ease and convenience of political expedience.

 

[boedicca]

Only bad Capitalists (on the Right) can't make money with a Commerce Clause and an Official Mint.

Get back on the short bus, bub.

 

[danielpalos]

you mean the short bus with the fewest fallacies or the long bus with the most fallacies?

 

[boedicca]

As usual unemployment numbers came out yesterday and movement was positive, but then immediately blunted by LFPR which was negative, but then that was blunted by retiring baby boomers. There was no mention of U6 which was positive and far more useful and accurate it seems to me.

Can anyone explain why they commonly use LFPR and never use U6?

Most people understand neither and just fall for the headline U3 # that is highly misleading, but serves the DC Hegemony.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Don't worry, it only hurts when it is tough love; otherwise, it is something easily understood by political animals but maybe not mere social animals.
In any case, it is a shell-game with Statism instead of an investment in the general welfare that should produce a positive multiplier effect on our economy. I merely like to "blame the Right" for the ease and convenience of political expedience.

retard liberal is off topic

 

[danielpalos]

only fallacies for your Cause, Person on the Right?

Why do we need more than one official unemployment number in any at-will employment State?

 

[boedicca]

only fallacies for your Cause, Person on the Right?

Why do we need more than one official unemployment number in any at-will employment State?

Why do we need more than one of anything?

Could you possibly be a bigger ignoramus? You don't even understand what they mean or how they are used.

Here's a wee clue. Labor Force Participation rate doesn't measure Unemployment; it measures the ratio of the population that are no longer in the Civilian Workforce (either employed or job seeking).

I bet you didn't learn that in your Multicultural Grievance Studies classes.

 

[danielpalos]

only fallacies for your Cause, Person on the Right?

Why do we need more than one official unemployment number in any at-will employment State?

Why do we need more than one of anything?

Could you possibly be a bigger ignoramus? You don't even understand what they mean or how they are used.

Here's a wee clue. Labor Force Participation rate doesn't measure Unemployment; it measures the ratio of the population that are no longer in the Civilian Workforce (either employed or job seeking).

I bet you didn't learn that in your Multicultural Grievance Studies classes.

I did study history and how public policy schemes are usually the result of appeals to ignorance of the law.

Why do we need more than one unemployment/underemployment statistic in any at-will employment State? We don't. We merely need to be more faithful in the execution of our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will; and, unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines as that form of minimum wage, socialized.

 

[boedicca]

only fallacies for your Cause, Person on the Right?

Why do we need more than one official unemployment number in any at-will employment State?

Why do we need more than one of anything?

Could you possibly be a bigger ignoramus? You don't even understand what they mean or how they are used.

Here's a wee clue. Labor Force Participation rate doesn't measure Unemployment; it measures the ratio of the population that are no longer in the Civilian Workforce (either employed or job seeking).

I bet you didn't learn that in your Multicultural Grievance Studies classes.

I did study history and how public policy schemes are usually the result of appeals to ignorance of the law.

Why do we need more than one unemployment/underemployment statistic in any at-will employment State? We don't. We merely need to be more faithful in the execution of our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will; and, unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines as that form of minimum wage, socialized.

The Labor Force Participation rate is not a UE stat.

 

[danielpalos]

only fallacies for your Cause, Person on the Right?

Why do we need more than one official unemployment number in any at-will employment State?

Why do we need more than one of anything?

Could you possibly be a bigger ignoramus? You don't even understand what they mean or how they are used.

Here's a wee clue. Labor Force Participation rate doesn't measure Unemployment; it measures the ratio of the population that are no longer in the Civilian Workforce (either employed or job seeking).

I bet you didn't learn that in your Multicultural Grievance Studies classes.

I did study history and how public policy schemes are usually the result of appeals to ignorance of the law.

Why do we need more than one unemployment/underemployment statistic in any at-will employment State? We don't. We merely need to be more faithful in the execution of our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will; and, unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines as that form of minimum wage, socialized.

The Labor Force Participation rate is not a UE stat.

No clue and no Cause?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Labor Force Participation rate is not a UE stat.

this is true yet it is always used to counter the the U3 unemployment number while U6 is never used and should be??

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As usual unemployment numbers came out yesterday and movement was positive, but then immediately blunted by LFPR which was negative, but then that was blunted by retiring baby boomers. There was no mention of U6 which was positive and far more useful and accurate it seems to me.

Can anyone explain why they commonly use LFPR and never use U6?

Because U6 has consistently been improving for the last couple years, and those people are looking for "bad news", even if it's bullshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As usual unemployment numbers came out yesterday and movement was positive, but then immediately blunted by LFPR which was negative, but then that was blunted by retiring baby boomers. There was no mention of U6 which was positive and far more useful and accurate it seems to me.

Can anyone explain why they commonly use LFPR and never use U6?

Because U6 has consistently been improving for the last couple years, and those people are looking for "bad news", even if it's bullshit.

wrong even CBS was saying the last u3 numbers meant nothing because LFPR was lower.

Maybe its because everyone knows Barry's 2% recovery economy is worst since Great Depression and wants numbers to back it up?

 

[danielpalos]

The Labor Force Participation rate is not a UE stat.

this is true yet it is always used to counter the the U3 unemployment number while U6 is never used and should be??

Labor force participation is the entire population that meets those employment/underemployment/unemployment criteria.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Labor Force Participation rate is not a UE stat.

this is true yet it is always used to counter the the U3 unemployment number while U6 is never used and should be??

Labor force participation is the entire population that meets those employment/underemployment/unemployment criteria.

too stupid!!! question was not what is LFPR!! You lack the IQ for debate and the language ability for it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As usual unemployment numbers came out yesterday and movement was positive, but then immediately blunted by LFPR which was negative, but then that was blunted by retiring baby boomers. There was no mention of U6 which was positive and far more useful and accurate it seems to me.

Can anyone explain why they commonly use LFPR and never use U6?

Because U6 has consistently been improving for the last couple years, and those people are looking for "bad news", even if it's bullshit.

wrong even CBS was saying the last u3 numbers meant nothing because LFPR was lower.

Maybe its because everyone knows Barry's 2% recovery economy is worst since Great Depression and wants numbers to back it up?

"Bad news" is profit, for any media outlet.

If you think "Barry's recovery" is so bad, why has U6 dropped 6% since 2010?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As usual unemployment numbers came out yesterday and movement was positive, but then immediately blunted by LFPR which was negative, but then that was blunted by retiring baby boomers. There was no mention of U6 which was positive and far more useful and accurate it seems to me.

Can anyone explain why they commonly use LFPR and never use U6?

Because U6 has consistently been improving for the last couple years, and those people are looking for "bad news", even if it's bullshit.

wrong even CBS was saying the last u3 numbers meant nothing because LFPR was lower.

Maybe its because everyone knows Barry's 2% recovery economy is worst since Great Depression and wants numbers to back it up?

"Bad news" is profit, for any media outlet.

If you think "Barry's recovery" is so bad, why has U6 dropped 6% since 2010?

it has only dropped 6% because it is worst recovery since great depression!

Do you understand??