Unemploy Rate A Reflection of P A R T Time Jobs & Discouraged Leaving The Work Force

[AceRothstein]

And whose fault is that?

NYCarb:

Face facts: you are an idiot.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits. These benefits, despite numerous extensions, will run out eventually. The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop. Further, it is well documented that the labor force participation rate is lower now than it has been in decades. Why? Because the Millennials are lazy wastes of sperm? That is probably partly true. However, the main reason is that is not enough work to go around.

Do you live in a fucking cave, Carb? These are extraordinary times. Normal modes of measurement are not very helpful right now.

Do everyone a favor, asshole, and go nose dive off a cliff, you clueless cocksucker.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits.

That is not the case.

The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop.

This is incorrect as well.

Where do the statistics come from?
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then.

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.
These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

• Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
• Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
• Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
• Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Unemployment claims still very much figure into the equation. The unemployment rate does take such filings into account, as well as other factors, some of which are controversial as true measurements of unemployment. It is a composite.

I never said that the number is based solely on unemployment claims. Where did you get that idea? Because that is what you wanted to get out of what I was saying.

The overriding point - one which you are trying to prevent being made with this subterfuge - is that the unemployment figure published by your federal government is misleading and false.

The "unemployment rate" is what it is. Is produced a composite result to a calculated equation. I have no qualm with that. I can devise a complex equation to determine penis length, but that will not change the length of my dick. The "unemployment rate" is a fiction served up by the government in an attempt to actually measure employment rates; that is, assuming that you are not a cynic.

You argue like someone who is the product of an affirmative action education, meaning that you suck at it. Your alleged "facts" are nothing of the sort.

Unemployment claims have absolutely nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is solely calculated via the results of a monthly household survey from the BLS.

Complete horse shit spoon fed to you by the government.

Yes, the government lies about how they calculate the unemployment rate. YOU know how it is calculated though. People on the internet say some really stupid shit sometimes.

 

[Piss Bucket]

And whose fault is that?

NYCarb:

Face facts: you are an idiot.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits. These benefits, despite numerous extensions, will run out eventually. The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop. Further, it is well documented that the labor force participation rate is lower now than it has been in decades. Why? Because the Millennials are lazy wastes of sperm? That is probably partly true. However, the main reason is that is not enough work to go around.

Do you live in a fucking cave, Carb? These are extraordinary times. Normal modes of measurement are not very helpful right now.

Do everyone a favor, asshole, and go nose dive off a cliff, you clueless cocksucker.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits.

That is not the case.

The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop.

This is incorrect as well.

Where do the statistics come from?
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then.

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.
These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

• Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
• Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
• Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
• Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Unemployment claims still very much figure into the equation. The unemployment rate does take such filings into account, as well as other factors, some of which are controversial as true measurements of unemployment. It is a composite.

I never said that the number is based solely on unemployment claims. Where did you get that idea? Because that is what you wanted to get out of what I was saying.

The overriding point - one which you are trying to prevent being made with this subterfuge - is that the unemployment figure published by your federal government is misleading and false.

The "unemployment rate" is what it is. Is produced a composite result to a calculated equation. I have no qualm with that. I can devise a complex equation to determine penis length, but that will not change the length of my dick. The "unemployment rate" is a fiction served up by the government in an attempt to actually measure employment rates; that is, assuming that you are not a cynic.

You argue like someone who is the product of an affirmative action education, meaning that you suck at it. Your alleged "facts" are nothing of the sort.

Unemployment claims have absolutely nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is solely calculated via the results of a monthly household survey from the BLS.

Maybe I am mistaken. I will look into it.

Oh, and, uh, eat shit, asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And whose fault is that?

NYCarb:

Face facts: you are an idiot.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits. These benefits, despite numerous extensions, will run out eventually. The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop. Further, it is well documented that the labor force participation rate is lower now than it has been in decades. Why? Because the Millennials are lazy wastes of sperm? That is probably partly true. However, the main reason is that is not enough work to go around.

Do you live in a fucking cave, Carb? These are extraordinary times. Normal modes of measurement are not very helpful right now.

Do everyone a favor, asshole, and go nose dive off a cliff, you clueless cocksucker.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits.

That is not the case.

The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop.

This is incorrect as well.

Where do the statistics come from?
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then.

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.
These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

• Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
• Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
• Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
• Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Unemployment claims still very much figure into the equation. The unemployment rate does take such filings into account, as well as other factors, some of which are controversial as true measurements of unemployment. It is a composite.

I never said that the number is based solely on unemployment claims. Where did you get that idea? Because that is what you wanted to get out of what I was saying.

The overriding point - one which you are trying to prevent being made with this subterfuge - is that the unemployment figure published by your federal government is misleading and false.

The "unemployment rate" is what it is. Is produced a composite result to a calculated equation. I have no qualm with that. I can devise a complex equation to determine penis length, but that will not change the length of my dick. The "unemployment rate" is a fiction served up by the government in an attempt to actually measure employment rates; that is, assuming that you are not a cynic.

You argue like someone who is the product of an affirmative action education, meaning that you suck at it. Your alleged "facts" are nothing of the sort.

Unemployment claims have absolutely nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is solely calculated via the results of a monthly household survey from the BLS.

Complete horse shit spoon fed to you by the government.

Do you have a rightwing propaganda site that we should rely on for accurate unemployment statistics?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And whose fault is that?

NYCarb:

Face facts: you are an idiot.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits. These benefits, despite numerous extensions, will run out eventually. The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop. Further, it is well documented that the labor force participation rate is lower now than it has been in decades. Why? Because the Millennials are lazy wastes of sperm? That is probably partly true. However, the main reason is that is not enough work to go around.

Do you live in a fucking cave, Carb? These are extraordinary times. Normal modes of measurement are not very helpful right now.

Do everyone a favor, asshole, and go nose dive off a cliff, you clueless cocksucker.

Tally Ho! Carb....I think somebody's got your number, pal.

He can also explain economics to ya.

Piss Bucket has nobody's number as the post started out with a lie.

It's ironic isn't it that someone called Piss Bucket actually spews out buckets of shit.

False advertising if you asked me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NYCarb:

Face facts: you are an idiot.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits. These benefits, despite numerous extensions, will run out eventually. The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop. Further, it is well documented that the labor force participation rate is lower now than it has been in decades. Why? Because the Millennials are lazy wastes of sperm? That is probably partly true. However, the main reason is that is not enough work to go around.

Do you live in a fucking cave, Carb? These are extraordinary times. Normal modes of measurement are not very helpful right now.

Do everyone a favor, asshole, and go nose dive off a cliff, you clueless cocksucker.

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits.

That is not the case.

The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop.

This is incorrect as well.

Where do the statistics come from?
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then.

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.
These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

• Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
• Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
• Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
• Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Unemployment claims still very much figure into the equation. The unemployment rate does take such filings into account, as well as other factors, some of which are controversial as true measurements of unemployment. It is a composite.

I never said that the number is based solely on unemployment claims. Where did you get that idea? Because that is what you wanted to get out of what I was saying.

The overriding point - one which you are trying to prevent being made with this subterfuge - is that the unemployment figure published by your federal government is misleading and false.

The "unemployment rate" is what it is. Is produced a composite result to a calculated equation. I have no qualm with that. I can devise a complex equation to determine penis length, but that will not change the length of my dick. The "unemployment rate" is a fiction served up by the government in an attempt to actually measure employment rates; that is, assuming that you are not a cynic.

You argue like someone who is the product of an affirmative action education, meaning that you suck at it. Your alleged "facts" are nothing of the sort.

Unemployment claims have absolutely nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is solely calculated via the results of a monthly household survey from the BLS.

Complete horse shit spoon fed to you by the government.

Yes, the government lies about how they calculate the unemployment rate. YOU know how it is calculated though. People on the internet say some really stupid shit sometimes.

Comon now, give a person called Piss Bucket the respect he deserves.

 

[Moonglow]

I am I seeing double or is there more threads from notveryeconochic on the same subject, i think she forgot about the reset button...for thread fails..

 

[Moonglow]

Unemployment numbers are largely based on claims filed for state unemployment insurance benefits.

That is not the case.

The mere fact that benefits expire will cause this "unemployment rate" construct to drop.

This is incorrect as well.

Where do the statistics come from?
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then.

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.
These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

• Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
• Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
• Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
• Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Unemployment claims still very much figure into the equation. The unemployment rate does take such filings into account, as well as other factors, some of which are controversial as true measurements of unemployment. It is a composite.

I never said that the number is based solely on unemployment claims. Where did you get that idea? Because that is what you wanted to get out of what I was saying.

The overriding point - one which you are trying to prevent being made with this subterfuge - is that the unemployment figure published by your federal government is misleading and false.

The "unemployment rate" is what it is. Is produced a composite result to a calculated equation. I have no qualm with that. I can devise a complex equation to determine penis length, but that will not change the length of my dick. The "unemployment rate" is a fiction served up by the government in an attempt to actually measure employment rates; that is, assuming that you are not a cynic.

You argue like someone who is the product of an affirmative action education, meaning that you suck at it. Your alleged "facts" are nothing of the sort.

Unemployment claims have absolutely nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is solely calculated via the results of a monthly household survey from the BLS.

Complete horse shit spoon fed to you by the government.

Yes, the government lies about how they calculate the unemployment rate. YOU know how it is calculated though. People on the internet say some really stupid shit sometimes.

Comon now, give a person called Piss Bucket the respect he deserves.

At least it's not a bucket of shyt...

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am I seeing double or is there more threads from notveryeconochic on the same subject, i think she forgot about the reset button...for thread fails..

Like I said, she's using the PoliticalChic scheme. Lose an argument in one thread, start the same thread over again.

 

[pinqy]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

 

[pinqy]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

380,000 people leaving but being counted as gains. Only under Obama can that be seen as a good thing. A net loss in people working and the UE rate goes down! Tell us all again how 25 trillion found it's way into the economy RW, it was so fan beating you senseless with that lie.

It is untrue that 380,000 people left the labor force. The number of people not in the labor force did increase by 315,000, but the labor force only decreased by 97,000. The number of employed went up. No idea were you got 380,000 from.
From Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Population went up 217,000
Labor Force went down 97,000 (employed up 232,000 and unemployed down 329,000)
Not in the Labor Force went up 315,000
(Yes, I know 315,000-97,000 = 218,000 not 217,000 The difference is from rounding errors.

The gross numbers are available too.

 

[AceRothstein]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

Ouch, that left a mark.

 

[EconChick]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.

Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????

I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.

I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.

 

[pinqy]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.

Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????

I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.

I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.

FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.

So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?

But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)

 

[AceRothstein]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.

Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????

I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.

I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.

FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.

So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?

But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)

She can tear apart that analysis. You'll have to take her word for it though as she never actually does it. She'll also call you names and claim victory.

 

[EconChick]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.

Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????

I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.

I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.

FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.

So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?

But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)

You're talking about the HUGE Keynsian big spenders at St Louis FRB that said all that stimulus was a good thing???????????????????/


This is what's wrong with you lib analysts.

You're Keynesian indoctrinated.

Why? Because that's what most of academia teaches. That's what I was taught too.

You don't even know you don't know...................

 

[EconChick]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.

Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????

I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.

I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.

FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.

So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?

But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)

She can tear apart that analysis. You'll have to take her word for it though as she never actually does it. She'll also call you names and claim victory.

You're too stupid to even know what Keynesian indoctrination is. Which is why you are a lib lapdog when it comes to economic issues like this thread.

 

[EconChick]

Data summaries depend on ASSUMPTIONS you start with. Hello!

They start with Keynesian assumptions. Hello

 

[pinqy]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.

Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????

I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.

I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.

FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.

So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?

But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)

You're talking about the HUGE Keynsian big spenders at St Louis FRB that said all that stimulus was a good thing???????????????????/


This is what's wrong with you lib analysts.

You're Keynesian indoctrinated.

Why? Because that's what most of academia teaches. That's what I was taught too.

You don't even know you don't know...................

Their analyses are irrelevant....they're simply providing a tool linking directly to the BLS data. Keynsianism has fuck-all to do with straight statistical measurement.

Defend your claims, don't just make idiotic ad hom attacks that have nothing to do with the issue.

Your claim was that "The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up." and my claim, backed up with data, is that that is not currently the case.

If you dispute the BLS data (that I'm using the FED tool to visually represent those data is irrelevant) then provide your source.

I'm still trying to figure out how keynsianism would affect a link to statistical data.

 

[pinqy]

Data summaries depend on ASSUMPTIONS you start with. Hello!

They start with Keynesian assumptions. Hello

Data summaries depend on ASSUMPTIONS you start with. Hello!

They start with Keynesian assumptions. Hello

Ok....what are the Keynsian assumptions that are used to measure Full time, part time, and discouraged workers.

But again, please present your data that currently the drop in the unemployment rate is due to an increase of part time over full time jobs (which actually doesn't make any sense how that could affect the UE rate) and an increase in Discouraged workers.

 

[AceRothstein]

This has been discussed adnoseum in dozens of threads. Just look in any thread that talks about the Unemployment rate. But it bears repeating. The drop in the Unemployment rate is not a reflection of a roaring economy. The drop in the rate is a reflection of negative underlying data such as increase in part time job versus full time jobs..... and discouraged workers just giving up.

Don't be fooled by the superficial number.

While of course the UE rate does not tell the full picture of the economy (it's not meant to) and while a drop can be misleading (as an analogy, if you're selling a higher percent of your inventory because you moved to a smaller store with less inventory it's not quite an improvement), your specific claims are not quite true for the last 2 years. Full time work has steadily gone up, and part time work has not changed all that much and has gone down slightly. The number of discouraged workers has also declined.

Yes the scale in the second graph is not comparable, but I wanted to show the relationship between part time and part time for economic reasons. The changes would be sharper if on a smaller scale as used in the full time and discouraged charts.

LOL, it's fun setting a trap for you people.

Let me ask you something. What is FRED?????

I can create a graph and put, "Source: US Dept of Labor" too......you act like FRED is some unbiased source.

I can tear you people's analysis apart all day long with the graphs and stats you like to throw on these threads.

FRED is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Data. How do you not know that? They make available datasets from multiple agencies, including BLS and have a handy tool for creating and linking to graphs.

So you're accusing the St. Louis FED of being an unreliable link to BLS data? Seriously?

But feel free to present your data for the last two years (because, yes, I know you'll try to change the time frame even though my whole point is that circumstances have recently changed)

She can tear apart that analysis. You'll have to take her word for it though as she never actually does it. She'll also call you names and claim victory.

You're too stupid to even know what Keynesian indoctrination is. Which is why you are a lib lapdog when it comes to economic issues like this thread.

You seem angry. That's ok though, I'd be angry and embarrassed too after that stinker of a post.

I also find it funny how frequently you throw out the words lib or liberal when you're as big of a partisan hack as I've seen on here.