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

[Lakhota]

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

1. Obama inherited a Great Recession that Ben Bernanke said was worse than the Great Depression.

2. Republicans have refused to help Obama restore the economy.

3. The economy is slowly coming back in spite of Republican obstruction.

 

[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...................

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.

"Keynsianism has fuck-all to do with straight statistical measurement."




It takes a special kind of idiot to say that.

Here, let me give you a quick primer on STATISTICS, genius.

When polls throw statistics at the public, people like you gullibly believe them. Why? Because you a number cruncher that hones in on that portion of the survey that is based on probability.

Have a big enough pool and probability goes up and up till the reliability is close to 100%. This part is practically a science.

But that's only one part of the survey.

The other "grey part" of the survey is in how the question is asked.

In fact it's almost impossible to ask any question in a totally objective way that doesn't skew the question one way or the other.

People like me can explain that to people like you all day long and you will never get it. Never.

Just as in polling surveys, where one part is based on probabilities and numbers and the other part on the "art" of how to ask the question, so it goes with all statistics.

There is such a long list of how "statistics" are typically biased in one way or another, I wouldn't know where to begin.

That's why this well known idiom has been around for a very long time: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.


And whenever an analyst like yourself pretends that doesn't exist, I always know what kind of limited analyst I'm dealing with.

The fact you don't know most government formulas and outcomes were built on people indoctrinated in Keynesian economics disqualifies you from having any credibility at all.

 

[EconChick]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

 

[EconChick]

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.

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







It's been answered so many times on this board that I AM NOT going to hold your hand and dig it up for you now.

I may as the election nears, but I am not going to spend a ton of time educating just YOU with long, exhaustive explanations right now. You've seen the answers in other threads.

What I will have fun doing is tearing your stats apart.

Speaking of which, you haven't de-coupled the variables I mentioned.

You're not talking apples to apples. Why do you have to be taught that?

 

[pinqy]

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.

"Keynsianism has fuck-all to do with straight statistical measurement."




It takes a special kind of idiot to say that.

Here, let me give you a quick primer on STATISTICS, genius.

When polls throw statistics at the public, people like you gullibly believe them. Why? Because you a number cruncher that hones in on that portion of the survey that is based on probability.

Have a big enough pool and probability goes up and up till the reliability is close to 100%. This part is practically a science.

It IS a science.

But that's only one part of the survey.

The other "grey part" of the survey is in how the question is asked.

And how it's understood. And it's not just the wording, but the order of the questions, and, in paper surveys, the layout. Length of survey becomes a factor as well, as respondent burden increases. You're talking about non-sampling error. And yes I'm very well aware of it. Did you really think you knew more about survey methodology than I do?

In fact it's almost impossible to ask any question in a totally objective way that doesn't skew the question one way or the other.

Which is why BLS and other agencies have staff psychologists to design the questionnaires to try to minimize non-sampling error and enhance clarity. The Census interviewers have a detailed manual on how exactly to ask the questions and strict definitions. Any ambiguity is reviewed by a BLS analyst. But it doesn't always work and ambiguity, either on the part of the interviewer or the respondent occurs frequently. The problem is known and is addressed, but of course cannot completely eliminate the non-sampling error and the effect cannot be effectively measured.

People like me can explain that to people like you all day long and you will never get it. Never.

No? Get out of academia and come to the real world where we discuss these things as a practical matter. 14 years at BLS including teaching methodology, I assure you I have far more experience than you do.

Just as in polling surveys, where one part is based on probabilities and numbers and the other part on the "art" of how to ask the question, so it goes with all statistics.

The change to computerization in 1994 helped a lot, especially with CATI being used. Minimizes interviewer influence.

There is such a long list of how "statistics" are typically biased in one way or another, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Why don't you begin with the specifically Keynsian assumptions used in processing the number of full time, part time, and discouraged workers. And present your alternate, non-Keynsian biased data which supports your claim that part time and discouraged workers are currently influencing the UE rate downward.

And whenever an analyst like yourself pretends that doesn't exist, I always know what kind of limited analyst I'm dealing with.

In the last thread where we discussed this, I explicitly mentioned a major case of non-sampling error that threw off the October 2013 unemployment estimates. So how was that pretending they don't exist?

Do you want a list off the top of my head of non-sampling errors common to the CPS? Especially in the income questions which you so heavily relied upon in another thread?

The fact you don't know most government formulas and outcomes were built on people indoctrinated in Keynesian economics disqualifies you from having any credibility at all.

And the fact that you can't point out how Keynsian economics are at all relevant to the construction of the formulas, and the fact that you avoid straight forward questions to make a political rant establishes your credibility how? You keep saying it's a thing, but you have yet to give a single example to support your assertion.

So quit dodging: You stated 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."
What is your contrary evidence of this, given that that the current BLS data do not support that claim?

 

[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.

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







It's been answered so many times on this board that I AM NOT going to hold your hand and dig it up for you now.

Because you don't have it; I just showed you the data for the last 2 years that show that full time jobs are now rising as opposed to part time, and that discouraged workers are down. Didn't take me long to "dig up" the info.

Speaking of which, you haven't de-coupled the variables I mentioned.

You're not talking apples to apples. Why do you have to be taught that?

Which variables? And I'm addressing your specific claims. How is that not apples to apples? Oh, you won't give a straight answer, I know...I don't think you're capable.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.

You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.

 

[pinqy]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.

You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.

I'm still trying to figure out how she thinks the statistics are "Keynesian biased." Notice how vague she is about how the interviewers can bias the question (which is of course true) but doesn't explain how that's "Keynsian" or show that the non-sampling error is anything but random.

And of course, how in another thread she abandoned, I went out of my way to give an example of non-sampling bias that made the October 2013 unemployment level clearly wrong, but she still claims I don't understand non-sampling bias.

 

[EconChick]

Yo Pingy, you're a Keynesian indoctrinated government analyst. They don't hire supply siders at BLS. If they find a token one or two, most of you are typical idiotic, big spending, Keynesian indoctrinated analysts.

Just like all the idiots that backed Obama up on his crushing stimulus. Just like all you idiots that think $17 TRILLION is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO problem. Just like all you idiots that think the artificial stock market is a good thing.

What part of that you not getting?????????????

I went through the same schools you Keynesian idiots went through. My grad thesis bucked the Keynesians running the school and I'm surprised they passed my thesis that showed what a fucking disaster, piece of shit Paul Krugman has a long history of being.

Yet here you idiot libs are worshiping that moron.


All of your analysis is suspect - you're a big spending liberal Keynesian hack.


You can always be trusted to base your analysis on THE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[EconChick]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.

You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.

I'm still trying to figure out how she thinks the statistics are "Keynesian biased." Notice how vague she is about how the interviewers can bias the question (which is of course true) but doesn't explain how that's "Keynsian" or show that the non-sampling error is anything but random.

And of course, how in another thread she abandoned, I went out of my way to give an example of non-sampling bias that made the October 2013 unemployment level clearly wrong, but she still claims I don't understand non-sampling bias.

Anybody can play the numbers game and make it look good in a graph. It's all the underlying assumptions where the bias is hidden.


You keep saying Keynesians aren't biased.

BAMMM, you've lost all cred right there.

 

[EconChick]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.

You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.

It takes an incredibly stupid person to get on a thread about economics without knowing what the hell Keynesian economics is.

LMFAO.



Even pinky....if he has any integrity at all....would set you straight on that.

 

[Faun]

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.

Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.

The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October, 2009. According to BLS figures, at that time, there were 27,462,000 folks working part time and 808,000 discouraged workers. Today, we have 27,359,000 part timers and 698,000 discouraged workers. The translation of those numbers for non-thinking rightards such as yourself is that means while the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5.9%, it has done so while shedding 103,000 part time employees and 110,000 discouraged workers.

Yet the poster on this forum who fancies herself as some kind of economist guru thinks that a decrease in part time employment and discouraged workers is what reflects decline in the unemployment rate.



What a monumental fail, EconoWhore.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.

You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.

It takes an incredibly stupid person to get on a thread about economics without knowing what the hell Keynesian economics is.

LMFAO.



Even pinky....if he has any integrity at all....would set you straight on that.

Where did I say I don't know what Keynsian economics is? I'm asking if you just learned about it.

It takes a special kind of stupid for someone to think BLS statistics are somehow Keynsian. You should ask the University of Phoenix for your money back.

 

[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.

Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.

The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October, 2009. According to BLS figures, at that time, there were 27,462,000 folks working part time and 808,000 discouraged workers. Today, we have 27,359,000 part timers and 698,000 discouraged workers. The translation of those numbers for non-thinking rightards such as yourself is that means while the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5.9%, it has done so while shedding 103,000 part time employees and 110,000 discouraged workers.

Yet the poster on this forum who fancies herself as some kind of economist guru thinks that a decrease in part time employment and discouraged workers is what reflects decline in the unemployment rate.



What a monumental fail, EconoWhore.

LOL

Another idiot I've completely fattened like a fly......how funny you want to pick yourself up from when I flattened you weeks ago....to try to even attempt to go at another round.

Hell, you've been afraid to confront me for about a month now. Did it take you a month to get the courage to post in this thread??

LOL. You've already proven yourself to be completely inept in economics. I won't waste my time burying you again. I know your self esteem barely recovered from the last time.

But thanks for the bump!!

 

[EconChick]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.

You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.

It takes an incredibly stupid person to get on a thread about economics without knowing what the hell Keynesian economics is.

LMFAO.



Even pinky....if he has any integrity at all....would set you straight on that.

Where did I say I don't know what Keynsian economics is? I'm asking if you just learned about it.

It takes a special kind of stupid for someone to think BLS statistics are somehow Keynsian. You should ask the University of Phoenix for your money back.

Well now that's funny..................Loner Loser couldn't stop yapping about my use of the word months ago. So much for you knowing what the hell you're talking about.

As usual.

And no, your post shows you haven't got the first clue about indoctrination.

I didn't expect you to. Your small IQ was a pretty big barometer.

 

[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.

Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.

The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October, 2009. According to BLS figures, at that time, there were 27,462,000 folks working part time and 808,000 discouraged workers. Today, we have 27,359,000 part timers and 698,000 discouraged workers. The translation of those numbers for non-thinking rightards such as yourself is that means while the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5.9%, it has done so while shedding 103,000 part time employees and 110,000 discouraged workers.

Yet the poster on this forum who fancies herself as some kind of economist guru thinks that a decrease in part time employment and discouraged workers is what reflects decline in the unemployment rate.



What a monumental fail, EconoWhore.

LOL

Another idiot I've completely fattened like a fly......how funny you want to pick yourself up from when I flattened you weeks ago....to try to even attempt to go at another round.

Hell, you've been afraid to confront me for about a month now. Did it take you a month to get the courage to post in this thread??

LOL. You've already proven yourself to be completely inept in economics. I won't waste my time burying you again. I know your self esteem barely recovered from the last time.

But thanks for the bump!!

This post follows your typical post. Do you have a template?

1. Call the other poster names.
2. Talk down to the other poster.
3. Provide no substance.
4. Claim victory.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

And you seem to suffer from a mental disability. But it's ok, I usually go easy on those of you with such mental challenges.

So here's a lesson for you, troll - when one has been trained in that Keynesian bullshit enough to distance themselves from it, credibility doesn't get any better once that person sees the light.


YOU on the other hand, don't know you don't know.

So go back to bottom dwelling, hun, but thanks for the bump. You DO serve my goals.

Did you just learn the term Keynsian in class today? I don't think I've ever seen it used so much by one person in such a short period of time in my life.

You're welcome for the bump, now more people can see what a headcase you are.

It takes an incredibly stupid person to get on a thread about economics without knowing what the hell Keynesian economics is.

LMFAO.



Even pinky....if he has any integrity at all....would set you straight on that.

Where did I say I don't know what Keynsian economics is? I'm asking if you just learned about it.

It takes a special kind of stupid for someone to think BLS statistics are somehow Keynsian. You should ask the University of Phoenix for your money back.

Well now that's funny..................Loner Loser couldn't stop yapping about my use of the word months ago. So much for you knowing what the hell you're talking about.

As usual.

And no, your post shows you haven't got the first clue about indoctrination.

I didn't expect you to. Your small IQ was a pretty big barometer.

Ah, indoctrination. The classic righty crutch when they have no argument.

 

[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.

Can whomever is hogging the rightie brain, please pass it to EconoWhore? She's not thinking at all now.

The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October, 2009. According to BLS figures, at that time, there were 27,462,000 folks working part time and 808,000 discouraged workers. Today, we have 27,359,000 part timers and 698,000 discouraged workers. The translation of those numbers for non-thinking rightards such as yourself is that means while the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5.9%, it has done so while shedding 103,000 part time employees and 110,000 discouraged workers.

Yet the poster on this forum who fancies herself as some kind of economist guru thinks that a decrease in part time employment and discouraged workers is what reflects decline in the unemployment rate.



What a monumental fail, EconoWhore.

LOL

Another idiot I've completely fattened like a fly......how funny you want to pick yourself up from when I flattened you weeks ago....to try to even attempt to go at another round.

Hell, you've been afraid to confront me for about a month now. Did it take you a month to get the courage to post in this thread??

LOL. You've already proven yourself to be completely inept in economics. I won't waste my time burying you again. I know your self esteem barely recovered from the last time.

But thanks for the bump!!

This post follows your typical post. Do you have a template?

1. Call the other poster names.
2. Talk down to the other poster.
3. Provide no substance.
4. Claim victory.

Well, you're right about the victory part.

You libs have twisted the stats...........just look at the polls....no one trusts you idiots because of the lying you've done under Obama.


Americans look right through your manipulation of stats. They know what reality on the ground is. And it isn't what the superficial "STATS" are suggesting. That my dear is called a CREDIBILITY crisis.

And you're about to get your pathetic asses kicked in three weeks when they tell you just how much they don't appreciate the lies

 

[pinqy]

Yo Pingy, you're a Keynesian indoctrinated government analyst. They don't hire supply siders at BLS. If they find a token one or two, most of you are typical idiotic, big spending, Keynesian indoctrinated analysts.

And you still fail to provide any examples of how Keynesian economics play any role at BLS beyond vague claims of assumptions. Which assumptions. And since BLS analysts are forbidden from doing any policy analysis, your claims fall flat.

Oh, and my macro instructors leaned more towards the Chicago School.

What part of that you not getting?????????????

How you think any of your claims of indoctrination are supposed to play any role in the pure statistical analysis of compiling the data

All of your analysis is suspect - you're a big spending liberal Keynesian hack.

Give an example: I stick to the facts of the data, not policy implications.

 

[rdean]

And whose fault is that?

George W Bush, of course.


The Democrats have passed legislation that is textbook unintended consequences. They didnt want companies hiring part time workers to skit the requirements of ACA. SO they defined full time as 30 hours, contrary to common and accepted usage, which was 40. So companies, which still ahd the incentive to avoid the traps of ACA simply reduced workers' hours to 29 hours a week. Even the U. of Colorado did this with their student workers.

The GOP solution is abolish the minimum wage and get rid of health care all together. Then we can compete with China.
"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"