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

[pinqy]

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.

Which assumptions?

You keep saying Keynesians aren't biased.

BAMMM, you've lost all cred right there.

I've never said that.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Which assumptions?

You keep saying Keynesians aren't biased.

BAMMM, you've lost all cred right there.

I've never said that.

No you just do not understand how things are calculated..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!"

Well, Obama has been getting us lower wages.

 

[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.

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!!

You're as demented as most other rightards here. Our last encounter had me humiliate you so badly, you fled from your own thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

As far as your idiocy about not "confronting" you since you ran away from me, don't flatter yourself. I don't actually go looking for you. When I come across something as moronic as the nonsense you're posting here, I sometimes reply, regardless who the poster is. In this case, the idiot happened to be you.

Meanwhile ......... this thread of yours is one of the most idiotic threads I've noticed here lately. You're actually making the retarded claim that the decline in the unemployment rate is due, in part, to underlying factors which have increased -- but in reality, they've actually decreased.

You fail, as usual, because you're a failure.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

Which assumptions?

You keep saying Keynesians aren't biased.

BAMMM, you've lost all cred right there.

I've never said that.

No you just do not understand how things are calculated..

Only a far right drone like you would say that. Pinqy has forgotten more about statistics and analysis than you'll ever know.

 

[Faun]

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.

Great. Another brain-dead rightard.

The unemployment rate does not take such filings into account. The BLS polls people to determine if they're employed or not; and if not, when they last looked for work. It's based on the answers in which the BLS collects the number of people it categorizes as "unemployed" but still in the labor force which is used to determine the unemployment rate. The BLS does not consider claims for unemployment benefits at all when calculating the unemployment rate.

 

[Faun]

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.

You're an abject idiot. Toddsterpatriot posted a link from the BLS which not only states they don't use UI claims in factoring the UE rate, it even explained why. A person with an IQ over room temperature in Wasilla would have accepted that thorough ass-kicking and just moved onto their next idiocy. But it seems you're "special" and decided to triple down on stupid.

 

[Clementine]

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.

Exactly. It's like saying the number of hungry African people has dropped by 9,000. Sounds good on the surface till you realize that there have been nearly 9,000 deaths from Ebola.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Which assumptions?

You keep saying Keynesians aren't biased.

BAMMM, you've lost all cred right there.

I've never said that.

No you just do not understand how things are calculated..

Only a far right drone like you would say that. Pinqy has forgotten more about statistics and analysis than you'll ever know.

Wrong again! Unemployment is not the determination of how the economy is doing, it is how many people are employed. With close to 40% of the working class out of work, it is not good for the economy. Well unless you want the government to be the sole provider (like the far left wants).

 

[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!!

You're as demented as most other rightards here. Our last encounter had me humiliate you so badly, you fled from your own thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

As far as your idiocy about not "confronting" you since you ran away from me, don't flatter yourself. I don't actually go looking for you. When I come across something as moronic as the nonsense you're posting here, I sometimes reply, regardless who the poster is. In this case, the idiot happened to be you.

Meanwhile ......... this thread of yours is one of the most idiotic threads I've noticed here lately. You're actually making the retarded claim that the decline in the unemployment rate is due, in part, to underlying factors which have increased -- but in reality, they've actually decreased.

You fail, as usual, because you're a failure.

Yeah, fawny, that's why Gallup shows Americans are disgusted with Obama on the economy. Because he's doing SOOO great (roll eyes). LOL. Dumb ass.

You ran on that thread. I know it and you know it.

Look, I can't help you're little dick shrunk even more by the time I was through with you. You can try to lie like those idiots Candy and Mac did.....but everyone knows I've outmaneuvered you three morons with ease.

But thanks for being my useful idiot. Keep bumping it.

 

[pinqy]

Wrong again! Unemployment is not the determination of how the economy is doing, it is how many people are employed.

When have I said it was the determination of how the economy is doing? But no, unemployment is not how many people are employed. It's how many are trying to work

With close to 40% of the working class out of work, it is not good for the economy. Well unless you want the government to be the sole provider (like the far left wants).

I find it odd to describe millions of of people who don't want/need a job as "out of work."
5 146,063,000[/quote.9% of those doing something about work are unsuccessful.

 

[EconChick]

Wrong again! Unemployment is not the determination of how the economy is doing, it is how many people are employed.

When have I said it was the determination of how the economy is doing? But no, unemployment is not how many people are employed. It's how many are trying to work

With close to 40% of the working class out of work, it is not good for the economy. Well unless you want the government to be the sole provider (like the far left wants).

I find it odd to describe millions of of people who don't want/need a job as "out of work."
5 146,063,000[/quote.9% of those doing something about work are unsuccessful.

And this is where our interpretations differ. You haven't successfully decoupled....or separated out the groupings.

 

[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.

Exactly. It's like saying the number of hungry African people has dropped by 9,000. Sounds good on the surface till you realize that there have been nearly 9,000 deaths from Ebola.

Very well said, Clementine. The common sense way of looking at it.

 

[pinqy]

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.

Which assumptions?

You keep saying Keynesians aren't biased.

BAMMM, you've lost all cred right there.

I've never said that.

No you just do not understand how things are calculated..

Only a far right drone like you would say that. Pinqy has forgotten more about statistics and analysis than you'll ever know.

That's just because I was vey drunk through most of the 90's

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You're an abject idiot. Toddsterpatriot posted a link from the BLS which not only states they don't use UI claims in factoring the UE rate, it even explained why. A person with an IQ over room temperature in Wasilla would have accepted that thorough ass-kicking and just moved onto their next idiocy. But it seems you're "special" and decided to triple down on stupid.

My explanation was clear enough, even Joe Biden could understand it.

 

[pinqy]

Wrong again! Unemployment is not the determination of how the economy is doing, it is how many people are employed.

When have I said it was the determination of how the economy is doing? But no, unemployment is not how many people are employed. It's how many are trying to work

With close to 40% of the working class out of work, it is not good for the economy. Well unless you want the government to be the sole provider (like the far left wants).

I find it odd to describe millions of of people who don't want/need a job as "out of work."
5 146,063,000[/quote.9% of those doing something about work are unsuccessful.

And this is where our interpretations differ. You haven't successfully decoupled....or separated out the groupings.

Which groupings? I did split out full time, part time, part time for economic reasons, and discouraged, and you said I didn't decouple those. Now I just distinguished between not in the labor force and unemployed.

Which groupings are you talking about.

 

[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.

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!!

You're as demented as most other rightards here. Our last encounter had me humiliate you so badly, you fled from your own thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

As far as your idiocy about not "confronting" you since you ran away from me, don't flatter yourself. I don't actually go looking for you. When I come across something as moronic as the nonsense you're posting here, I sometimes reply, regardless who the poster is. In this case, the idiot happened to be you.

Meanwhile ......... this thread of yours is one of the most idiotic threads I've noticed here lately. You're actually making the retarded claim that the decline in the unemployment rate is due, in part, to underlying factors which have increased -- but in reality, they've actually decreased.

You fail, as usual, because you're a failure.

Yeah, fawny, that's why Gallup shows Americans are disgusted with Obama on the economy. Because he's doing SOOO great (roll eyes). LOL. Dumb ass.

You ran on that thread. I know it and you know it.

Look, I can't help you're little dick shrunk even more by the time I was through with you. You can try to lie like those idiots Candy and Mac did.....but everyone knows I've outmaneuvered you three morons with ease.

But thanks for being my useful idiot. Keep bumping it.

Demented rightwinger, I even linked that tread (and I'll do so again) because it shows how you fled and how I kept trying to incite you to return, but you were so beaten, you refused to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

Oh, and Gallup means nothing. You still idiotically claimed the drop in the UE rate was reflective of underlying factors because they increased. But in fact, they've decreased. Even Gallup can't save your dumb ass from that level of stupidity.

 

[Clementine]

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!!

You're as demented as most other rightards here. Our last encounter had me humiliate you so badly, you fled from your own thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

As far as your idiocy about not "confronting" you since you ran away from me, don't flatter yourself. I don't actually go looking for you. When I come across something as moronic as the nonsense you're posting here, I sometimes reply, regardless who the poster is. In this case, the idiot happened to be you.

Meanwhile ......... this thread of yours is one of the most idiotic threads I've noticed here lately. You're actually making the retarded claim that the decline in the unemployment rate is due, in part, to underlying factors which have increased -- but in reality, they've actually decreased.

You fail, as usual, because you're a failure.

Yeah, fawny, that's why Gallup shows Americans are disgusted with Obama on the economy. Because he's doing SOOO great (roll eyes). LOL. Dumb ass.

You ran on that thread. I know it and you know it.

Look, I can't help you're little dick shrunk even more by the time I was through with you. You can try to lie like those idiots Candy and Mac did.....but everyone knows I've outmaneuvered you three morons with ease.

But thanks for being my useful idiot. Keep bumping it.

Demented rightwinger, I even linked that tread (and I'll do so again) because it shows how you fled and how I kept trying to incite you to return, but you were so beaten, you refused to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

Oh, and Gallup means nothing. You still idiotically claimed the drop in the UE rate was reflective of underlying factors because they increased. But in fact, they've decreased. Even Gallup can't save your dumb ass from that level of stupidity.

When libs are losing, their language turns trashy. You have failed to prove your point and all the insults in the world won't change that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which assumptions?

I've never said that.

No you just do not understand how things are calculated..

Only a far right drone like you would say that. Pinqy has forgotten more about statistics and analysis than you'll ever know.

Like usual, your hyperbole reveals a brain injury or crack addiction....I dunno which one. Maybe you're just uneducated.

You don't have the first clue what my background is, shit-for-brains. Therefore you can't possibly assess that comparison.

Just a 10th grader using basic deductive powers can figure that out.

LOL.

But dayyyummm I love how you bump my thread.

I don't give a fuck what you do, to be honest. I've concluded you are unqualified based on your posting history. You are only a genius in your own mind, everyone else points and laughs at you.

I'm supposed to care when mentally challenged, crack induced, bottom dwelling, liberal uneducated trash like yourself laughs at me?????

Wow, I'm so rattled.

Talk about the person with less substance than even that idiot Loner Loser....that's you, moron.

Take some econ classes....maybe you'll better understand this topic, shit for brains.

Are you better educated than Paul Krugman?

 

[Faun]

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!!

You're as demented as most other rightards here. Our last encounter had me humiliate you so badly, you fled from your own thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

As far as your idiocy about not "confronting" you since you ran away from me, don't flatter yourself. I don't actually go looking for you. When I come across something as moronic as the nonsense you're posting here, I sometimes reply, regardless who the poster is. In this case, the idiot happened to be you.

Meanwhile ......... this thread of yours is one of the most idiotic threads I've noticed here lately. You're actually making the retarded claim that the decline in the unemployment rate is due, in part, to underlying factors which have increased -- but in reality, they've actually decreased.

You fail, as usual, because you're a failure.

Yeah, fawny, that's why Gallup shows Americans are disgusted with Obama on the economy. Because he's doing SOOO great (roll eyes). LOL. Dumb ass.

You ran on that thread. I know it and you know it.

Look, I can't help you're little dick shrunk even more by the time I was through with you. You can try to lie like those idiots Candy and Mac did.....but everyone knows I've outmaneuvered you three morons with ease.

But thanks for being my useful idiot. Keep bumping it.

Demented rightwinger, I even linked that tread (and I'll do so again) because it shows how you fled and how I kept trying to incite you to return, but you were so beaten, you refused to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/jakey-bets-econchic-2000.376558/page-23#post-9845825

Oh, and Gallup means nothing. You still idiotically claimed the drop in the UE rate was reflective of underlying factors because they increased. But in fact, they've decreased. Even Gallup can't save your dumb ass from that level of stupidity.

When libs are losing, their language turns trashy. You have failed to prove your point and all the insults in the world won't change that.

Dumbfuck, I proved my point in the first post I made which refuted EconoWhore's idiocy. Everything since is just piling on.