Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[bigrebnc1775]

ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT,ENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.

Stupidity, thy name is Bigreb.

actually Reb is right on this point. It's how they're fudging the numbers.

Thank you

 

[Big Fitz]

DittoTards will always find a way to blame anyone, everyone for the fuck ups of their fellow CON$ervative Bush.
Please tell me what legislation Obama passed on the day he was elected that got past Bush's veto pen and a GOP filibuster that crashed the economy in December 2007?

Just a president's very election can set the market in motion. They don't need to do a damn thing. Like when Reagan was elected, darn near the next day the hostages were released because the Iranians, (and democrats here) believed he'd be crazy enough to nuke Tehran. The week after W declared that the presidential drilling moratorium was to be ended, gas prices plumetted to their uninflated price of around 1.60 (which had risen to around 1.80 till Obama's policies have over time, nearly doubled that. So it is not impossible that the market reacted by assuming worst case scenarios were coming under the Obama admin... which they were still a little too optimistic.

Did W make huge mistakes with the bailouts? Fuck yeah! Is he directly to blame for this unemployment spike? not even close. That spike is on the market reacting to a president who has no clue how to assist business be profitable, but is interested instead on harming it every way possible. I'd pull back too if I owned a company if I saw a dipshit of this magnitude get elected.

You got the president you wanted and the consequences that went with it.

But do continue to blame BOOOOOOOOOSH! I swear, I wish there was a vaccine for people like you.

BULLSHIT!

Reagan's partners held the hostages for St Ronnie till after the election as they had agreed. Oil prices were already heading down days before the lying BushWhacker pretended to open up drilling that was still banned by the individual states involved.

But do continue to blame Obama for Bush's fuck ups that happened before Obama was elected. Your Obama Derangement Syndrome makes you look brilliant as you parrot your MessiahRushie.

... "It was a conspiracy!!!!", Ed screams in a panicked voice at the discovery of his paranoid delusion of failure.

He then rocked himself back to his fever dream of Rush/Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[edthecynic]

And we keep telling you that's not true and that it says it's not true in your own link ... Insured unemployed is seperate an not part of the calculations.



ONE MORE TIME I AM NOT SAYING THEY USE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS TO MEASURE UNEMPLOYMENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IF A PERSON LOSES THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE NO LONGER UNEMPLOYED DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY STARTED WORKING OR NOT. WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS GO DOWN.
Do you understand this? Do not keep repeating that I am saying it. That is not what I am saying
This is from the BLS


Is this saying that the government no longer considers a person unemployed if he no longer receiving unemployment checks when they use the words

and follow up with
I'm saying they no longer keep a record of people who are not recieving unemployment, and when people drop from unemployment no matter if they are working unemployment numbers drop.
DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THIS?

No, it is saying they are no longer considered INSURED unemployed, it does not say that they are no longer considered unemployed. It is YOU who are leaving out the word INSURED, not BLS. The BLS cleatly says that when their UI runs out they are STILL considered unemployed if they are still looking for work.

Again from YOUR own BLS link, a BLS summary of who is unemployed.

No, it is saying they are no longer considered INSURED unemployed, it does not say that they are no longer considered unemployed. It is YOU who are leaving out the word INSURED, not BLS. The BLS cleatly says that when their UI runs out they are STILL considered unemployed if they are still looking for work.

Somebody else help this dumb ass.^^^^^^^^^^
If people are no longer receiving unemployment checks does the government consider them employed or unemployed?

If they are still looking for work they are considered unemployed.

 

[Big Fitz]

No, it is saying they are no longer considered INSURED unemployed, it does not say that they are no longer considered unemployed. It is YOU who are leaving out the word INSURED, not BLS. The BLS cleatly says that when their UI runs out they are STILL considered unemployed if they are still looking for work.

Again from YOUR own BLS link, a BLS summary of who is unemployed.

No, it is saying they are no longer considered INSURED unemployed, it does not say that they are no longer considered unemployed. It is YOU who are leaving out the word INSURED, not BLS. The BLS cleatly says that when their UI runs out they are STILL considered unemployed if they are still looking for work.

Somebody else help this dumb ass.^^^^^^^^^^
If people are no longer receiving unemployment checks does the government consider them employed or unemployed?

If they are still looking for work they are considered unemployed.

Not according to the BLS as we have shown. They instead are 'ignored' or 'adjusted out'.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Somebody else help this dumb ass.^^^^^^^^^^
If people are no longer receiving unemployment checks does the government consider them employed or unemployed?

If they are still looking for work they are considered unemployed.

Not according to the BLS as we have shown. They instead are 'ignored' or 'adjusted out'.

It's been pointed out many times.

 

[Big Fitz]

If they are still looking for work they are considered unemployed.

Not according to the BLS as we have shown. They instead are 'ignored' or 'adjusted out'.

It's been pointed out many times.

I know. EdtheCretin couldn't accept a contrary fact if it was applied to his forehead with a 16 inch battleship cannon.

 

[edthecynic]

Just a president's very election can set the market in motion. They don't need to do a damn thing. Like when Reagan was elected, darn near the next day the hostages were released because the Iranians, (and democrats here) believed he'd be crazy enough to nuke Tehran. The week after W declared that the presidential drilling moratorium was to be ended, gas prices plumetted to their uninflated price of around 1.60 (which had risen to around 1.80 till Obama's policies have over time, nearly doubled that. So it is not impossible that the market reacted by assuming worst case scenarios were coming under the Obama admin... which they were still a little too optimistic.

Did W make huge mistakes with the bailouts? Fuck yeah! Is he directly to blame for this unemployment spike? not even close. That spike is on the market reacting to a president who has no clue how to assist business be profitable, but is interested instead on harming it every way possible. I'd pull back too if I owned a company if I saw a dipshit of this magnitude get elected.

You got the president you wanted and the consequences that went with it.

But do continue to blame BOOOOOOOOOSH! I swear, I wish there was a vaccine for people like you.

BULLSHIT!

Reagan's partners held the hostages for St Ronnie till after the election as they had agreed. Oil prices were already heading down days before the lying BushWhacker pretended to open up drilling that was still banned by the individual states involved.

But do continue to blame Obama for Bush's fuck ups that happened before Obama was elected. Your Obama Derangement Syndrome makes you look brilliant as you parrot your MessiahRushie.

... "It was a conspiracy!!!!", Ed screams in a panicked voice at the discovery of his paranoid delusion of failure.

He then rocked himself back to his fever dream of Rush/Bush Derangement Syndrome.

REAGAN (11/13/86): We did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.

REAGAN (3/4/87): A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

 

[edthecynic]

Somebody else help this dumb ass.^^^^^^^^^^
If people are no longer receiving unemployment checks does the government consider them employed or unemployed?

If they are still looking for work they are considered unemployed.

Not according to the BLS as we have shown. They instead are 'ignored' or 'adjusted out'.

Proof of the fact that CON$ lie in packs.

Thank you.

 

[saveliberty]

Again, although I doubt for the last time, here is how I understand who is counted as an unemployed person by the survey:

A. During the survey you answer you did not work during the survey time period.

and

B. You are still actively looking for work or expect to be called back to your prior job.

You are unemployed.

Now, if you reply that you are no longer seeking a job to question "B", then they don't count you.

Perhaps if we use specifics, the confusion will be less?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If they are still looking for work they are considered unemployed.

Not according to the BLS as we have shown. They instead are 'ignored' or 'adjusted out'.

Proof of the fact that CON$ lie in packs.

Thank you.

There's a difference ed if a person is no longer receiving a unemployment check the government does not consider them unemployed. The government does not keep track of someone when they are no longer receiving that unemployment check. They are no longer considered unemployed. It doesn't matter if they found a job or not.

 

[saveliberty]

I found this interesting:

Additional questions about persons not in the labor force are asked during each household's last month of its 4-month tenure in the sample rotation pattern.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Note that the survey is asked of persons not in the labor force. Also, after four months a new group is used. I found no reference to a person dropping out of the survey because their benefits ran out.

 

[saveliberty]

Not according to the BLS as we have shown. They instead are 'ignored' or 'adjusted out'.

Proof of the fact that CON$ lie in packs.

Thank you.

There's a difference ed if a person is no longer receiving a unemployment check the government does not consider them unemployed. The government does not keep track of someone when they are no longer receiving that unemployment check. They are no longer considered unemployed. It doesn't matter if they found a job or not.

Not everyone on unemployment is in the survey. Once in the survey, you're in for a four month period. It is confusing because the survey is separate from the benefits part.

 

[saveliberty]

There still are huge gaps in the information gathered. The company you worked for could close and you might just start collecting SS for example. You would never enter the survey.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Proof of the fact that CON$ lie in packs.

Thank you.

There's a difference ed if a person is no longer receiving a unemployment check the government does not consider them unemployed. The government does not keep track of someone when they are no longer receiving that unemployment check. They are no longer considered unemployed. It doesn't matter if they found a job or not.

Not everyone on unemployment is in the survey. Once in the survey, you're in for a four month period. It is confusing because the survey is separate from the benefits part.

I'm not talking about the survey. The government according to there web site does not count you as unemployed if you have exhausted your benefits.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There still are huge gaps in the information gathered. The company you worked for could close and you might just start collecting SS for example. You would never enter the survey.

I would like to see numbers taken a better way.

 

[edthecynic]

Not according to the BLS as we have shown. They instead are 'ignored' or 'adjusted out'.

Proof of the fact that CON$ lie in packs.

Thank you.

There's a difference ed if a person is no longer receiving a unemployment check the government does not consider them unemployed. The government does not keep track of someone when they are no longer receiving that unemployment check. They are no longer considered unemployed. It doesn't matter if they found a job or not.

Again from your OWN BLS link on the Current Population Survey.

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)
Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year.
Each month, 2,200 highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees interview persons in the 60,000 sample households for information on the labor force activities (jobholding and jobseeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the survey reference week (usually the week that includes the 12th of the month). At the time of the first enumeration of a household, the interviewer prepares a roster of the household members, including their personal characteristics (date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, veteran status, and so on) and their relationships to the person maintaining the household. This information, relating to all household members 15 years of age and over, is entered by the interviewers into laptop computers; at the end of each day's interviewing, the data collected are transmitted to the Census Bureau's central computer in Washington, D.C. (The labor force measures in the CPS pertain to individuals 16 years and over.) In addition, a portion of the sample is interviewed by phone through three central data collection facilities. (Prior to 1994, the interviews were conducted using a paper questionnaire that had to be mailed in by the interviewers each month.)

 

[edthecynic]

There's a difference ed if a person is no longer receiving a unemployment check the government does not consider them unemployed. The government does not keep track of someone when they are no longer receiving that unemployment check. They are no longer considered unemployed. It doesn't matter if they found a job or not.

Not everyone on unemployment is in the survey. Once in the survey, you're in for a four month period. It is confusing because the survey is separate from the benefits part.

I'm not talking about the survey. The government according to there web site does not count you as unemployed if you have exhausted your benefits.

No, you are not counted as INSURED when your unemployment insurance runs out.
Again, no matter how many times you leave out INSURED it won't remove the word INSURED from the government BLS web site.

 

[pinqy]

There still are huge gaps in the information gathered. The company you worked for could close and you might just start collecting SS for example. You would never enter the survey.

Why not? It's a household survey.

 

[pinqy]

There's a difference ed if a person is no longer receiving a unemployment check the government does not consider them unemployed. The government does not keep track of someone when they are no longer receiving that unemployment check. They are no longer considered unemployed. It doesn't matter if they found a job or not.

Not everyone on unemployment is in the survey. Once in the survey, you're in for a four month period. It is confusing because the survey is separate from the benefits part.

I'm not talking about the survey. The government according to there web site does not count you as unemployed if you have exhausted your benefits.

Ok, if you're not talking about the survey, which is where the Unemployment level and rate come from, then what are you talking about? What measure or report?

 

[saveliberty]

There still are huge gaps in the information gathered. The company you worked for could close and you might just start collecting SS for example. You would never enter the survey.

Why not? It's a household survey.

Not a general household survey, but one of those who applied for unemployment benefits. If you go directly from job loss to SS or don't report yourself as out of work, you fall off the radar.