If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US House of Representatives)   Don't like how the unemployment rate looks? One GOP Congressman has a fix   (hunter.house.gov) divider line 197
    More: Dumbass, GOP, unemployment, formulations, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

16039 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Mar 2012 at 8:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-09 06:04:08 PM
Desperate much?
 
2012-03-09 06:10:02 PM
This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.
 
2012-03-09 06:11:04 PM
And then, when the Republicans sweep Congress and retake the White House, SURPRISE! The unemployment rate MAGICALLY lowers because they dun cut taxes and other capitalism!
 
2012-03-09 06:11:30 PM
That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.
 
2012-03-09 06:42:06 PM

Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.


It's not the only reason. Should we really include people who decide to go back to school and finish their degree as "the unemployed"?

U-5 is a measure that is available, and it includes them. It is also decreasing.

Hell, the reason the official (U-3) rate didn't go down this month because the Participation Rate is *increasing*. That's a really good sign! It hasn't done that in ages. People are starting to look for work again, and are LESS discouraged.
 
2012-03-09 06:47:42 PM
what a shock that this birdbrain comes up with this now that Chimpy McFlightsuit is gone.
 
2012-03-09 06:53:23 PM

Msol: Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.

It's not the only reason. Should we really include people who decide to go back to school and finish their degree as "the unemployed"?

U-5 is a measure that is available, and it includes them. It is also decreasing.

Hell, the reason the official (U-3) rate didn't go down this month because the Participation Rate is *increasing*. That's a really good sign! It hasn't done that in ages. People are starting to look for work again, and are LESS discouraged.


It seems the more I learn, the less I know. Thank you for that.
 
2012-03-09 07:17:31 PM
No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)
 
2012-03-09 07:23:40 PM
how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.
 
2012-03-09 07:24:41 PM

Msol: No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)


Bookmarked.
 
2012-03-09 07:28:04 PM
"Oh, shiat! The jobs report is doing nothing but going up under an opposition-party administration in an election year! If this keeps up until November, even the propaganda machine over at Fox News won't be able to cover up how bad that looks for us! Quick, fire up the Desperation Spin-O-Tron! We can't let Americans know that things are getting better! Screw the public...We must protect OUR jaerbs!"

Republican's f*cking suck.
 
2012-03-09 07:38:57 PM

MaxxLarge: "Oh, shiat! The jobs report is doing nothing but going up under an opposition-party administration in an election year! If this keeps up until November, even the propaganda machine over at Fox News won't be able to cover up how bad that looks for us! Quick, fire up the Desperation Spin-O-Tron! We can't let Americans know that things are getting better! Screw the public...We must protect OUR jaerbs!"

Republican's f*cking suck.


Yep. The suck even harder than that limerick.
 
2012-03-09 07:42:58 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


Well, the data I found here (new window) says that 5.4 million people have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. I'll see what else I can find.
 
2012-03-09 07:43:29 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


Good question. Look it up and get back to us.
 
2012-03-09 07:57:26 PM
I don't understand how this represses women. This actually makes sense. Are you sure it's from a Republican?
 
2012-03-09 08:01:55 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


0/10 - You guys should stick with the "women are sluts" narrative. At least that's something that you can understand. Economics is best left to the adults.
 
2012-03-09 08:09:54 PM
Okay, so I did find something here, and to be honest it wasn't that easy to find. About 30% of the unemployed have been that way for over 52 weeks.That number has been relatively stable for the past 2 years. It used to be 10% before the recession. But yeah, that's 4 million people out of... 242 million people of working age. There are 142 million people with jobs in the USA.

Oh the humanity.
 
2012-03-09 08:22:31 PM
As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.
 
2012-03-09 08:27:14 PM
Duncan hunter is neptotism at it's worst.
 
2012-03-09 08:27:16 PM

Msol: No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)


Good links. I've always thought that a more useful measure for governance and future planning would be total employment; adjusted to add people working - actually working - in the home like houswives and subtracting people - maybe partially - who are underemployed. Of course I have no idea how you would measure these things.
 
2012-03-09 08:29:37 PM
Thanks to the econ gurus in the board, I just figured out both U-3 & U-5 unemployment rates have been dropping throughout the last 12 months.

That is somehow missing from Duncan Hunter's (R-etard) derpy press release.
 
2012-03-09 08:30:02 PM
People who vote republican need to be sterilized.
 
2012-03-09 08:30:25 PM
There could be a form you sign that just says -
I, Citizen of the United States of America, do hereby give the fark up.
 
2012-03-09 08:30:41 PM
He's almost as smart as his daddy. Almost.
 
2012-03-09 08:31:17 PM
Didn't the government officially use the U5 figure at some point before switching to the current numbers? I mean, it's not THAT crazy to go back to including discouraged workers, is it? I get that this particular congressman's motivations are partisan and not based on having a more accurate statistic, but I'm not sure why I should feel outraged at the idea.
 
2012-03-09 08:34:16 PM
Just build a bunch of construction sites and teamsters... sheds, that's how I handle that in Tropico.
 
2012-03-09 08:34:34 PM

Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.


Literally the first word that entered my mind after clicking on that article was "pathetic".

Don't they realize how petty and childish they look when they do things like this? What are they thinking.... "oh look, the GOP redefined the unemployment rate to be 15%?!? I'm voting Republican now!"

/that chicken
//keep f*cking it
 
2012-03-09 08:36:36 PM
First things first.

1.) GOP clearly only wanting to report the number because it makes the president look bad.
2.) The only reason the number looks as good as it does is because the government (no matter who's in charge) uses the data that looks the best, which then gives everyone who doesn't understand what the unemployment numbers mean, a false sense of how bad the unemployment problem is.

Solution: The U-5 should become the official measure "after" election day. That way we track a more accurate number and nobody makes any political hay off of it.
 
2012-03-09 08:37:26 PM

randomjsa: And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


By the standards of calculating U-3, and using the standard of the statistical methods accepted for use by the BLS, and using the accepted standards of the quality of the polling process, then, yes, unemployment is under 9%. It's 8.3%, in fact.
 
2012-03-09 08:38:06 PM
Isn't the entire purpose of tracking the unemployment rate to get an idea of how many people are out there looking for a job, but don't have one? From a governing standpoint, do we really care how many people are not working and not looking?
 
2012-03-09 08:38:57 PM

dukeblue219: Didn't the government officially use the U5 figure at some point before switching to the current numbers? I mean, it's not THAT crazy to go back to including discouraged workers, is it? I get that this particular congressman's motivations are partisan and not based on having a more accurate statistic, but I'm not sure why I should feel outraged at the idea.


The thing that gets me is that this is purely a partisan thing. As soon as a Republican is back in office. They'll pretend that the U5 and U6 numbers don't exist and go back to using the U3 like they did prior to 2009.

/subby
 
2012-03-09 08:39:39 PM
Didn't Republicans pitch a big fit about the census using statistical methodology for counting inner city and homeless?
 
2012-03-09 08:40:13 PM
So they can redefine the numbers during the next GOP presidency? Do these people honestly never plan anything past next week?
 
2012-03-09 08:41:59 PM
Damn this site went from questioning goverment to blindly following anything they are fed quickly.
 
2012-03-09 08:42:05 PM
All you need to know is that there are fewer people working now at 8.4%, than at the last 8.4%. If a bunch of seniors were nuked at Fukoshima and that accounted for it, that would be one thing. But its not. They just arent counting them.

Number goes down.. Good job Obama.
Number goes up? Good job Obama, people are confident in the economy and looking for work.

win.
 
2012-03-09 08:43:57 PM

mikeray: Damn this site went from questioning goverment to blindly following anything they are fed quickly.


1/10

I'm being nice.
 
2012-03-09 08:45:15 PM

randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.



THIS.; Republicans try to make numbers worse while Democrats try to soft--pedal it and say it is not so bad, but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.

No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.
 
2012-03-09 08:46:10 PM

mikeray: Damn this site went from questioning goverment to blindly following anything they are fed quickly.


Well, here's one comment that'll get 0 smart/funny votes.
 
2012-03-09 08:46:15 PM
And he measures his dick in centimeters.
 
2012-03-09 08:46:30 PM
Congressman Hunter is attempting to move the goal posts. People can see what you're doing, congressman.
 
2012-03-09 08:47:04 PM

olddinosaur: randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


THIS.; Republicans try to make numbers worse while Democrats try to soft--pedal it and say it is not so bad, but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.

No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


Bout to break that record this November.
 
2012-03-09 08:47:11 PM

olddinosaur: but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.


Well of course. We were riding a bubble 6 years ago. What's your point?
 
2012-03-09 08:49:55 PM
The economy has changed, and demographics aren't the same, so be wary of making multi decade comparisons.

For example, in the 1970s, assembly lines, starting with cars, had their numbers reduced with power assistance and then with automation in the 1980s. The layoffs among blue collar workers were so pronounced that politicians deregulated the real-estate finance industry in order to ensure that blue collar workers had some sort of jobs.
In the 1980s and 1990s, workplaces were computerized, thus all of the clerking jobs went away,
In the 1990s and 00s, networking demolished the middleman businesses and lengthened supply chains.

The result: amazing productivity. The trouble is that when productivity (and therefore GDP) goes up, the level unemployment also goes up. It doesn't matter what you do, those jobs are never, ever coming back.

What to do? What to do?

This will be a critical problem for everyone to solve in order to maintain social cohesion.
 
2012-03-09 08:49:58 PM

Nadie_AZ: Msol: Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.

It's not the only reason. Should we really include people who decide to go back to school and finish their degree as "the unemployed"?

U-5 is a measure that is available, and it includes them. It is also decreasing.

Hell, the reason the official (U-3) rate didn't go down this month because the Participation Rate is *increasing*. That's a really good sign! It hasn't done that in ages. People are starting to look for work again, and are LESS discouraged.

It seems the more I learn, the less I know. Thank you for that.


Did you learn how they know that some poeple that have no work, but arent collecting benefits, are out looking for work because they are so encouraged because the economy is steamrolling?
 
2012-03-09 08:50:33 PM

olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


You are incorrect.

FDR was re-elected twice with unemployment in the double digits.
 
2012-03-09 08:52:15 PM
THEY. ARE. ALL. farkING. CON. MEN.

(( well, the five that aren't (1 senate, 4 house) ARE. farkING. PERVERTS!))

How stupid are you farking people?
 
2012-03-09 08:52:32 PM

olddinosaur: randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


THIS.; Republicans try to make numbers worse while Democrats try to soft--pedal it and say it is not so bad, but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.

No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


FDR??
 
2012-03-09 08:52:51 PM
So glad I moved back to Canada after 47 years of watching a once great country fall into an utter state of pathetic stupidity. I feel sorry for those in the US that are stuck there... Land of the free...?Keep the kool aid flowing.
 
2012-03-09 08:55:18 PM

slc11082: Duncan hunter is neptotism at it's worst.


NewportBarGuy: He's almost as smart as his daddy. Almost.


These.

/Lives near (but not in Hunter's district)
//At least Hunter's not as much of an attention whore as Issa
///They're both *very* safe :(
 
2012-03-09 08:56:48 PM
Nice idea, but does it address the amount of unemployed sluts?
 
Displayed 50 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report