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.

(Hot Air)   You know how unemployment dipped to 7.8%. There's just one problem with that number. Hint: Don't use fuzzy math and People who give up looking for a job and leave unemployment is not the same as people getting jobs   (hotair.com) divider line 594
    More: Followup, CNBC, Chris Cuomo, warehousing, bright spot, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

9115 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 3:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 10:39:16 PM  

legalgus: And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%.


Yeah, I saw Romney make that stupid point on TV too.

It would make sense if you forget the fact that people have aged and retired over the course of 4 years.
 
2012-10-05 10:40:11 PM  

Lernaeus: How anyone believes gov't math astounds me.

It's almost as if they were educated in gov't-run schools, and brainwashed to accepting what these people say from a young age.


2/10

The "govt-run schools" was a dead giveaway for me.
 
2012-10-05 10:40:14 PM  
legalgus

Large idiot Fark factor at work. Sorry, since when is 7.8% good? Maybe to Obama kool aid drinkers. And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%. Open your eyes and get a grip.


THIS. 7.8% is still not good enough to reelect someone over. Gas prices are also up. Everything else about the economy still sucks. Thank you, Mr. President! It was funny (in a figurative way) to see Romney yank Obama's pants down in front of 65 million viewers the other night. I bet old Chris Matthews DID NOT get a tingle up his leg that night!
 
2012-10-05 10:40:26 PM  
This thread has become about as stupid as a YouTube comments thread.

Can't we all agree that the unemployment rate, both U3 and U5, dropping, is a GOOD THING?
 
2012-10-05 10:42:00 PM  
Here's the number of working age people who don't have jobs, but are not counted as unemployed.

dl.dropbox.com

Here is the graph of how long people of a working age who loose their job are remaining unemployed on average.

dl.dropbox.com

Finally, the percentage of working age people who are employed when you take the current population of the US into account.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-05 10:43:35 PM  

Raptavio: This thread has become about as stupid as a YouTube comments thread.

Can't we all agree that the unemployment rate, both U3 and U5, dropping, is a GOOD THING?


NEVAH!!!!
 
2012-10-05 10:44:04 PM  

jayphat: People who trot this out act like baby boomers didn't fark and have kids of their own who had their own to take their place.


And they're part of the labor poll.
 
2012-10-05 10:45:25 PM  

legalgus: Large idiot Fark factor at work. Sorry, since when is 7.8% good?


Since we entered the biggest recession since the great depression.

Fark idiot.
 
2012-10-05 10:46:54 PM  

MacWizard: According to polls, despite all the facts at hand, about 47% of people believe Romney is the best person to run the country. So, yes, people really are this ignorant.

If you believe polls.


I think 90% of people are idiots. So yeah, I do believe that.
 
2012-10-05 10:47:56 PM  
So if Romney were to win steal the election, unemployment in Feb. 2013 will go back up to 9 or 10%?
 
2012-10-05 10:48:21 PM  

Lernaeus: How anyone believes gov't math astounds me.

It's almost as if they were educated in gov't-run schools, and brainwashed to accepting what these people say from a young age.


Gallup isn't government run.

Also, I went to a private school, moron

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-10-05 10:49:18 PM  

tony41454: THIS. 7.8% is still not good enough to reelect someone over. Gas prices are also up.


growlersoftware.com

I'll be here all day
 
2012-10-05 10:49:20 PM  

legalgus: Large idiot Fark factor at work. Sorry, since when is 7.8% good? Maybe to Obama kool aid drinkers. And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%. Open your eyes and get a grip.


Oh, anything over 6 certainly sucks. But the vector is pointing in the right direction, and that's why the news is good.
 
2012-10-05 10:49:30 PM  

BullBearMS: Here's the number of working age people who don't have jobs, but are not counted as unemployed.


What counts as "working age people" in this first graph? Wouldn't be everyone over 16, would it?
 
2012-10-05 10:51:36 PM  

BullBearMS: Finally, the percentage of working age people who are employed when you take the current population of the US into account.


Gee, it's almost as if hundreds of thousands of baby-boomers are retiring on a monthly basis.

But, hey, I'm sure you're right-wing pals buy that shiat, so knock yourself out.
 
2012-10-05 10:51:53 PM  

theknuckler_33: BullBearMS: Here's the number of working age people who don't have jobs, but are not counted as unemployed.

What counts as "working age people" in this first graph? Wouldn't be everyone over 16, would it?


Doesn't the legal working age vary by state?
 
2012-10-05 10:54:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Lernaeus: How anyone believes gov't math astounds me.

It's almost as if they were educated in gov't-run schools, and brainwashed to accepting what these people say from a young age.

2/10

The "govt-run schools" was a dead giveaway for me.


Employment numbers don't mean shiat. Everything's so politicized and spun, nothing the government says can be believed.

All I know is the economy is still in the tank, basic cost of living is still rising, rent's going up, I'm trying to sell something in order to make a living - and NO ONE'S walking through the door or picking up the phone - so "having a job" isn't much better than not.

And I hear we're all for letting the payroll tax cuts lapse - great; who needs two meals a day, anyway?
 
2012-10-05 10:54:39 PM  
I'd say those numbers are pretty good for a nation that's run out of resources and is outsourcing all of its manufacturing so people can buy a 300" plasma TV for $999.
 
2012-10-05 10:55:40 PM  

impaler: MacWizard: According to polls, despite all the facts at hand, about 47% of people believe Romney is the best person to run the country. So, yes, people really are this ignorant.

If you believe polls.

I think 90% of people are idiots. So yeah, I do believe that.


Well, at least we agree on something.
 
2012-10-05 10:56:39 PM  

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: BullBearMS: Here's the number of working age people who don't have jobs, but are not counted as unemployed.

What counts as "working age people" in this first graph? Wouldn't be everyone over 16, would it?

Doesn't the legal working age vary by state?


Probably at the younger end of the spectrum. It's your chart, pal. Define what that means. If it is X years and up, then it includes all the retirees in the country and that's a farking bullshiat chart then. There were like 40 million 65+ folks in the 2010 census and that number is dramatically increasing by the hundreds of thousands every month right now.... probably around 50 million now.
 
2012-10-05 10:56:48 PM  

Lernaeus: Employment numbers don't mean shiat. Everything's so politicized and spun, nothing the government says can be believed.


Were you saying this last month when the GOP leaders were basically creaming in their pants over the fact the jobs numbers were less than expected?
 
2012-10-05 10:57:18 PM  

theknuckler_33: BullBearMS: Finally, the percentage of working age people who are employed when you take the current population of the US into account.

Gee, it's almost as if hundreds of thousands of baby-boomers are retiring on a monthly basis.


It's almost as if you don't understand what taking the current population of working age people into account means.
 
2012-10-05 10:58:17 PM  

theknuckler_33: It's your chart, pal.


Actually, it's the Saint Louis Federal Reserve Bank's chart.
 
2012-10-05 11:02:57 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: I know one that was cut off from unemployment and has been clinging on to everything he owns. He attributes to the number of people not on unemployment.

Here's my town compared to statewide. Unemployment is dropping for the state because people were kicked off unemployment after an internal audit, but Colorado Springs is still rising.

Our town is at 9.8%, and at least 50% of that is IT/Tech jobs. Additionally, you can see by the red line for Colorado, exactly when they got the results of the audit, because the line goes from 9.3% to 7.7%... in an effort to make the national average look better. That many jobs weren't found, they just ended Unemployment for thousands of people over a 2 month period.


That gives me a sad for an entirely unexpected reason. In my part of the Midwest - St Louis; I've been trying to hire a competent .Net developer and a mid-level sys admin for a couple of months. With salaries in the mid 70s they just don't exist - because they all have jobs.
 
2012-10-05 11:03:30 PM  

downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: downstairs: I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.


Which is why I used the variable "X".
 
You can't deny that someone with mad skills in a high-end industry, which has been decimated (temporarily, we hope) by the economy... who is now working at a job well below their skill level... is bad for the economy in general.
 
"underemployment" isn't really that bizarre of a concept, is it?


In that case I've been underemployed since Bush was in office.
 
2012-10-05 11:05:22 PM  

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: BullBearMS: Finally, the percentage of working age people who are employed when you take the current population of the US into account.

Gee, it's almost as if hundreds of thousands of baby-boomers are retiring on a monthly basis.

It's almost as if you don't understand what taking the current population of working age people into account means.


Just like your other chart, 'working age people' most l likely refers to all people over 16 meaning it is counting about 50 million retirees as 'working age people'. That's a pretty pathetic thing to do to try to make the employment situation seem worse than it is. Man up, bro.

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: It's your chart, pal.

Actually, it's the Saint Louis Federal Reserve Bank's chart.


Yea, but you posted it, so you should understand what it represents. I made my presumption... that it is all people 16 and over, meaning it includes all retirees which, again, makes it a completely bullshiat chart in regards to employment.
 
2012-10-05 11:10:13 PM  

theknuckler_33: Just like your other chart, 'working age people' most l likely refers to all people over 16 meaning it is counting about 50 million retirees as 'working age people'. That's a pretty pathetic thing to do to try to make the employment situation seem worse than it is. Man up, bro.


So basically what you are saying is that a graph which shows trends over time when you play by the same rules for each data point is false?
 
2012-10-05 11:20:02 PM  

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: Just like your other chart, 'working age people' most l likely refers to all people over 16 meaning it is counting about 50 million retirees as 'working age people'. That's a pretty pathetic thing to do to try to make the employment situation seem worse than it is. Man up, bro.

So basically what you are saying is that a graph which shows trends over time when you play by the same rules for each data point is false?


No, it is 100% true.

Here's the description of your "Not in Labor Force" chart:

"Not in Labor Force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. "

The problem is not the graph, it is what you are insinuating by displaying that graph. It does not represent a deterioration in the labor market, it represents an ageing population.

Sadly, it seems the FRED site won't let me create any new charts for some reason (can't browse the data series'), but if you'd like to go back and create that chart again and post its description, I'm pretty damned sure the "Civilian-population ratio " chart does the same thing "include retirees, students, taking care of family, etc.".

Again, real charts, real data, bullshiat use of them.
 
2012-10-05 11:23:49 PM  

theknuckler_33: Again, real charts, real data, bullshiat use of them.


dl.dropbox.com

So when people are unemployed for so long that they give up looking and no longer count as unemployed in the official "unemployment number" that isn't bullshiat too, I take it?
 
2012-10-05 11:29:01 PM  
Mrtraveler01

Bill Murray said I was weird


Barney Fwank . . . Barney Fwank . . . That's all you libs know.....
 
2012-10-05 11:30:37 PM  

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: Just like your other chart, 'working age people' most l likely refers to all people over 16 meaning it is counting about 50 million retirees as 'working age people'. That's a pretty pathetic thing to do to try to make the employment situation seem worse than it is. Man up, bro.

So basically what you are saying is that a graph which shows trends over time when you play by the same rules for each data point is false?


Yup., that civilian-employment ratio uses what is called the "civilian non institutional population" which is described as "people 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (penal, mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces", so includes all retirees.

C'mon... man up, bro. Those two charts are disingenuous garbage when used to suggest the labor market is terrible.
 
2012-10-05 11:32:20 PM  

theknuckler_33: Those two charts are disingenuous garbage when used to suggest the labor market is terrible.


BullBearMS: So when people are unemployed for so long that they give up looking and no longer count as unemployed in the official "unemployment number" that isn't bullshiat too, I take it?

 
2012-10-05 11:33:45 PM  

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: Again, real charts, real data, bullshiat use of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x480]

So when people are unemployed for so long that they give up looking and no longer count as unemployed in the official "unemployment number" that isn't bullshiat too, I take it?


a) the bolded part is NOT how the official unemployment number is calculated. It has nothing to do with weeks unemployed. b) that chart is totally legit and it is a real problem. I never complained about that one. The most generous thing I can say about that is that it has basically stabilized. Hopefully that will improve in the next 6-12 months.

It would be nice if you would acknowledge the fallacy of the other two charts though. It would restore a bit of my faith in humanity that some people accept logical arguments.
 
2012-10-05 11:35:00 PM  

theknuckler_33: BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: Again, real charts, real data, bullshiat use of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x480]

So when people are unemployed for so long that they give up looking and no longer count as unemployed in the official "unemployment number" that isn't bullshiat too, I take it?

a) the bolded part is NOT how the official unemployment number is calculated. It has nothing to do with weeks unemployed. b) that chart is totally legit and it is a real problem. I never complained about that one. The most generous thing I can say about that is that it has basically stabilized. Hopefully that will improve in the next 6-12 months.

It would be nice if you would acknowledge the fallacy of the other two charts though. It would restore a bit of my faith in humanity that some people accept logical arguments.


Oops... I missed the "give up looking part" in what I bolded. You're right. Ignore my "a)" comment above please.
 
2012-10-05 11:43:43 PM  

Biological Ali: downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: downstairs: I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.

Self-assessment is not a scientific method.


Which is why I used the variable "X".
 
You can't deny that someone with mad skills in a high-end industry, which has been decimated (temporarily, we hope) by the economy... who is now working at a job well below their skill level... is bad for the economy in general.
 
"underemployment" isn't really that bizarre of a concept, is it?

It's a free market. You're being paid exactly what you're worth. Stop whining, commie.


I'm paid exactly what I ask to be paid, which is noticeably less than my market value from a salary standpoint. With it, however, I get a position that I enjoy.

Worth extends well beyond economics.
 
2012-10-05 11:45:22 PM  

theknuckler_33: It would be nice if you would acknowledge the fallacy of the other two charts though. It would restore a bit of my faith in humanity that some people accept logical arguments.


Apparently, you're trying to claim that people have never been born or retired until now, or something?

This is pretty much the first year in which the baby boom generation will start to retire, so you can give up on pretending that the boomers skewed the data since the vast majority of them are still working.

dl.dropbox.com

What exactly is wrong with this chart?
 
2012-10-05 11:51:53 PM  

BullBearMS: This is pretty much the first year in which the baby boom generation will start to retire, so you can give up on pretending that the boomers skewed the data since the vast majority of them are still working.


Hate to burst your bubble

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-10-05 11:59:32 PM  

impaler: Hate to burst your bubble


Don't worry. Your graph showing a steady rate of people retiring instead of a sudden burst only enforces my point.

There has been no sudden surge of boomers retiring. As a matter of fact, the boomers have just begun to reach 65 and a huge number of them are planning to continue to work past 65.

more Boomers are worried about reaching their financial goals, with two thirds expecting to delay retirement.
 
2012-10-06 12:06:26 AM  
Since you seemed so concerned about it, labor participation data begins taking people into account at 16.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-06 12:08:34 AM  

BullBearMS: theknuckler_33: It would be nice if you would acknowledge the fallacy of the other two charts though. It would restore a bit of my faith in humanity that some people accept logical arguments.

Apparently, you're trying to claim that people have never been born or retired until now, or something?

This is pretty much the first year in which the baby boom generation will start to retire, so you can give up on pretending that the boomers skewed the data since the vast majority of them are still working.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x480]

What exactly is wrong with this chart?


Wrong. There were about 40 million 65+ year old Americans as of the 2010 census... that number is certainly in the 50 million range now just two years later. Again, nothing wrong with the chart, what is wrong is what you are taking away from it. Including them in the 'working age' denominator of a labor calculation is a pathetic attempt to deceive people.
 
2012-10-06 12:14:22 AM  

o5iiawah: I dont need to cite anything. The white house invoked executive privilege in the Fast and Furious investigation. That means they were involved or had knowledge of the operation. Go fail somewhere else


Um, dude that's presumed guilt until proven innocence. I wouldn't be waving around the word "fail" so loosely.


I dont need to cite anything.


Um, actually you do, or you would be asked to drop the point altogether. We could really care if it's your opinion. That isn't evidence.

your "Oh snap" was just rebutted with a fact - for the 100th time. Just keep acknowledging that they are the same program. It makes you look even dumber.

Actually no, it hasn't, and certainly not more than once.

Failtroll is fail.
 
2012-10-06 12:16:40 AM  

BullBearMS: impaler: Hate to burst your bubble

Don't worry. Your graph showing a steady rate of people retiring instead of a sudden burst only enforces my point.

There has been no sudden surge of boomers retiring.


Sudden surge? Who said anything about a sudden surge. That number is going up and will continue to go up. There were 40 million Americans over 65 in the 2010 census, that number is closer to 50 million now. Obviously 37 million of them are already collecting SS. Either way, that 50 million people 65 and older that are considered 'working age' in your charts. That makes the ratio low. The ratio is artificially low because it includes 50 million people who will never look for work again. It is a BAD ratio to use as an indicator of the labor market at a time when the ageing population is increasing.
 
2012-10-06 12:18:37 AM  

theknuckler_33: nothing wrong with the chart


That's funny. You keep claiming there is something wrong with the chart.

Why does the percentage of people employed plunge and not come back up?
 
2012-10-06 12:30:12 AM  

theknuckler_33: BullBearMS: impaler: Hate to burst your bubble

Don't worry. Your graph showing a steady rate of people retiring instead of a sudden burst only enforces my point.

There has been no sudden surge of boomers retiring.

Sudden surge? Who said anything about a sudden surge. That number is going up and will continue to go up. There were 40 million Americans over 65 in the 2010 census, that number is closer to 50 million now. Obviously 37 million of them are already collecting SS. Either way, that 50 million people 65 and older that are considered 'working age' in your charts. That makes the ratio low. The ratio is artificially low because it includes 50 million people who will never look for work again. It is a BAD ratio to use as an indicator of the labor market at a time when the ageing population is increasing.


Now all you need to do is cite real numbers that show the percentage of people too old for work plus people too young for work has changed significantly over the past four years, which led to the large and sudden drop in the percentage of people employed.

dl.dropbox.com

I'll be waiting for you to cite real numbers instead of just making up bullshiat excuses.
 
2012-10-06 01:07:09 AM  

BullBearMS: Since you seemed so concerned about it, labor participation data begins taking people into account at 16.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x480]


Hey moron, see how my graph starts at 96 dipshat?

Just when yours decreases?

Try matching the time frames.
 
2012-10-06 01:08:46 AM  

BullBearMS: Now all you need to do is cite real numbers that show the percentage of people too old for work plus people too young for work has changed significantly over the past four years, which led to the large and sudden drop in the percentage of people employed.


So we're better off than we were in the 50s 60s 70s and most of the 80s????

Moron.
 
2012-10-06 01:22:44 AM  
lol at graphs
 
2012-10-06 01:38:49 AM  

redly1: lol at graphs


It worked before.
Rinse, repeat.

/graphs du jour, there are 10 million in the Naked City, only the numbers are changed to protect the derp
 
2012-10-06 01:46:04 AM  

theknuckler_33: Wrong. There were about 40 million 65+ year old Americans as of the 2010 census... that number is certainly in the 50 million range now just two years later. Again, nothing wrong with the chart, what is wrong is what you are taking away from it. Including them in the 'working age' denominator of a labor calculation is a pathetic attempt to deceive people.


It's like BullBearMS is lying sack of shat or something
 
2012-10-06 02:53:06 AM  
Well, if we take the basic populace definitions, to be what is written below (which is what everyone seems to treat them as).

Unemployment: Someone who wants to work, but can't find a job.

Under-employed: Someone who can't get enough of a job or salary to live on.

Then you measure employment based on the following factors:

How many adults (age 18+) who want work, who are not in school or disabled, are working full-time? The percentage that isn't, is the unemployment rate.

How many adults (of the type from above) who are working, can afford a one bedroom apartment on 30% of their monthly salary? Those who can't are under employed. (Rougher estimate than adding in estimated food/energy costs, but still one of the best ways to tell.)


/it's almost as if the government doesn't want accurate numbers...
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report