Grungehamster: The Daily Caller is either ignornant or is trying to mislead. The correction didn't come entirely from California according to the Department of Labor and constituted just under a 0.9% increase in the number. The article claims the Department of Labor released a correction adding an additional 46,000 unemployment claims that they attributed to California not turning in numbers. The 46,000 number is the difference between the 10/6 revised numbers and the completely new numbers for 10/13.
happydude45: Fluorescent Testicle: imontheinternet: Nevermind. The Labor Department confirmed that the numbers haven't changed, and that California had reported. California was understaffed, so some applications were still being processed by print time and were not counted, but it had no effect on the bigger picture.Heh. Looks like I'm not the "Willfully ignorant" one after all. :)If facts are corrected, I won't ignore them just because of where they are reported. Just open your mind a bit and allow yourself to think.
MyRandomName: imontheinternet: Nevermind. The Labor Department confirmed that the numbers haven't changed, and that California had reported.California was understaffed, so some applications were still being processed by print time and were not counted, but it had no effect on the bigger picture.Lol. Your first paragraph says numbers dudnt change, then second says numbers were still being processed so they were.Which is it dear? Hint. California under reported as they hadn't finished counting re-applications, so numbers were actually 40k more than originally reported, hence revised numbers.
MyRandomName: Tomahawk513: happydude45: Fluorescent Testicle: The Daily Farking Caller? Seriously? You might as well ask Glenn Beck or Free Republic./DRTFA.//NGTRTFA.You represent the worst of the worst. The willful, and incredibly gleeful, ignorance of FACTS. I would pity you, you but for the damage you and your ilk do.From the article:[Go click the link if you want].Waitwaitwait... so, you're calling someone willfully ignorant because they won't read the Daily Caller?Selection bias us indeed a form of ignorance. Rejecting information merely because they may not agree with your political bias us the height of ignorance. The article merely pointed out facts. Ft rejected these facts in no other basis than it didn't agree with his bias. This leads to ignorance. Liberals on fark want nothing more than to make fark another leftist echo chamber so they don't have to deal with countering views or facts. Professor Haidt has described this in his latest book if you are curious.
happydude45: You represent the worst of the worst. The willful, and incredibly gleeful, ignorance of FACTS. I would pity you, you but for the damage you and your ilk do.
Arkanaut: MeinRS6: How completely shocking.Jeez, I wonder if unemployment will be revised up in Nov.Reposted from yesterday's thread:LinkYou seem to be repeating a mistake often made by observers, which is that you think that all the reports generated by the BLS are linked. You're referencing one report based on unemployment claims applications; the unemployment rate is based instead on a random survey of households (details on methodology here), and the "jobs created" number -- reported on the same date as the unemployment rate -- is based on a third survey of businesses.
Granny_Panties: Republicans are always whining about the real unemployment numbers. What's it up to now 30% or so in their world? Maybe when Romney wins we can can start calculating unemployment by their math. Heck we could claim unemployment shot up 400% in Romney's first year!
MeinRS6: How completely shocking.Jeez, I wonder if unemployment will be revised up in Nov.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 23 2017 08:21:55
Runtime: 0.275 sec (275 ms)