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.

(Marketwatch)   Right on schedule, the Wall Street Journal points out that the improved unemployment numbers must be revised worse because Rmoney lost the election   (marketwatch.com) divider line 89
    More: Followup, Wall Street Journal, Rmoney, independent sources, discouraged worker, unemployment, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

2102 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 12:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 11:35:54 AM  
"It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane. So it's no wonder that many people are skeptical about the government's economic data."

*click*

/greened? really?
 
2013-03-08 11:37:31 AM  
The Liberal Media strikes again
 
2013-03-08 12:09:32 PM  
Oh, FFS
 
2013-03-08 12:26:51 PM  
It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane.

Like PreMortem, I could read no further.
 
2013-03-08 12:27:51 PM  
Since Murdoch bought the WSJ why take anything in it seriously?
 
2013-03-08 12:28:13 PM  
Is it so easy for these guys to forget they totally hated Romney before the Republican primaries?
 
2013-03-08 12:29:03 PM  
"By and large, the government data are consistent with numbers produced by the private sector..."

...However, it is very important to remember that any figures that actually make the black man in the White House look good should be not only treated with skepticism, but as outright lies and substituted with numbers that we carefully and methodically pull out of our asses.
 
2013-03-08 12:31:28 PM  
And yet the employer rate is at a mere 1.2%, perhaps! WHY ARE MORE PEOPLE NOT OUT CREATING JOBS? HMMMMM?
 
2013-03-08 12:31:35 PM  
si.wsj.net
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.
 
2013-03-08 12:32:00 PM  
it's at least convenient to have the moron spoor right at the beginning.
 
2013-03-08 12:32:54 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane.

Like PreMortem, I could read no further.


I'm proud of you both for making it that far.
 
2013-03-08 12:33:20 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.


This is the single greatest graphic ever displayed on Fark.
 
2013-03-08 12:33:37 PM  
FTFA:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane. So it's no wonder that many people are skeptical about the government's economic data.

b-b-b-but I thought if you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about. Soft on terrorism now?

Yep, they are going to kill for writing this article. boogie boogie boo!
 
2013-03-08 12:33:43 PM  
Rex Nutting.
Whatchoo got, Rex?
 
2013-03-08 12:34:00 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane.

Like PreMortem, I could read no further.


Yes, do not lead with your insanity.
 
2013-03-08 12:34:38 PM  

PreMortem: "It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane. So it's no wonder that many people are skeptical about the government's economic data."

*click*

/greened? really?


You made it an entire sentence further than I did.
 
2013-03-08 12:34:44 PM  

coeyagi: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.

This is the single greatest graphic ever displayed on Fark.


I love how they all look so sad.
 
Bf+
2013-03-08 12:36:05 PM  
I don't think that headline could be revised worse.
 
2013-03-08 12:37:05 PM  

PreMortem: "It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane. So it's no wonder that many people are skeptical about the government's economic data."


It reads like MadLibs.

"I won't trust the German bus schedule because Hitler once rode a bus."

"I won't trust your spaghetti because Rodrigo Borgia was a corrupt Italian pope."

"I won't drink sake because of Pearl Harbor."

"I won't jerk off to Anne Hathaway in 'Love and Other Drugs' because her teeth were nasty in Les Miserables."
 
2013-03-08 12:37:37 PM  
Based on the first sentence of the article, I'm sure this Blogger-Patriot will have a lot of sane, balanced things to say.

Whoops, sorry, it's a load of derp.

/unlike a lot of people, bloggers tend to be shiatstains of humanity
 
2013-03-08 12:42:08 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.


Is the downfall of that graphic that the black people's taxes aren't increased or it assumes 180k is normal income for people or even 260k is normal for a single parent?

/probably both
 
2013-03-08 12:42:40 PM  
Wow, this guys name is "Nutting"
 
2013-03-08 12:43:17 PM  
Okay, so he gives a different metric for considering employment rate. I'm okay with that. But what is the trend on that number? Has it been improving? If so, then the economy has been as well. You can't say 9% and not compare it to previous months and years.
 
2013-03-08 12:44:09 PM  
We're all just lucky that Romney didn't win! Unemployment would be at -300% with the billion new jobs he'd have personally created and we'd all be exhausted!
 
2013-03-08 12:44:09 PM  

Summoner101: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.

Is the downfall of that graphic that the black people's taxes aren't increased or it assumes 180k is normal income for people or even 260k is normal for a single parent?

/probably both


I think every pixel is a fail.
 
2013-03-08 12:44:44 PM  

busy chillin': coeyagi: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.

This is the single greatest graphic ever displayed on Fark.

I love how they all look so sad.


shiat!  I only make, as a single woman, four times the median household income in the United States.  Life sucks!
 
2013-03-08 12:46:45 PM  
WSJ editors richly deserve to be put up against a wall.
 
2013-03-08 12:47:25 PM  

PreMortem: "It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane. So it's no wonder that many people are skeptical about the government's economic data."


Are there non-robotic airplanes?  Like, organic airplanes?  Is this Farscape?
 
2013-03-08 12:49:07 PM  
I don't generally come to pile on but, done in one.
 
2013-03-08 12:52:16 PM  
You have to unskew the data, then you'll see, the government been lying, particularly the darkie
 
2013-03-08 12:53:31 PM  
If you get past the derp in the first line, the rest of the article is actually not that bad.
In the end he pretty much says there should be a tighter group of people used for unemployment numbers, i.e. adults between 25-65 as opposed to anybody from the age 16 and up.

How he can take students and retried folks out of the pool and somehow come up with a larger percentage of unemployed is not quite making sense to me.

Oh, and as Summoner101 said, you can't throw just one data point out and expect to make much sense of it. If this guy was serious, then we need a lot more data so we can actually see a trend.
 
2013-03-08 12:56:12 PM  
Okay I tried to read the article and gave up.  It's a rambling mess.
 
2013-03-08 12:56:15 PM  

PanicMan: PreMortem: "It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane. So it's no wonder that many people are skeptical about the government's economic data."

Are there non-robotic airplanes?  Like, organic airplanes?  Is this Farscape?


Battlestar Galactica.
 
2013-03-08 12:56:36 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 12:57:31 PM  
It's the standard formula, use the "real" unemployment numbers when a Democrat is president and use the "fake" unemployment numbers when a Republican is President.
 
2013-03-08 12:58:44 PM  
In theory, the jobless rate should be noncontroversial. It's simply the percentage of people who want a job who can't find one. However, it's more complicated in practice. What does it mean to look for work? How hard do you have to try? How often do you have to try? What does it mean to have a job? Does it have to be a full-time job to count? What if it's irregular work?

What if you have a really vivid dream about having a job? Do jobs in the Life board game count as jobs gained? What about the guy that replaced Steve Jobs? He has Jobs' job, is that two jobs, or one? What about hand, blow, and rim jobs? Does each one count? What if your job is to give those jobs- does it count, for being a job, or does it not count for being illegal? Is a life of crime a job? Nobody can be sure of anything except that motherhood certainly isn't a job. That might be controversial to say on International Women's Day, but I'm a journalist. And just why do International Women get a whole day? Why do blacks get a whole month? Where's  WhiteHistory Month? Why are they "black" for history month and BET, "African-American" for white people, but "Negroes" when they're begging for me to give them college money? If I give them college money, can I use the N-word? Is that why Quentin Tarantino can use it? If so, he must have given enough to found a historically black college, because he uses the N-word like it's his job. Wait, is that a job?
 
2013-03-08 01:01:32 PM  
I'm sick of this horseshiat. We have target unemployment rates based on the metrics used to find this number. The people who set those targets know what the number includes and what it entails. So even if a higher percentage of people are unemployed in actuality than the number says at face, having the number move closer to target is good. You insufferable gas bags.
 
2013-03-08 01:01:57 PM  
Care to diagram that sentence, subby?
 
2013-03-08 01:02:35 PM  

Slives: If you get past the derp in the first line, the rest of the article is actually not that bad.
In the end he pretty much says there should be a tighter group of people used for unemployment numbers, i.e. adults between 25-65 as opposed to anybody from the age 16 and up.

How he can take students and retried folks out of the pool and somehow come up with a larger percentage of unemployed is not quite making sense to me.

Oh, and as Summoner101 said, you can't throw just one data point out and expect to make much sense of it. If this guy was serious, then we need a lot more data so we can actually see a trend.


I'm sure he worked backward and looked for a reasonable-seeming range that would make unemployment look worse.
 
2013-03-08 01:02:42 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.


I'm not sure what that graphic is trying to display other than sad faces and well to do people?
 
2013-03-08 01:03:00 PM  
another terrorist sympathizer
 
2013-03-08 01:03:19 PM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 615x799]


that's horrible....
 
2013-03-08 01:03:42 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.


It just hit me.  Before what I noticed was that, SHOCKER, WSJ made the family with the lowest income and being immune from taxes black.

But seeing it for the whatverith time, it struck me that, with those levels of income and investments, every family in that picture should be millionaires...even the poor black golfers with their sweaters.

Won't someone think of the millionaires?
 
2013-03-08 01:08:04 PM  
"It's hard to completely trust any government that reserves the right to assassinate me (or you) with a robot airplane. So it's no wonder that many people are skeptical about the government's economic data." sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-08 01:10:04 PM  
Yep, remember how every single month last year the revisions showed the government overestimating job numbers and sweeping the real, smaller numbers under the rug 2 months later to help Obama?

Oh wait... it turns out that the government initially underestimated unemployment numbers by roughly 24,000 a month in 2012. In fact, BLS has had a general pattern of underestimating the numbers for 2009, 2010, and 2011 too (AKA, initial estimates are generally conservative about the number of jobs added).

I keep hearing critics screaming about how every month we always have to revise the previous estimates downward, and it just isn't true.
 
2013-03-08 01:12:28 PM  

Summoner101: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.

Is the downfall of that graphic that the black people's taxes aren't increased or it assumes 180k is normal income for people or even 260k is normal for a single parent?

/probably both


It's interesting that they included medicare and social security in the definition of federal taxes. Usually they leave those out because then they can complain about those freeloading moochers who don't pay any (federal) (income) (non-payroll) taxes.

But I guess they count as real taxes when it's the 1% paying them.
 
2013-03-08 01:16:53 PM  

Emposter: But seeing it for the whatverith time, it struck me that, with those levels of income and investments, every family in that picture should be millionaires...even the poor black golfers with their sweaters.


And they're retirees, too. Retirees bringing in 180K per annum. And even then... their taxes won't be going up at all. And they're still just as sad as the day the dog died.
 
2013-03-08 01:16:56 PM  

Weigard: In theory, the jobless rate should be noncontroversial. It's simply the percentage of people who want a job who can't find one. However, it's more complicated in practice. What does it mean to look for work? How hard do you have to try? How often do you have to try? What does it mean to have a job? Does it have to be a full-time job to count? What if it's irregular work?

What if you have a really vivid dream about having a job? Do jobs in the Life board game count as jobs gained? What about the guy that replaced Steve Jobs? He has Jobs' job, is that two jobs, or one? What about hand, blow, and rim jobs? Does each one count? What if your job is to give those jobs- does it count, for being a job, or does it not count for being illegal? Is a life of crime a job? Nobody can be sure of anything except that motherhood certainly isn't a job. That might be controversial to say on International Women's Day, but I'm a journalist. And just why do International Women get a whole day? Why do blacks get a whole month? Where's  WhiteHistory Month? Why are they "black" for history month and BET, "African-American" for white people, but "Negroes" when they're begging for me to give them college money? If I give them college money, can I use the N-word? Is that why Quentin Tarantino can use it? If so, he must have given enough to found a historically black college, because he uses the N-word like it's his job. Wait, is that a job?


This is perhaps the greatest post I have ever read.  We are all better human beings for having read it.  I award you all the points, and may God have mercy on our not-as-funny souls.
 
2013-03-08 01:22:04 PM  
How does a retired couple bring in 180k a year but only have 52k of that as investment income? Would any capital gains not be included as investment income? Does this not defeat the purpose of being "retired"? My brain is full of fark.
 
2013-03-08 01:22:30 PM  

DirkValentine: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [si.wsj.net image 850x560]
This graphic belongs in all WSJ threads.

I'm not sure what that graphic is trying to display other than sad faces and well to do people?


It's a WSJ graphic featured in a recent Cracked article. It's what happens when the WSJ tries to imagine the plight of the working class.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report