Unemployment Stays at 9.5%

Among other things, the fact that you think that

temporary workers = part time noneconomic workers.

english in what?

 

yes you did yes you did

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Employed persons at work part time:
Part time for economic reasons: Change from Feb to March: 93,000
Part time for noneconomic reasons: Change from Feb to March: 197,000

That's the Bureau's English, not mine. Love watching you squirm Sam.

 

No _ that's the bureaus data that you are not interpreting correctly - probably on purpose.

. The bureaus english is in their news release- in which they indicated you overstated the number of temp jobs by a factor of 10 - then arbitrarily subtracted this from another number.

When you get that Phd - please include a dedication to me.
.

 

You are the one who quoted +29,000 out of the press release when it wasn't relevant to tallanvor's point. He was talking about part time jobs, not temp jobs. That was your mistake.

Table A sure does look like it says there were 290,000 more part-time workers than there were in February, and 291,000 more total workers. Which is basically what he said.

 

He also said he was making an April Fool's joke. It seems that he's making things up as he goes.

 

You're right, he did say part time jobs and not full time jobs, but then he compounded his f-k up by taking the numbers and subtracting incompatible variables that end up double counting things, hence his fictional contention that only 1,000 fulltime jobs were created (which appears nowhere)

The number of people "employed part time for noneconomic reasons" is independent from the total number of jobs created. You can't simply cherry pick data from the employment chart , subtract from the BLS net jobs number, and then claim that the remainder is the answer to anything.

Example: I have somebody who works in my group who is going from a 5 day a week schedule to a 3 day a week schedule next week, permanently, due to child care preferences.

That person would cause the "employed part time for noneconomic reasons" number to tick up by exactly 1.

Why would I decide to subtract that number from the total net jobs created? There is no job being created. It is the same job, but it is changing categories. But this is the logic on which you're hanging your hat, so fight the good fight, says Courage Wolf.

 

I think the April Fools Joke comment was a joke itself or an attempt to save face before he realized that the link he got it from might have been right after all. And I don't agree with his general implication either.

But that's all pretty irrelevant to whether the statement is true, and looking at the numbers and the press release I see no evidence to indicate it is not. Given the level of mockery and bluster thrown around by SamFisher, I'd expect he should be able to admit his mistake or provide real evidence or reasoning that shows the claim to be false.

 

So...let's make this crystal clear, and **** anything that tallanvor is saying and exclude him from the discussion - if that's possible - you are claiming that only 8,000 non-part time jobs were created in March 2011?

Why don't we start from square one, and you state the evidence on which you are basing this conclusion.

THen we can examine whether or not it is correct.

You know, the last time we went through this exercise, it consisted of you vouching for, of all people tallanvor and his idiotic claim that the Texas State Budget was not in a deficit:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=5569942&highlight=samfisher#post5569942

And then prior to that, you went to bat for his interpretation of Arizona's immigration law:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=5273237&highlight=samfisher#post5273237


as well as the "ground zero mosque":
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=5528600&highlight=tallanvor#post5528600

You seem to be a particularly t-allanvor-elant fellow, lou.

Do you have a compound eye, like a housefly?

 

Interesting, uolj seems to historically defend tallanvor just a little too much and if I may add a bit irrationally (much like tallanvor himself).

 

Ok, thanks, this reasoning makes some sense and we can work with it, but I still think you were wrong on several points.

Here was tallanvor's original statement:

Using the term "added" is confusing, since we're talking about a change in jobs. But both the 290,000 and the 291,000 numbers are referring to a change. They're both net numbers. (I think this is the key point that you missed.)

So using your example, if a full-time worker switched to part-time, then there is no net job added. But there is a net full-time job lost and a net part-time job added.

Expand that further. Let's look at some hypothetical numbers:

Unemployed -> Full-time: 141,000
Part-time -> Full-time: 70,000
Unemployed -> Part-time: 250,000
Full-time -> Part-time: 130,000
Full-time -> Unemployed: 80,000
Part-time -> Unemployed: 20,000

So...
Total net jobs created is: (141,000 + 250,000 - 80,000 - 20,000) = 291,000
Net full time jobs created is: (141,000 + 70,000 - 130,000 - 80,000) = 1,000
Net part time jobs created is: (250,000 + 130,000 - 70,000 - 20,000) = 290,000

The numbers in blue are from the bls table. The rest of that is an example to show you get to the implied number of net full-time jobs from the two blue numbers. I just made up figures for the rest of it to make it all work but those numbers are not relevant, it's the logic that is what you're debating.

(Note that we're assuming here that all jobs are either full-time or part-time, which might not be accurate, but that doesn't affect the validity of the original statement because he didn't state that the rest were specifically full-time. Just assume all non part-time jobs are full-time in the above numbers.)

So the question becomes, how is his statement wrong? Of the net 291,000 jobs created, there is a net 290,000 part-time jobs and a net 1,000 non part-time jobs. Sure there were more than 1,000 full time jobs created (in the above scenario it was 211,000), but that's a gross number and not what tallanvor (or whoever wrote his link) was referring to.

 

See my post above.

No, I'm not claiming that at all. Where did you get the 8,000 number? I'm saying that what tallanvor said (or more specifically what his link said) was accurate. There were 291,000 net jobs gained in March and 290,000 net part-time jobs gained, meaning the number of net non-part-time jobs was 1,000.

 

Sorry, you're right, 1,000.

Start from square one, what is your support for this contention?

And, so we're clear, actually let's make this square zero, are you going to be answering this question as uolj or tallanvor?

After you finish square zero, THEN start from square one, the BLS release on the net jobs number.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I estiamate about 10 posts from now I will give you a forever alone graphic, you will be partying with your frands a la Rebecca Black, and then uolj may go away, to be replaced with a new voice of....reason, lou.

 

My support for this contention is from the Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted.

Look under the column "Change from Feb. 2011-Mar. 2011". In the row titled "Employed" under "Civilian noninstitutional population > Civilian labor force", the number is 291. That means that in the civilian labor force, a net of 291,000 jobs were added between February and March.

Further down under the same column and in the row titled "Part time for economic reasons" under "Employed persons at work part time", the number is 93. In the row titled "Part time for noneconomic reasons", the number is 197. I'm assuming the addition of these two numbers, 290, indicates in thousands the change in the number of employed persons at work part time between February and March.

So, there was a net gain of 291,000 total persons employed and a net gain of 290,000 total persons employed part time, indicating that the net gain of total persons employed non-part-time is 1,000. I think that's what the original claim was and that's what I'm defending as accurate.

 

yeah, you two are the same.

Ostensibly, this logic is stupid, for the reasons specified, which is why you don't find this stated in the text of the BLS release, and why you are wrong.

That doesn't matter though, my ultimate response is the same: suck it, newyorker.

 

Wait, so after all that, you don't even refute the logic, you just say, "suck it".

There were no reasons specified that were not addressed and shown to be invalid or based on faulty assumptions. If you think there were feel free to show how refutations of them are themselves invalid.

 

Your math is right. I would argue that it's not a bad thing, for two reasons:

(1) additional of part-time labor tends to preceed full-time labor, so this is what we'd expect

(2) a majority of the part-time was for non-economic reasons, meaning people are making the choice to work part-time, rather than being forced into it.

But as far as the numbers go, your analysis looks to be correct.

 

I would also argue that it's not a bad thing.

 

It's not correct; unless by "as far as numbers go" means adding and subtracting.

The net number of fulltime jobs added in a month does not consist of merely taking the number of parttime jobs added and subtracting it from the net jobs total, because the two numbers are incompatible due to double counting (and probably other reasons as well) - that's why you'll find that only uolj and his alter egos have this number and not the BLS.

 

It's not double counting because they are all net numbers. I gave a very complete example where the numbers are not double counted and the results turn out the way I and Major are claiming.

Feel free to rebut that, rather than just repeating your original claim or saying "suck it".