There is a difference between the household survey and establishment survey when judging employment. http://www.bls.gov/lau/lauhvse.htm If you want to ask questions about unemployment numbers, you must first define employment.
So after all this time, you claim you just figured out why tallanvor's original claim was wrong. That implies that your original contention was a mistake. Why not just admit it directly? Unfortunately, your new explanation here is wrong as well. As I explained in post #174, all numbers used for the original claim were taken from the household survey (the A table), not the establishment survey. So your latest explanation is completely incorrect. Also note that in that discussion in post #187 I pointed out to Major why there were differences between the numbers used and the numbers reported, which was due to the two surveys. Why did it take you over a month to figure out something that I posted here at the time? So you decided to come back a month later and tacitly admit you were wrong while cowardly failing to do so explicitly, only to make another mistake and expose the fact that you didn't understand the discussion in the first place by repeating information that was given to you at the time. Awesome. (By the way, the proper response is still, "I'm skeptical of the claim tallanvor made and I think there's something wrong with the way he interpreted the numbers, I just can't figure out what exactly it is right now. I was wrong in my previous guesses." But then you'd have to put down your ego long enough to admit mistakes you've worked so hard to deny and I harbor no illusions that you'll be able to do so.)
^ because I admit, I was confused by what numbers you were using - when you started using the HOUSEHOLD numbers and I was using the ESTABLISHMENT numbers that the BLS and every other rational person (not some douchemonger who has hegelian dialectics with himself on internets) - it took me a awhile to figure that out. Plus when you first panicked and tried to claim an april fool's joke, that was also pretty ****ing awesome. HOwever your bullsh-t formula, even for the household numbers - is still wrong, due to the way it's calculated. It's actually listed in the table footnotes, but when i figured out you & tallanvor were the same I kind of lost interest in explaining it to you last month. That's why the BLS doesn't use it. Again, this is even for the household numbers, that the BLS doesn't use as the official number. So, in conclusion, you know what to do with it, new yorker. It rhymes with bukkit. PS why did you choose now to resume the uolj personality - was it because the tallanvor line ran into a wall or something?
You admit you were confused. That's a pretty good step and I applaud you for it. I think "flat wrong" is a more accurate phrase for your most recent post, but I'll take "confused". I also see that you've switched your argument yet again to something about the footnotes. What exactly about the footnotes is causing your uncertainty? Perhaps it could be the exact same thing I noted about the footnotes in post #187 over a month ago? If so, then nice work. I'm glad you decided to finally read the previous posts. While you're at it, feel free to read post #200 again. It will help you figure out the whole tallanvor/uolj thing.
What an ugly jobs report. Hope people pay attention during the election. I think obama and congress need to start paying. Both democrats and republicans are problems. Its time politicians stopped standing by party lines and do what is best for this country. We need more taxes cut costs and please don't pull this debt shenanigans.
Actually this proves what the problem is. I don't know how many more times we need to show that cutting taxes and cutting costs are probably the best thing to do if you want to do the opposite of what you intended.
You'd destroy the nation to have your ideology succeed. Taxes have nothing to do with why the economy has not recovered to prerecession employment. Taxes are low, and companies are sitting on cash. They are afraid to spend out of a fear of another rainy day and by doing so they are guranteeing another rainy day.
I was posting from my phone so what I was writing made no sense. The thing is the public is shedding jobs left and right. The problem is as we increase the debt, and our interest expenses are getting out of control. Along with medicare + ss + defense we can't even pay for the other parts of the government. We need to do both: Higher taxes + cut costs Having a 1 trillion dollar + deficit is insane. We can devalue the dollar greatly, but the only people this hurts the most are the poor as they can't protect their money as well. The republicans are stupid. The problem is too many people in this country believe they will one day make that 2% which they won't. However the democrats are no better since they also belong to the elite 2% of earners. We need to raise taxes on the rich, cut defense greatly, and completely overhaul the healthcare system and not do this stupid obamacare crap. However the main issue is creating jobs, and giving banks a blank check so they can give companies billions so they can outsource their jobs to china might not be the best option.
Again, this is just flat wrong. Interest rates are not "getting out of control," they remain historically very low with respect to government debt. And to the extent they are high, (which they're not) it is due to long term, big ticket items like entitlements, not short term spending issues. If you want to hurt employment and growht, this is what we need to do. If you want to address the deficit while hurting growht the least, you should raise taxes. If you want to help both growth and employment, you would increase costs AND/or not raise taxes. This is reality. Again, if the main issue is creating jobs - let's create them here. There are tons of needed, necessary infratstructure projects right here in the US that will create jobs here . . . and more or less can't' be completely outsourced..
It's working in Iceland. It's not working in the EU - because they didn't do and went down the austerian path. Sucks to be them.
I'll be fine with it when the largest corps release the cash they've been sitting on as they've been the beneficiaries (BoA, GM, Chrysler, Big Ag & oil subsidies, green tech, military industrial). It will then just magically trickle down and everything will be better. Where have I heard that before?
To be fair, the President is in favor of cutting oil subsidies, and military budgets, it's just that the other party is being really prickly about those things, as they tend to do.
Also, I am posting this s*** all over economic threads from now on. Since when have the Republicans become the party of "fiscal discipline"? Yay deregulated Keynesian economics with conjured fiat money---it's won on both sides of the policy debate! Republicans like to kill and imprison people with the money. Democrats like to spend on education and infrastructure. You can probably tell which side I have a bit more sympathy for.
Bachmann: ‘I Hope’ Higher Unemployment Will Help My Campaign Appearing on CNBC this morning, presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was asked about this morning’s dismal jobs report and whether higher unemployment rates might help her chances of winning in 2012. “Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up, your chances of winning office also go up?” host Carl Quintanilla asked. “Well, that could be. Again, I hope so,” Bachmann replied.
Anyone else here that thinks that the number of jobs in the United States since 2002 has been increasingly inflated up to 2008? What if our industries are actually running at near full capacity? What if there are no jobs to be created as we're right at the ceiling? What if the issue is our population (labor supply) is larger than jobs (labor demand)? What if the only reason it seems like an issue now is because all employers were on steroids for last 10 years and now the job market is normalizing but to us it seems like abnormal unemployment rates. Companies are going to do what they can to maximize profits, not maximize employment opportunties. That's capitalism. WTF is Govt supposed to do? Force companies to limit ROI in favor of over-employing?
Has a Republican president, at any time in the last 30 years, showed any semblance of being able to balance a budget? No? So why in the hell should people trust them now? It's easy to crow about government deficits when you're in opposition to a Democrat president, but given their history, what makes anyone think the Republicans will do better?
this is the issue. every now and then you will hear a commentator address it. is this a structural issue. i believe it is. companies are making record profits with their current staffs. technology only continues to progress. there are a lot more jobs that can be outsourced to cheaper labor markets. i don't know how i feel about stimulus, its a moot point anyway with the current political climate. but the only thing i can see right now is rebuilding our infrastructure to create jobs.
