| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | NW...walk me through how we changed BLS establishment unemployment survey. Its the same survey we have always had. We also have the household survey, and U6, which includes the underemployed, and the workers that have fallen off the rolls. Understanding economics means studying data that is apples-apples, and the BLS establishment survey, which you reference above does just that. |
Really!?! It wasn't that long ago.
They used to include those who are unemployed, but no longer qualify for U.I. because their time ran out, and if they are still of working age and are not collecting disability.
Under the current administration they no longer count those, so in reality, the number of unemployed is much higher.
My wife who is still unemployed, and looking for a job, is no longer counted as unemployed because she no longer qualifies for unemployment.
A little side note, one of the reasons that the unemployment rate has gone down (no matter how it's counted) is because they quit extending U.I. for those w/o jobs for a long time (a form of austerity), so many of them got more serious about getting a job. Funny how that works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | NW...walk me through how we changed BLS establishment unemployment survey. Its the same survey we have always had. We also have the household survey, and U6, which includes the underemployed, and the workers that have fallen off the rolls. Understanding economics means studying data that is apples-apples, and the BLS establishment survey, which you reference above does just that. |
Really!?! It wasn't that long ago.
They used to include those who are unemployed, but no longer qualify for U.I. because their time ran out, and if they are still of working age and are not collecting disability.
Under the current administration they no longer count those, so in reality, the number of unemployed is much higher.
My wife who is still unemployed, and looking for a job, is no longer counted as unemployed because she no longer qualifies for unemployment.
A little side note, one of the reasons that the unemployment rate has gone down (no matter how it's counted) is because they quit extending U.I. for those w/o jobs for a long time (a form of austerity), so many of them got more serious about getting a job. Funny how that works. |
Is your wife one of those socialist takers accepting hand-outs from the government that you so despise? Oh, the audacity of those lazy entitlement recipients. Don't you agree that she should have been required to provide some sort of public service work to have been eligible for those entitlements? What ever happened to personal responsibility instead of relying on the government to bail you out? How disappointing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | NW...walk me through how we changed BLS establishment unemployment survey. Its the same survey we have always had. We also have the household survey, and U6, which includes the underemployed, and the workers that have fallen off the rolls. Understanding economics means studying data that is apples-apples, and the BLS establishment survey, which you reference above does just that. |
Really!?! It wasn't that long ago.
They used to include those who are unemployed, but no longer qualify for U.I. because their time ran out, and if they are still of working age and are not collecting disability.
Under the current administration they no longer count those, so in reality, the number of unemployed is much higher.
My wife who is still unemployed, and looking for a job, is no longer counted as unemployed because she no longer qualifies for unemployment.
A little side note, one of the reasons that the unemployment rate has gone down (no matter how it's counted) is because they quit extending U.I. for those w/o jobs for a long time (a form of austerity), so many of them got more serious about getting a job. Funny how that works. |
Not True
The BLS employment establishment survey has not changed. If it did , it wouldnt be the same survey. Its fine to say that the employment picture is skewed as the gallup CEO has, but its not fine to say that the Obama administration has changed the dynamic of the BLS establishment survey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NW , the household survey is quite volatile, and perhaps the dynamics have changed over time, but you are referncing the establishment survey, which gets reported the first Friday of every month, then I proceed to read a report ananlyzing it. Ive been doing this for 24 years, it has not changed. Its vital that the data be comapred Apples-Apples, as the report is critical to the FED. So, tune out of Drudge, and realize that not everything can be blamed on Mr Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Here's another problem with your argument NW.. The U6 employment #, which includes underemployed and no longer looking for work(roughly 12%), is less than 1 percentage point higher than it averaged during the 90's boom. So today's employment picture is not that statistically different than other times in our history. The big fallacy of the argument is the "people falling off the rolls". As Marc Zandi says ,most of this is due to baby boomers retiring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will admit that what I posted was from memory, but I wasn't that far off, tinkering with the numbers has been SOP lately with this admin. which is the main point I'm making.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10/16/2012 @ 11:08AM [just 2 1/2 years ago]
Why Jack Welch Has A Point About Unemployment Numbers
A snippet~
"All in all, the U-3 unemployment number is deeply flawed and should not be relied on as the business media and even the capital markets do. A better (though still flawed) indicator of labor market conditions is the U-6 measure. For both August and September, U-6 showed an unemployment rate of 14.7%. Unlike U-3, U-6 adds back to both the labor force and to the unemployed “discouraged’ and “marginally attached” workers, i.e., those who have stopped looking for work but still want a job, and accounts for part-time workers who want full time employment. The flaw is that U-6 removes the long-term discouraged worker after 52 weeks of unemployment."
For the rest~
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| youwindsurf wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | NW...walk me through how we changed BLS establishment unemployment survey. Its the same survey we have always had. We also have the household survey, and U6, which includes the underemployed, and the workers that have fallen off the rolls. Understanding economics means studying data that is apples-apples, and the BLS establishment survey, which you reference above does just that. |
Really!?! It wasn't that long ago.
They used to include those who are unemployed, but no longer qualify for U.I. because their time ran out, and if they are still of working age and are not collecting disability.
Under the current administration they no longer count those, so in reality, the number of unemployed is much higher.
My wife who is still unemployed, and looking for a job, is no longer counted as unemployed because she no longer qualifies for unemployment.
A little side note, one of the reasons that the unemployment rate has gone down (no matter how it's counted) is because they quit extending U.I. for those w/o jobs for a long time (a form of austerity), so many of them got more serious about getting a job. Funny how that works. |
Is your wife one of those socialist takers accepting hand-outs from the government that you so despise? Oh, the audacity of those lazy entitlement recipients. Don't you agree that she should have been required to provide some sort of public service work to have been eligible for those entitlements? What ever happened to personal responsibility instead of relying on the government to bail you out? How disappointing. |
FY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So NW--do you think that your wife should have had unemployment benefits as long as she was looking for work, and as long as unemployment was high? That would be stimulus, not austerity.
You have a habit of ducking the issues and the topic--but you will always repost an attack on Obama. What a thoughtful guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | youwindsurf wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | NW...walk me through how we changed BLS establishment unemployment survey. Its the same survey we have always had. We also have the household survey, and U6, which includes the underemployed, and the workers that have fallen off the rolls. Understanding economics means studying data that is apples-apples, and the BLS establishment survey, which you reference above does just that. |
Really!?! It wasn't that long ago.
They used to include those who are unemployed, but no longer qualify for U.I. because their time ran out, and if they are still of working age and are not collecting disability.
Under the current administration they no longer count those, so in reality, the number of unemployed is much higher.
My wife who is still unemployed, and looking for a job, is no longer counted as unemployed because she no longer qualifies for unemployment.
A little side note, one of the reasons that the unemployment rate has gone down (no matter how it's counted) is because they quit extending U.I. for those w/o jobs for a long time (a form of austerity), so many of them got more serious about getting a job. Funny how that works. |
Is your wife one of those socialist takers accepting hand-outs from the government that you so despise? Oh, the audacity of those lazy entitlement recipients. Don't you agree that she should have been required to provide some sort of public service work to have been eligible for those entitlements? What ever happened to personal responsibility instead of relying on the government to bail you out? How disappointing. |
FY |
Really? That's all you got? More disappointment.
It is interesting when your ideology and your reality clash. Don't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | I will admit that what I posted was from memory, but I wasn't that far off, tinkering with the numbers has been SOP lately with this admin. which is the main point I'm making.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10/16/2012 @ 11:08AM [just 2 1/2 years ago]
Why Jack Welch Has A Point About Unemployment Numbers
A snippet~
"All in all, the U-3 unemployment number is deeply flawed and should not be relied on as the business media and even the capital markets do. A better (though still flawed) indicator of labor market conditions is the U-6 measure. For both August and September, U-6 showed an unemployment rate of 14.7%. Unlike U-3, U-6 adds back to both the labor force and to the unemployed “discouraged’ and “marginally attached” workers, i.e., those who have stopped looking for work but still want a job, and accounts for part-time workers who want full time employment. The flaw is that U-6 removes the long-term discouraged worker after 52 weeks of unemployment."
For the rest~
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/ |
There has been no "tinkering" with the unemployment numbers. There are a handful of surveys, each CLEARLY defined , that we rely on to gauge the employment picture. Mr Welch has a good point when trying to describe the different surveys, but there has been NO tinkering by this administration or any other, these are surveys.
Sorry brah, your dog aint huntin'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
