Do you believe the...

inlet13

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

Godfather.

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

I think it could be possible I know our company has hired a bunch of people in the last year.

Godfather.

MayDay Malone

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

No. The drop is due to 350,000 people who just gave up looking for a job, from what Ive read.

I think until they calculate with this group included, it will not be accurate. I've heard that the actual # is closer to 20%....

Anybody hear anything like that?

Monster Rain

I hope so. i don't know of anything that would suggest the latest figure is any less accurate than previous figures. What will matter most to me is seeing if it's a 1-month drop or the beginning of a steady decrease over several months.

StillHere

I don't think so
I think that so many have just dropped off the unemployment rolls either because they've run out of benefits
or they've just given up

gimmesometruth27

it is possibly true. the hospital i work at is on a hiring boom and we jut broke ground on 2 new multimillion dollar buildings, so a lot of construction jobs were added in the last 3 weeks.

let's wait and see what happens in the next couple of months.

let's not forget that there will be many temporary retail jobs opening up for the holiday season, so don't be too surprised if the numbers dip again.

inlet13

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

inlet13

MayDay Malone wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

No. The drop is due to 350,000 people who just gave up looking for a job, from what Ive read.

I think until they calculate with this group included, it will not be accurate. I've heard that the actual # is closer to 20%....

Anybody hear anything like that?

They can't really get at what the number will be like with those who aren't in the labor force. I agree, this would be very high if they could, but is just too tricky to capture.

I think the published statistic you may be referring to is the U6 (which also dropped this month). This provides a stat for those who have taken on part-time roles, but want full-time. This number is a little north of 15%.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

Do you think it's a faulty number because you have a hard time admitting that anything could get better while Obama is president? I don't recall you posting threads about doubting the unemployment rate when it was getting higher and higher.

The unemployment rate is adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

Do you think it's a faulty number because you have a hard time admitting that anything could get better while Obama is president? I don't recall you posting threads about doubting the unemployment rate when it was getting higher and higher.

The unemployment rate is adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

CH156378

Godfather. wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

I think it could be possible I know our company has hired a bunch of people in the last year.

Godfather.

+1

The OP seems to be a doomsdayer type. I am sure the small but positive economic news from the last couple of days has him upset.

inlet13

CH156378 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

...8.6% unemployment statistic today? In other words, do you think it's accurate?

I think it could be possible I know our company has hired a bunch of people in the last year.

Godfather.

+1

The OP seems to be a doomsdayer type. I am sure the small but positive economic news from the last couple of days has him upset.

Just because I don't agree with the Obama administration on everything, doesn't mean I'm a "doomsdayer" or "upset" by positive economic news. Positive economic news is good for everyone, including me.

Anyway, this article pretty much agrees with everything I said:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=e870b663-1471-467f-adc5-318f6cd40ea7

...is the author also "upset" and a "doomsdayer"? Are the rest of the posters who said they don't buy the drop in the unemployment rate "upset" or "doomsdayers"?

I actually think they are realists and not blind partisans. But, that's coming from me.

CH156378

inlet13 wrote:

Just because I don't agree with the Obama administration on everything, doesn't mean I'm a "doomsdayer" or "upset" by positive economic news. Positive economic news is good for everyone, including me.

Anyway, this article pretty much agrees with everything I said:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=e870b663-1471-467f-adc5-318f6cd40ea7

...is the author also "upset" and a "doomsdayer"? Are the rest of the posters who said they don't buy the drop in the unemployment rate "upset" or "doomsdayers"?

I actually think they are realists and not blind partisans. But, that's coming from me.

I didn't say anything about Obama in my post. Obsessed much?

inlet13

CH156378 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Just because I don't agree with the Obama administration on everything, doesn't mean I'm a "doomsdayer" or "upset" by positive economic news. Positive economic news is good for everyone, including me.

Anyway, this article pretty much agrees with everything I said:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=e870b663-1471-467f-adc5-318f6cd40ea7

...is the author also "upset" and a "doomsdayer"? Are the rest of the posters who said they don't buy the drop in the unemployment rate "upset" or "doomsdayers"?

I actually think they are realists and not blind partisans. But, that's coming from me.

I didn't say anything about Obama in my post. Obsessed much?

I made the assumption from your posts you are a supporter of the President. Will you vote Republican?

Smellyman

weird. I haven't seen a reference to keynesian yet....

inlet13

Smellyman wrote:

weird. I haven't seen a reference to keynesian yet....

haha... educating a few people on terms is not a bad thing.

RFTC

so the #'s come in good/better than expected and we get assholes like cantor and boehner holding press conferences about 'a jobs problem, and alot of people are unemployed' thanks dbags.

like another poster said, we may get another good report come jan, hopefully that trend can continue, my company (small business) hired 2 fte's last month. america fk yeah!

brianlux

Good question, inlet13. I just happened to be watching the local TV "news" (what I like to refer to as the local gossip on TV) and there was one report in which it was mentioned how inaccurate the unemployment figures are because many people dropped off that list who had just plain given up looking. Of course the other thing that skews employment figures this time of year is all the temporary Christmas help. I'm guessing those figures will be different in January of February. It's sad to know so many people are out of work.

In a related article (which I'll try to track down) Obama signed some kind of measure to get green building jobs increased. The sad thing is this article indicated that there was resistance to this idea stating that green jobs only represent 2% of the job market. So I'm thinking, well, that makes no sense. Let's get more green jobs going- more jobs, better environment. Makes sense to me!

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Interesting. I agree with the majority who have responded.

I think this number is a faulty number. Job creation was below expectations. The huge workforce decline, pushed this unemployment rate number lower. Plus, like some alluded to, the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later. The most important statistics: employment gains, hours worked, and avg hourly earnings were below expectations and not very good. I wouldn't trust the unemployment number unless the streak continues into early 2012, and we are seeing a sustained unemployment rate of 8.5% or less. Even if the economy was really improving, the simple math of the unemployment rate says this unemployment number will go up again because those who exited the labor force will enter again, it's just a matter of when.

I bet this number goes up by Q1 2012.

Do you think it's a faulty number because you have a hard time admitting that anything could get better while Obama is president? I don't recall you posting threads about doubting the unemployment rate when it was getting higher and higher.

The unemployment rate is adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

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

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, I believe it's a faulty number this month because there was such a large swing. Data is less reliable when it's extremely volatile. In other words, when the unemployment rate changes by more than .1% month to month... there's probably a reason other than the underlying data and due to this, it's less valuable. In order for it to be more valuable, it needs to be smoothed. Wait another two months and we'll know what's really happening. Like I said, we don't want a decline in the unemployment rate if it's due to people exiting the labor force. We want it to be due to job creation, not people deciding jobs are a lost cause.

P.S. I know about the seasonal fluctuations and also know (first hand from dealing with this data) that "adjusting" is not always accurate season to season.

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

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

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause". You actually confused the terms by first referencing "exiting the labor force" and then trying to make it synonymous with people giving up looking for a job. You should maybe read your link on how they define people exiting the work force vs. discouraged workers. The labor participation rate has been steadily declining for about ten years. Hmmm, think about why that might be? Maybe those baby-boomers are retiring, making us more top heavy with old people. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

You could also clarify why a .4% drop is less reliable other than it's "less reliable when it's extremely volatile". Would there "probably be another reason" if it went up .4%, or would that suddenly be reliable data in order to confirm that Obama is the worst president ever?

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

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

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause".

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

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

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause".

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Hey, now at least we're both laughing. Not only do you misquote me, you then proceed to sound like a tool in the process. Check my post, I said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". True that people left the labor force, but the numbers don't suggest that that number of people who left is unusual for the past several years. So it's continuing a normal pattern. The number of discouraged workers is much lower than a year ago. What you're doing is confusing terms, either knowingly or unknowingly, and swapping out discouraged workers and those who left the work force. You didn't prove me wrong when you misquote me.

You also said this:"the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later", but then said you're aware that the data is adjusted for seasonal employment. And I'm being ridiculous?

I guess we'll see how stubborn you are with your response.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause".

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Hey, now at least we're both laughing. Not only do you misquote me, you then proceed to sound like a tool in the process. Check my post, I said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". True that people left the labor force, but the numbers don't suggest that that number of people who left is unusual for the past several years. So it's continuing a normal pattern. The number of discouraged workers is much lower than a year ago. What you're doing is confusing terms, either knowingly or unknowingly, and swapping out discouraged workers and those who left the work force. You didn't prove me wrong when you misquote me.

You also said this:"the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later", but then said you're aware that the data is adjusted for seasonal employment. And I'm being ridiculous?

I guess we'll see how stubborn you are with your response.

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

pandora

Ok 'discouraged workers who have given up looking' ....does this mean what?
I too heard 300,000 had done this on the news the other night

Does this mean then,
not on unemployment anymore... it ran out
living on savings or one income?
Moved into their car or on the street?
Welfare?

How can one just give up on looking for a job?

I don't get this

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Hey, now at least we're both laughing. Not only do you misquote me, you then proceed to sound like a tool in the process. Check my post, I said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". True that people left the labor force, but the numbers don't suggest that that number of people who left is unusual for the past several years. So it's continuing a normal pattern. The number of discouraged workers is much lower than a year ago. What you're doing is confusing terms, either knowingly or unknowingly, and swapping out discouraged workers and those who left the work force. You didn't prove me wrong when you misquote me.

You also said this:"the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later", but then said you're aware that the data is adjusted for seasonal employment. And I'm being ridiculous?

I guess we'll see how stubborn you are with your response.

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No rational whatsoever in responding to me can make this sentence true: "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". It was a 100% factually false statement. You still can't admit that, and are/have been trying to change the subject. I know you enjoy playing word games, but I won't move on until you say, "I was wrong" without any caveats, because truth be told, you were wrong and there were no caveats to make the sentence above true.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No rational whatsoever in responding to me can make this sentence true: "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". It was a 100% factually false statement. You still can't admit that, and are/have been trying to change the subject. I know you enjoy playing word games, but I won't move on until you say, "I was wrong" without any caveats, because truth be told, you were wrong and there were no caveats to make the sentence above true.

And you're trying to tell me I'm stubborn? When someone references the "numbers" in a report, they are putting their own analysis on the data, rather than what the author's analysis is in the report. I figured someone at your level could figure this out. I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to everything you're saying (unless changing the subject is trying to get back on task).

Is this just a tactic to avoid backing up your points when I showed evidence to the contrary?

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No rational whatsoever in responding to me can make this sentence true: "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". It was a 100% factually false statement. You still can't admit that, and are/have been trying to change the subject. I know you enjoy playing word games, but I won't move on until you say, "I was wrong" without any caveats, because truth be told, you were wrong and there were no caveats to make the sentence above true.

And you're trying to tell me I'm stubborn? When someone references the "numbers" in a report, they are putting their own analysis on the data, rather than what the author's analysis is in the report. I figured someone at your level could figure this out. I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to everything you're saying (unless changing the subject is trying to get back on task).

Is this just a tactic to avoid backing up your points when I showed evidence to the contrary?

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

satansbed

inlet13 wrote:

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

i think what he was trying to say is that the numbers who left the labor force aren't unusual compared to other months and so shouldn't have a statistical impact