GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2013, 08:29   #26
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZBKA View Post
To say that the "actual number of unemployed is 7.8%" doesn't make any sense. Do you think 7.8% of a person is unemployed?
You can't make this stuff up. Does anyone still wonder how Obama got elected?
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 08:52   #27
aircarver
Silver Membership
Ride Continues
 
aircarver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ft. Worth TX
Posts: 24,322


Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
You can't make this stuff up. Does anyone still wonder how Obama got elected?
One wonders how he operates his 'Obamaphone' ...

.
__________________
They'd created a vast, permanently unemployed underclass, dependent upon the Republic's stupendous welfare machine for its very existence, and in so doing, they'd sown the seeds of their own destruction. No one could place two-thirds of a world's population on the Dole and keep them there forever without the entire system crashing . . . but how in hell did one get them off the Dole? -David Weber, Flag in Exile
aircarver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 08:59   #28
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184



It's really not hard to understand, the books are being cooked to skew the numbers.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-04-2013 at 09:39..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 09:32   #29
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 26,668
Blog Entries: 1


Ya reckon CD.'08.
__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 10:05   #30
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's really not hard to understand, the books are being cooked to skew the numbers.
Liberals (here and at the MSM) seem to think that if they just keep saying that anyone who doesn't regard U-3 as the only true indicator of our unemployment situation, is ignorant, that substitutes for a reasonable argument.

It doesn't.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 02-04-2013 at 10:06..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 15:41   #31
MZBKA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
See, it's not that the definition of the word "unemployment" has been politically manipulated to avoid having to reveal the actual level of unemployment in this country. But, rather, the simple answer is that people who don't agree with it, or see how brilliant it is, are ignorant.
If you think the unemployment numbers are calculated using the number of people on unemployment benefits, you believe something that's false - you're ignorant. It's not an insult, it's a fact.

Your claim is that the word unemployment is, under the Obama administration, being manipulated. How so? U-3 has been the reported unemployment rate since before you were born, and the methods for calculating the rate haven't changed since the 70s

Was it manipulative when the media reported the U-3 rate under Bush II? Clinton? Bush I? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Etc.

The last time you claimed something was being manipulated, it was the polls that showed Obama would win the election. The media was oversampling liberals, according to you. A big media conspiracy, according to you. In the end, you were wrong, the polls were right. I wish you'd been right, but there's a big difference between the world we live in and the world as I want it to be. Even if you want the unemployment rate to be higher or for there to be a big conspiracy, for whatever reason, it simply isn't the case.
MZBKA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 15:43   #32
MZBKA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Liberals (here and at the MSM) seem to think that if they just keep saying that anyone who doesn't regard U-3 as the only true indicator of our unemployment situation, is ignorant, that substitutes for a reasonable argument.

It doesn't.
Nobody here has said anything close to what you're claiming, Mr Strawman
MZBKA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 16:27   #33
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by MZBKA View Post
Nobody here has said anything close to what you're claiming, Mr Strawman
So, you missed or didn't read & understand post number three in this thread.

Sorta funny in a sad sorta way.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-04-2013 at 16:27..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 17:42   #34
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
You and MZKBA go on believing that the actual number of unemployed is 7.8%.
1) A simple % of the population without a job (regardless of whether they're looking for a job, etc.)

2) The unemployment rate

^These two things are not the same. Do you understand that?

If you don't, then nobody is going to be able to get through to you.

I do not think that the % of people without a job is 7.8%. I understand that the % of people without a job is much higher than 7.8%. However, since I have a fully functioning brain, I'm also able to simultaneously understand that the unemployment rate distinguishes between some of those people, and purposefully does not include some of them, which is why it's a smaller percentage.

It hasn't been done that way to fool you, it isn't some massive conspiracy to fool Ruble Noon. It has always been done that way (for several, statistically necessary reasons), and those of us who have achieved consciousness, and possibly a 2nd grade understanding of math, are able to understand two things at once. You know, that whole walking and chewing gum thing.
IvanVic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 08:06   #35
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZBKA View Post
If you think the unemployment numbers are calculated using the number of people on unemployment benefits, you believe something that's false - you're ignorant. It's not an insult, it's a fact.

Your claim is that the word unemployment is, under the Obama administration, being manipulated. How so? U-3 has been the reported unemployment rate since before you were born, and the methods for calculating the rate haven't changed since the 70s

Was it manipulative when the media reported the U-3 rate under Bush II? Clinton? Bush I? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Etc.

The last time you claimed something was being manipulated, it was the polls that showed Obama would win the election. The media was oversampling liberals, according to you. A big media conspiracy, according to you. In the end, you were wrong, the polls were right. I wish you'd been right, but there's a big difference between the world we live in and the world as I want it to be. Even if you want the unemployment rate to be higher or for there to be a big conspiracy, for whatever reason, it simply isn't the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZBKA View Post
Nobody here has said anything close to what you're claiming, Mr Strawman
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you are rolling us all into one ball. I never claimed half that stuff you are saying.

Get a grip. You guys won. You can calm down now. The plan seems to be working.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 02-05-2013 at 08:07..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:28   #36
MZBKA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So, you missed or didn't read & understand post number three in this thread.

Sorta funny in a sad sorta way.
I posted post number 3 in this thread. I understood it just fine. Series' post didn't address my post.
MZBKA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:46   #37
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZBKA View Post
I posted post number 3 in this thread. I understood it just fine. Series' post didn't address my post.
No, I did. But, as usual, you just didn't like what I said.

You guys will just have to settle for the 51 per cent of idiots who bought into the liberal's scam in this election. You're not going to do any better until more illegals get their citizenship.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 15:10   #38
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
1) A simple % of the population without a job (regardless of whether they're looking for a job, etc.)

2) The unemployment rate

^These two things are not the same. Do you understand that?

If you don't, then nobody is going to be able to get through to you.

I do not think that the % of people without a job is 7.8%. I understand that the % of people without a job is much higher than 7.8%. However, since I have a fully functioning brain, I'm also able to simultaneously understand that the unemployment rate distinguishes between some of those people, and purposefully does not include some of them, which is why it's a smaller percentage.

It hasn't been done that way to fool you, it isn't some massive conspiracy to fool Ruble Noon. It has always been done that way (for several, statistically necessary reasons), and those of us who have achieved consciousness, and possibly a 2nd grade understanding of math, are able to understand two things at once. You know, that whole walking and chewing gum thing.
So you are now agreeing that the unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story.
I guess it was too much of a tax on your mush filled cranium to actually read the article. If you had, you might, emphasis on might, have gleaned the gist of the article which is the spin that is being put on these numbers by the obama admin, the MSM and the truth about the actual number of unemployed Americans via the labor force participation rate.

Here are some stats and a question from the article that you can peruse and answer

Quote:
First of all, letís take a look at the percentage of the civilian labor force that has been employed over the past several years. These numbers come directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As you can see, this is a number that has been steadily falling since 2006Ö2006: 63.1
2007: 63.0
2008: 62.2
2009: 59.3
2010: 58.5
2011: 58.4
In January, only 57.9 percent of the civilian labor force was employed.
Do the numbers above represent a positive trend or a negative trend?
Even a 2nd grader could answer that question.
Anyhow, tell me about this alert system. Is it a GT function?
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 15:13   #39
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 6,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
You and MZKBA go on believing that the actual number of unemployed is 7.8%.
Seriously, do you honestly think that anyone whose reading comprehension is above a 4th grade level actually believes that anyone has claimed the % of unemployed people is really 7.8% in this thread?

__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein
HarlDane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 15:16   #40
jakebrake
cracker
 
jakebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: too close to philly
Posts: 7,295
ruble, don't take this the wrong way, but...

a) we know the media couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it (and, i'm starting to wish it did)

and, b) in a way it's true. so many have lost unemployment comp, that they have found other ways to get free $ from the government .

i'm guessing closer to 17.8 in reality.
__________________
21 clubmember #629 freemasons clubmember # 57
Kalashnikov klub member # 413 black rifle club # 830
The road to Hell is paved with good intent
jakebrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 15:32   #41
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 26,668
Blog Entries: 1


Most likely a wee bit higher.'08.
__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 15:45   #42
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
Seriously, do you honestly think that anyone whose reading comprehension is above a 4th grade level actually believes that anyone has claimed the % of unemployed people is really 7.8% in this thread?

Who knows? It is GT after all.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 18:10   #43
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
So you are now agreeing that the unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story.
I've been trying to explain that to you and several other people for the last 6 months, at a minimum. Nobody is purporting that the unemployment rate tells the whole story. Nobody is purporting that any one single economic indicator by itself tells the whole story when it comes to the economy. When the media quotes the unemployment rate, they're assuming that any given viewer is intelligent enough to understand this, and they are also assuming that this viewer is intelligent enough to understand that the simple percentage of ALL people without a job (whether they want one or not) and the unemployment rate are not the same thing. I don't think it's too presumptuous of them. I mean, this stuff is taught in most high schools, and is certainly taught at the university level. An adult ought to be able to understand what the definition of the unemployment rate is - but I guess not.

When a company says "our gross revenue last year was 2.1 billion dollars," they are assuming that the person listening knows this doesn't mean they actually made 2.1 million dollars in profit. Based on your logic, it's a conspiracy because the company didn't take the time to tell you that revenue and net income are two different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
the MSM and the truth about the actual number of unemployed Americans via the labor force participation rate.
Again, any adult ought to be able to understand something so simple. I wouldn't expect any news anchor to tell me that when it's blatantly obvious. Quoting the unemployment rate is not "spinning" anything - any given viewer should be intelligent enough to know that the unemployment rate is not a calculation of all people without jobs.

I'm still not convinced that you understand this, or understand why the rate does not include people who are not actively seeking work. Maybe you could persuade me. Including people who are not actively seeking work would cause statistical flaws in both good and bad economies. Can you explain to me what those flaws would be?

Last edited by IvanVic; 02-05-2013 at 18:12..
IvanVic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 19:39   #44
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
I've been trying to explain that to you and several other people for the last 6 months, at a minimum. Nobody is purporting that the unemployment rate tells the whole story. Nobody is purporting that any one single economic indicator by itself tells the whole story when it comes to the economy. When the media quotes the unemployment rate, they're assuming that any given viewer is intelligent enough to understand this, and they are also assuming that this viewer is intelligent enough to understand that the simple percentage of ALL people without a job (whether they want one or not) and the unemployment rate are not the same thing. I don't think it's too presumptuous of them. I mean, this stuff is taught in most high schools, and is certainly taught at the university level. An adult ought to be able to understand what the definition of the unemployment rate is - but I guess not.

When a company says "our gross revenue last year was 2.1 billion dollars," they are assuming that the person listening knows this doesn't mean they actually made 2.1 million dollars in profit. Based on your logic, it's a conspiracy because the company didn't take the time to tell you that revenue and net income are two different things.



Again, any adult ought to be able to understand something so simple. I wouldn't expect any news anchor to tell me that when it's blatantly obvious. Quoting the unemployment rate is not "spinning" anything - any given viewer should be intelligent enough to know that the unemployment rate is not a calculation of all people without jobs.

I'm still not convinced that you understand this, or understand why the rate does not include people who are not actively seeking work. Maybe you could persuade me. Including people who are not actively seeking work would cause statistical flaws in both good and bad economies. Can you explain to me what those flaws would be?
Oh but they are spinning it, spinning the falling unemployment numbers into an improving economy.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president...mpaign-speech/

Maybe you don't watch the news or keep up with current events.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 21:04   #45
Breadman03
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Luzerne County, PA
Posts: 1,761
Send a message via Skype™ to Breadman03
I'm having a difficult time with the current number of employed Americans, but http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm seems to have pegged the 2012 average at 142,469,083. Given a population estimate of 315,279,640, I estimate an employment rate of 45%. This suggests that approximately 55/100 people of any age don't have a job.

That gives me a better picture than the "unemployment rate", as defined by the government.

Iron Vic, it might have been you that gave me a link explaining the UE rate.
__________________
Advanced Google search help
Wants a G41

Last edited by Breadman03; 02-05-2013 at 21:06..
Breadman03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 05:29   #46
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Oh but they are spinning it, spinning the falling unemployment numbers into an improving economy.
Improved from what? A 10.3% rate? That would be true.
Can incremental decreases in the rate be a result of people who stopped looking for work? Absolutely, but that does not explain a drop from 10.3% to to under 8%, it can, however, describe a drop from say 8% to 7.9%.

I'm still not convinced that you understand why the rate doesn't include people who are not actively seeking work. Can you explain to me the problems this would cause in good and bad economies?
IvanVic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 12:25   #47
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
It's getting harder and harder to carry Obama's water, but the loyal still do it.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:54   #48
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 6,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Who knows? It is GT after all.
So you made the BS claim in hopes someone would buy it?
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein
HarlDane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 13:57   #49
DevilDocsGlocks
Senior Member
 
DevilDocsGlocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Camp Lejeune, NC
Posts: 149
How many THOUSANDS of jobs will be lost if and when an assault weapons ban is authorized ?? Anyon care to to the math between Main Manufacturing companies to smaller Mom and Pop Builder/ sellers and all the stuff that goes with them?? no one has spoken of that ( at least on the left liberal gun hatin' side)
DevilDocsGlocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 15:38   #50
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
So you made the BS claim in hopes someone would buy it?
If you want to know if people believe the numbers then you should probably ask the people defending them.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:12.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 752
190 Members
562 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42