Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Feb 3, 2013.
Most likely a wee bit higher.'08.
Who knows? It is GT after all.
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.
[ame="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7397487n"]Jobs up, unemployment down, stocks soar - CBS News Video[/ame]
Maybe you don't watch the news or keep up with current events.
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.
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?
It's getting harder and harder to carry Obama's water, but the loyal still do it.
So you made the BS claim in hopes someone would buy it?
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)
If you want to know if people believe the numbers then you should probably ask the people defending them.
Can you show me one person that believes the total percentage of people without a job and the unemployment rate are the same thing?
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I don't think you understand my point. I'll try to clear it up.
You originally stated the following:
I then responded by posting this:
What I was trying to say is that anyone who has been reading this thread realizes that MZKBA and Ivan don't actually believe the % of unemployed people is 7.8% and that by claiming they did, you were either being extremely disingenuous or dense.
You then replied:
This tells me that either:
1. You were admitting that your original post was disingenuous, but figured someone on GT would buy it.
2. You really are that dense and basic reading comprehension skills are beyond your grasp.
From reading a number of your previous postings on this board, I'm still going with option 1, but me having to spell this all out to you and your posts in this thread have me starting to consider option 2 more seriously.
Well HarlDane, it's not a matter of comprehension, rather, it is a matter of history with certain posters that continually defend the unemployment numbers and deny that these numbers are spun, even in this thread. I'm surprised that a super sleuth such as yourself missed that. Anyhow, you know the history of these posters because you have participated in many of these threads.
Now, do these people believe that that the number of unemployed is what the BLS claims? Who knows? They seem to think that everyone else has retired and are no longer looking for work.
Now some people have dropped out of the labor force, some going to SS disability, some borrowing money that they are defaulting on and going back to school. Yep, those people have dropped out of the labor force but what of the others? What about those who have expended their benefits but would still like to find a job? Are they all included? Are they all contacted by the BLS? Not according to the BLS. Oh, I know, the BLS doesn't look at the people on unemployment for part of their numbers, that's why they extended tracking of these people to 99 weeks.
Now, do you think the BLS contacts everyone that is unemployed? That would be an astronomical task wouldn't it? The answer is they don't.
You are incomprehensibly stupid.
How many times do you have to hear the same thing before you understand it? Nobody with a functioning brain thinks the total % of unemployed people is the same thing as the unemployment rate. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Well, I know I don't, then again, I'm not the one arguing that there is no spin in the numbers or that people that aren't counted just decided to say **** it, drop out of the labor force and retire at a time when a majority of Americans don't even have a thousand bucks in the bank.
It's no secret that people who drop out of the labor force, as in people who are not seeking work, are not counted. Everyone knows that. Well, apparently everyone but you knows that. You're trying to claim that your own ignorance is "spin," or evidence of the BLS misleading you.
I asked you to explain this to me, but you couldn't, so I will explain it to you, although I'm sure it will be a waste of time. In both good and bad economies, if we counted the people who are not seeking work in the unemployment rate, it would cause problems in both instances. First, in good economies, it would artificially bring the unemployment rate down, making the rate look "not as good" as it really is. Secondly, in bad economies, it would make a bad rate look even worse.
Now, because those people are not counted, that also creates some statistical errors. In bad economies, like we have now, it doesn't capture the fact that some people are not seeking work not because they're lazy, but because they've given up because the economy is so bad (although I'd argue that laziness represents 90% of those people).
So, when they were originally defining what the unemployment rate should include, they were faced with this decision. There's no right or wrong answer, because there are statistical downsides to both options - including or not including those who are not actively seeking work. I explained to you what those downsides were.
They chose to not include those people, and it's the more sensible option of the two, statistically speaking.
Again, when you hear someone on television quote the unemployment rate, they are NOT telling you that 7.9% is the total percentage of ALL unemployed people. Just because you're too ignorant to understand the difference between the two (even though it's been explained to you ad nauseam), doesn't mean they're lying to you.