close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Unemployment rate poll

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by pipedreams, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012

    I am at least willing to admit that many Administrations may have bent the numbers when it suited them and this is just an example.

    what is so difficult to grasp about that?
     
  2. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    Well, having worked for Republican and Democratic administrations, I have to admit that what I have seen (and, embarrassingly, been forced to participate in a few times), has made me believe that manipulating numbers for political reasons has been much more prevelent under Democrats.

    I'll give you a good example of lying, but telling the truth. At the agency I worked at, at the time, Clinton announced that he had authorized the hring of and additional 2000 special agents. And, it was absolutely true. He had. But, the budget he submitted for us, before and after that, did not include one penny for the salaries of these special agents, so none were hired. But, he did authorize them to be hired.

    I find it laughable that anyone with any real world experience thinks there is not ten different ways to fudge any government statistic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012

  3. wjv

    wjv

    14,144
    1,781
    Jan 17, 2002
    Pacific NW
    Unexpectedly. . .
     
  4. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012

    The shrt time I was on "the public payroll" i can remember helping submit a budget that included the categories of "Essential services" and "Non-essential services". the boss turned it back to us explaining that it was "crunchtime" ant non-essential services had to be cut. We cut the Non-e and transferred the loss int o now "essential services" and our budget flew through.

    In the case of employment stats for instance, there are categories, basically for "voluntary part-time" (those who only want to work part time) and involuntary part time (those who want to work more and are therefore "underemployed"). All you have to do is a bit of juggling and the "Underemployed" are no happy part-timers, and as "fully employed" as they want to be.

    Just drop the word to the people asking the questions to phrase them the right way.

    It also helps when the Government picks up more employees too.
     
  5. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    Ooooo The buzzin of the bees in the cigarette trees
    The soda water fountains
    And the lemonade springs
    Where the blubird sings
    In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

    The bulldogs all have rubber teeth
    The streams flow milk and honey
    A man can sleep the day away
    and there ain't no need for money
     
  6. IvanVic

    IvanVic

    6,722
    2,016
    Apr 19, 2012
    If that's your position, then that is perfectly reasonable (although I don't agree with it).

    However, when it plays out in the mind of a republican, this thinking usually turns into those "many" administrations you mentioned as being all of the liberal ones, and the opposite would be true for a democrat who abides by this mentality. So this person who is sometimes skeptical of the numbers can just turn out to be a partisan that trusts or distrusts the numbers whenever it makes their party look good. I find that to be the case most of the time, but there are always exceptions.
     
  7. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012
    Since the day, as a teenager, I realized how the stats we gathered and measured I have never placed any faith in their accuracy no matter which party was in power. they may reflect a trend and be a small corner of the whole picture, But, IMO less than a 1.5% change is "withing the margin of manipulation", even of the incomplete picture they represent.
     
  8. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    10,065
    499
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Doing the math in reverse, doesn't this equate to a grand total of 38,000,000 "employable" peeps in the workforce? If so, how can the numbers be right?
     
  9. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    10,065
    499
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Double-tap
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  10. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    10,065
    499
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Stupid iPhone.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012