• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is unemployment getting worse?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Jumped from 8.3 to 9%. I'm not surprised because of more Obamacare about to take effect (among other regulations including but not limited to IP enforcement), the turmoil he's causing in the Middle East (which raises gas prices), and him raising corporate taxes while trying to say he's lowering them.

His mission in Libya has been a failure, as the rebels are now fighting each other (50 or so civilians were murdered recently). He also stubbornly refuses to reduce the defense budget and he refuses to leave Afghanistan. Unless someone I don't know of has his life on him, then there is no excuse for this.

If we don't elect Dr. Paul then we're fucked. It's either collapse, tyranny, and death, or prosperity, liberty, and peace with nothing in between and no 3rd option.


Changing thread-title per OP request.

Administrator Idontcare
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Please show us how Obamacare is the cause of this increased statistic.
2. How has the Libya mission been a failure? That honestly is to be expected as the Libyans experiment in running their own government for once.
3. No duh about the military. The HOR won't stand for meaningful cuts.
4. Afghanistan is a work in progress on that front. Its only a matter of time.
5. Can I add a "But Bush..." in there? Sometimes it helps to regain some perspective.

Ron Paul would help on a lot of these fronts, but unfortunately Ron Paul has enough bad ideas to cancel out the good ones. Hopefully we'll have a brokered convention to make sure his good ideas gain traction.
 
MovingTarget said:
1. Please show us how Obamacare is the cause of this increased statistic.
2. How has the Libya mission been a failure? That honestly is to be expected as the Libyans experiment in running their own government for once.
3. No duh about the military. The HOR won't stand for meaningful cuts.
4. Afghanistan is a work in progress on that front. Its only a matter of time.
5. Can I add a "But Bush..." in there? Sometimes it helps to regain some perspective.

Ron Paul would help on a lot of these fronts, but unfortunately Ron Paul has enough bad ideas to cancel out the good ones. Hopefully we'll have a brokered convention to make sure his good ideas gain traction.
Click to expand...
What are Dr. Paul's bad ideas? Didn't you say you taught at a private school?

I don't know whether Obamacare is responsible for it, but I don't see how it couldn't create uncertainty among employers and it definitely increases regulations and raises taxes.
As for 3, Obama is against slashing military expenditures himself.

As for 4, what progress is being made? Do you think it's moral to occupy a foreign country? I assume you don't care about morality, so I'm going to ask... do you think the benefits outweight the costs? If so, how?

Bush was worse than Obama in some regards, but he's not responsible in any way for the problems going on now. Like I said, unless someone has Obama's life on him, then he could've called all of our troops home on day one, he could've counseled Congress to reduce military spending, he could've vetoed reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, but he did none of those things. He's only increased military spending, had more innocent people murdered, strengthened the police state, lied, and a whole bunch of other shit. Like I said, if someone has his life on him, then he may have an excuse. However, there is absolutely no excuse for any of the shit he's done if no one is posing a physical danger to him.
 
Texashiker said:
No, I am not surprised.

All of the temporary help hired for the holidays was just laid off.
Click to expand...

That is factored into BLS statistics, but not factored into Gallup's. That could certainly be a cause of Gallup's increasing numbers. Furthermore, considering the record low participation in the workforce we should expect an increase in the absolute unemployment rate when job conditions improve.

The number to watch will be job growth numbers. If there is strong job growth but unemployment goes up that is actually a GOOD sign as it means people are reentering the workforce.

By the way, everyone knows that The New American is the newsletter of the John Birch Society, right? Anarchist here quoted one of the absolute craziest of the crazies for his article here. Par for the course I guess.
 
There's a lot of consternation about this.

A new Gallup survey shows unemployment rising to around 8.9% after bottoming at 8.3% a few weeks ago.

Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill is sounding the alarm. We've also seen several concerned tweets.

Has the economy really deteriorated just like that?

Nah, don't worry.

As The Bonddad Blog pointed out last week, this Gallup data isn't seasonally adjusted (in fact it says that in the chart right up there).

Since it's not seasonally adjusted, you have to look at it year over year, and guess what? A year ago Gallup was at 10% and BLS was at 9.0%. So with Gallup now being at 9%, you could surmise that BLS will stand at 8.0%, another solid drop.
Click to expand...
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-21/markets/31081923_1_gallup-survey-bls

Why are people here pretending that the economy is in decline right now? Why are they trying to hurt consumer confidence? Do they hate America? Does their hate for a black president really exceed their desire for prosperity in this nation?

Racists.
 
Anarchist420 said:
What are Dr. Paul's bad ideas? Didn't you say you taught at a private school?

I don't know whether Obamacare is responsible for it, but I don't see how it couldn't create uncertainty among employers and it definitely increases regulations and raises taxes.
As for 3, Obama is against slashing military expenditures himself.

As for 4, what progress is being made? Do you think it's moral to occupy a foreign country? I assume you don't care about morality, so I'm going to ask... do you think the benefits outweigh the costs? If so, how?

Bush was worse than Obama in some regards, but he's not responsible in any way for the problems going on now. Like I said, unless someone has Obama's life on him, then he could've called all of our troops home on day one, he could've counseled Congress to reduce military spending, he could've vetoed re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act, but he did none of those things. He's only increased military spending, had more innocent people murdered, strengthened the police state, lied, and a whole bunch of other shit. Like I said, if someone has his life on him, then he may have an excuse. However, there is absolutely no excuse for any of the shit he's done if no one is posing a physical danger to him.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do teach at a private school. That does not translate into a support of Ron Paul, nor should it. (Whats would be a boon for private education isn't necessarily good for the country...) Besides, its best we leave the "Why would Ron Paul be bad for the country?" question be left for the proper thread: Clicky.

I still think that it is too early to say what the economic impact of the ACA will be, but you can't say that the current employment trend has anything to do with it...yet. I'm taking a wait and see attitude, but am very suspicious of claims that it has pissed off the 'confidence fairy'. I'm not discounting your claim though.

For #3, I thought Obama had recommended/approved decreases in military expenditures. If you can show me where he hasn't, I'm all ears.

For #4, I don't think we should be there anymore. However, Obama has been drawing down troops in Afghanistan. Your complaint seems to be not that Obama isn't doing what you want, but that he isn't doing it fast enough. I'm not completely against occupying other countries as I prefer to look at situations on an individual basis, but I no longer feel that staying in Afghanistan is in our national interest.
 
eskimospy said:
That is factored into BLS statistics, but not factored into Gallup's.
Click to expand...

Unemployment took a dip in November to 8.6%, down from 9% in October 2011.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...oyment-rate-net-jobs-report-on-jobless-claims

I think there was a thread here on ATOT where we discussed unemployment rates a few weeks ago? If I remember right, I predicted the unemployment rate would go up?

After the holiday spending was over, the temporary help was let go, unemployment went from 8.6% back to 9%.

~ EDIT ~

I predicted after April - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2223878&page=2

Post 29

I look for the economy to pick back up In march and april, then go down during the summer months.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
Unemployment took a dip in November to 8.6%, down from 9% in October 2011.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...oyment-rate-net-jobs-report-on-jobless-claims

I think there was a thread here on ATOT where we discussed unemployment rates a few weeks ago? If I remember right, I predicted the unemployment rate would go up?

After the holiday spending was over, the temporary help was let go, unemployment went from 8.6% back to 9%.
Click to expand...

In the BLS data those changes in temporary help are already accounted for. You know that the US actually gained/lost more than a million jobs during that time, right? BLS doesn't report those either way.
 
February is not even over. More bs and lies from the OP.

I love how the bs article the OP links compares the gov't numbers(seasonally adjusted) with the gallup numbers instead of comparing apples to apples. The gallup numbers show an increase of 8.6 to 9%. Factor in season adjustments and it'll show at the end of Feb that unemployment went down when the real numbers come out.

Lock this thread.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
What numbers are we talking about in this thread?

Correct me if I am wrong, I thought this thread was about "Unemployment"?
Click to expand...

You understand that these aren't BLS numbers, but Gallup's numbers, right? Gallup's numbers, ie the ones used in this thread, are not seasonally adjusted. BLS's numbers that won't be released until the first week of March, are. The only numbers mentioned in this thread so far are not adjusted, so you are comparing non-adjusted and adjusted numbers. That's a big no-no.

Look for the economy to improve on march and april.
Click to expand...

That's basically meaningless, you would have a significant chance of being correct by random chance alone. Since the same basic things happen each year, it should be possible to establish a statistically significant correlation.
 
eskimospy said:
That's basically meaningless, you would have a significant chance of being correct by random chance alone. Since the same basic things happen each year, it should be possible to establish a statistically significant correlation.
Click to expand...

Nothing about the economy of march and april is random, its the same thing year after year.

Hire in October and November for holiday spending
Lay off in late January and February as holiday spending ends
Spending of income taxes in March and April allows companies to hire people
May and June, income tax returns spent, economy takes a nose dive again.

Its the same story year after year, after year, after year,,,,.

The so called "adjusted numbers" try to smooth things out so its not so obvious.

At least 2 times a year there is a huge injection of money into the economy - Christmas holidays and income tax returns. That is a given fact every year. There is nothing random about it. Its the lull points between those times we need to watch.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
Nothing about the economy of march and april is random, its the same thing year after year.

Hire in October and November for holiday spending
Lay off in late January and February as holiday spending ends
Spending of income taxes in March and April allows companies to hire people
May and June, income tax returns spent, economy takes a nose dive again.

Its the same story year after year, after year, after year,,,,.

The so called "adjusted numbers" try to smooth things out so its not so obvious.
Click to expand...

Nope, it has nothing to do with obviousness, it has to do with measuring different things. This thread is a total failure.

The OP is either a pretty skillful troll or a complete moron.
 
eskimospy said:
This thread is a total failure.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

You say we should not use non-adjusted numbers, I disagree. The numbers are what they are, "adjustments" are just a way of fudging the facts.

The fact is, unemployment went back up after the holiday spending spree was over. There is no reason to adjust that, its a fact.

You do not adjust facts.
 
Last edited:
Capt Caveman said:
February is not even over. More bs and lies from the OP.

I love how the bs article the OP links compares the gov't numbers(seasonally adjusted) with the gallup numbers instead of comparing apples to apples. The gallup numbers show an increase of 8.6 to 9%. Factor in season adjustments and it'll show at the end of Feb that unemployment went down when the real numbers come out.

Lock this thread.
Click to expand...
Yup, thread should be locked and original post should be labeled clearly as misinformation.
 
Texashiker said:
I disagree.

You say we should not use non-adjusted numbers, I disagree. The numbers are what they are, "adjustments" are just a way of fudging the facts.
Click to expand...

BLS numbers aren't fudging anything, they are just measuring something different than non-adjusted numbers. Anyone actually qualified to examine employment knows this. This reminds me of the usual argument where people claim that the unemployment rate isn't measuring the real unemployment rate because they don't realize that we actually release 6 different estimates each month based on different criteria.

You don't know what you're talking about. As other links people have supplied have shown, these numbers are nothing to be particularly alarmed about. Thread is a total failure.
 
Texashiker said:
I disagree.

You say we should not use non-adjusted numbers, I disagree. The numbers are what they are, "adjustments" are just a way of fudging the facts.

The fact is, unemployment went back up after the holiday spending spree was over. There is no reason to adjust that, its a fact.

You do not adjust facts.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that every single year temporary seasonal workers are laid off regardless of who is president or who controls congress?
 
Texashiker said:
I disagree.

You say we should not use non-adjusted numbers, I disagree. The numbers are what they are, "adjustments" are just a way of fudging the facts.
Click to expand...

Wow. You are like the OP, clueless. Try and comprehend the link he's posted again. The article compares apples and oranges. Unemployment went up from 8.3(seasonally adjusted) to 9(non-seasonally adjusted) based on the article.

Why not compare seasonally adjusted to seasonally adjusted or non-seasonally adjusted to non-seasonally adjusted? And then understand what seasonal adjustments for the Holidays might mean to employment numbers?

It's the same thing with the Hep C thread in OT, you are beyond ignorant.
 
Capt Caveman said:
February is not even over. More bs and lies from the OP.

I love how the bs article the OP links compares the gov't numbers(seasonally adjusted) with the gallup numbers instead of comparing apples to apples. The gallup numbers show an increase of 8.6 to 9%. Factor in season adjustments and it'll show at the end of Feb that unemployment went down when the real numbers come out.

Lock this thread.
Click to expand...

FWIW, this thread was reported with a request to lock, but it will not be locked as the topic is one of debate and it is being actively debated as expected for this subforum.

If it is bunk, then debunk it. It is up to the OP to refute the debunking, or accept it, whichever the case may be.

Administrator Idontcare

PS - do not respond to this moderator post here within this thread, that would be a thread-derail as well as a mod-challenge. If you seek clarification or continued discussion on this moderator decision then you are expected to do so in Moderator Discussions (the correct venue for such discussion).

I am posting this post here in this thread merely as a Public Service Announcement to head-off further calls for closing this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top