Obama inherits manipulated employment data, more jobs lost than previously thought

[wwswimming]

models are like pictures on myspace. sometimes there actually is a cute girl. and sometimes there is this

oh come on, she might have a nice personality.

all women are beautiful when they have a happy look on their face.

Your Mission, Mr. Phelps, should you decide to accept it, is to put a happy look on this woman's face.

 

[piasabird]

Below is one solution to our current economic crisis.

Obamma has been in charger for a year. If there is data it belongs to him. Maybe if the liberals take over health care they will let SSN benefits expire and just leg all the old people die. That will solve the SS crisis. No insurance, no health care, death to all old poor people.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Learn to read all the words sweetie. I was responding to the general observation that, "These kinds of computations are done by careerist bean counters. ..." I explicitly said, "The new adjustment from the OP may be reversing this change, or it may be something wholly unrelated that happens to have similar scale." What part of that escapes your fowl little brain?

One would think you could give your compulsive Bush fluffing a break after all this time, but I suppose when that's the only card in your deck ...

Here's exactly what you said, bonehead:

Who knows if it was purposefully manipulated or not, but the change was beneficial to the Bush administration as it tried to paint a positive picture of job recovery.

If you go back to old threads about employment, you'll find I brought this up several times. I believe the change was in January of 2003, and it was documented as a methodology change by BLS. It had the net effect of increasing the reported number of Employed by roughly one million, something one had to consider when comparing pre-2003 employment statistics with 2003 forward.

While the methodology change may have been perfectly valid, it was exploited by Bush and his supporters to claim employment had recovered by a million more jobs than it actually had. The new adjustment from the OP may be reversing this change, or it may be something wholly unrelated that happens to have similar scale. Either way, it makes it difficult to compare Employment from year to year unless you have BLS adjusted figures. It would be nice if BLS picked one methodology and stuck to it.

As I pointed out, your verbal BDS masturbations had nothing to do with the employment figures cited by the OP. NOTHING. You were wrong. Get that through your thick fucking head, hope back in your trollboat, and paddle back to your bridge. Got it, "sweety?".

 

[Bowfinger]

[ More childish prattle deleted ]

While your "belligerent fvckwit" act is always amusing in a "look at that sad little fellow" sort of way, the fact remains that I stipulated from the very beginning that the two changes may be unrelated. Based on the information in Bloomberg's secondary link, they are. This means all your flapping and cackling and boorish name calling is about something I conceded in my very first post. So ... ? Yipee? Way to go, tiger? Here's your Participant's ribbon?

The rest of my remarks were directly in response to a comment about "these kinds of changes" in BLS stats. That's another fact, no matter how badly you wish to make it something else.

You wrote paragraphs of pugnacious noise when an adult would have used one or two sentences to say the two changes were different and here's why. I can only assume your nose is so bent because you were one of those tools who used the BLS change to lie about Bushco's job creation record. Either that or you have some sort of fixation on me personally. Maybe both, don't know what your problem is, don't care.

In any case, until you grow up you're a waste of electrons. Dismissed.

 

[shira]

Our golden age had little to do with politics (maybe indirectly at best). It has a lot more to do with population demographics. Here is the percent of Americans who are of working age (15-65): Source
1960: 59.7%
1970: 61.9%
1980: 66.2%
1990: 65.9%
2000: 66.2%
2010: 66.9% (near all time peak of 67.2% in 2007)
2020: 64.0% (estimated)
2030: 61.2% (estimated)
2040: 60.7% (estimated)
2050: 60.6% (estimated)

As you can see, our ability to have a high GDP (many workers) with a low burden (few children/retired) peaked in 2007. That was the peak of our ability to have a golden age. This wasn't Bush's fault (or Clinton or Obama). This is just a fact.

Our pyramid-like entitlement programs worked as long as that ratio grew (until 2007). But that time is over. Over for good. Things will be far more bleak from here on out. Entitlements must be curtailed and taxes must go up. Either that or the relatively new concept of a retirement must go.

Note: the small percent changes there are bigger than they seem. When 66.9% of the population is of the working age, each working age person had to carry 0.49 people of non-working age. At 60.6%, each working age person will have to carry 0.65 non-working age people. That is a 31% decline in our lifestyle with just a 6.3% shift in the numbers in the table above.

The solution is obvious: A massive, government-funded research program to create a safe, effective aphrodisiac. And then introduce it into the water supply.