Trump Administration: Numbers are hard

[First]

Yes I'm willing to give it a chance. I'm not going to run around like all of you chicken little types.

Firing a career prosecutor a couple hours ago change your mind?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-executive-order-234401

Dude is out of his ducking mind man, this will only crystallize as the days, weeks and months wear on. Whether he lasts 4 yrs is most definitely up for debate.

My condolences to those so easily fooled by such an obvious PT Barnum conman.

 

[First]

BS.

It is entirely BS. Let's be real here, Bow posted the details of why BLS U3 is entirely consistent with how it has been calculated worldwide for decades while you, so far, have merely stated unsourced, unsubstantiated opinion. You ain't convincing anybody kiddo.

 

[pcgeek11]

Firing a career prosecutor a couple hours ago change your mind?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-executive-order-234401

Dude is out of his ducking mind man, this will only crystallize as the days, weeks and months wear on. Whether he lasts 4 yrs is most definitely up for debate.

My condolences to those so easily fooled by such an obvious PT Barnum conman.

From your link:

"Despite sharp criticism of the wisdom of Trump’s move, there appears to be little doubt that under federal law he has legal authority to install any Senate-confirmed member of the Justice Department as the acting attorney general."

"Boente, who has served as a Justice Department attorney for more than 30 years, was nominated by President Barack Obama as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2015 and confirmed later that year."

Are you saying he overstepped his bounds? I think it was legal. Maybe not the smartest move in the world, but fully legal and in bounds.

 

[pcgeek11]

It is entirely BS. Let's be real here, Bow posted the details of why BLS U3 is entirely consistent with how it has been calculated worldwide for decades while you, so far, have merely stated unsourced, unsubstantiated opinion. You ain't convincing anybody kiddo.

I stated the fact because that number is purposely used and is not a true representation of the actual unemployment number in the US. It leaves out way too many data points because some have given up. You can believe what you will.

 

[MongGrel]

I stated the fact because that number is purposely used and is not a true representation of the actual unemployment number in the US. It leaves out way too many data points because some have given up. You can believe what you will.

You would be very surprised how many immigrants with work visas have been working on designing/manufacturing the high end navigation systems for the nukes you used to maintain for decades now, I'd imagine.

And many other things.

It sounds like it at any rate.

 

[pcgeek11]

You would be very surprised how many immigrants with work visas have been working on designing/manufacturing the high end navigation systems for the nukes you used to maintain for decades now, I'd imagine.

And many other things.

It sounds like it at any rate.

Maybe, but not too surprised...

 

[MongGrel]

Maybe, but not too surprised...

I could run off a list of programs, but I won't.

 

[Bowfinger]

BS.

I'm sorry that facts offend you. Perhaps you need a safe space full of alternative facts.

 

[fskimospy]

I stated the fact because that number is purposely used and is not a true representation of the actual unemployment number in the US. It leaves out way too many data points because some have given up. You can believe what you will.

This is why BLS reports six different measures of unemployment and publishes other things like the labor force participation rate. That's why it's U -3-, after all. U3 has been calculated consistently and transparently for a long time now. Your claims that it is 'manipulated' are easily disproven conspiracy theories.

It's ironic that you're saying 'you can believe what you will' to other people while you're desperately trying to avoid reality. Too much right wing media.

 

[kage69]

It's ironic that you're saying 'you can believe what you will' to other people while you're desperately trying to avoid reality. Too much right wing media.

Correct. This is the guy who thinks Obama didn't get robbed of a USSC seat IIRC. It's just been "delayed."

Right wing parrots project. It's what they do.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm sorry that facts offend you. Perhaps you need a safe space full of alternative facts.

This is why BLS reports six different measures of unemployment and publishes other things like the labor force participation rate. That's why it's U -3-, after all. U3 has been calculated consistently and transparently for a long time now. Your claims that it is 'manipulated' are easily disproven conspiracy theories.

It's ironic that you're saying 'you can believe what you will' to other people while you're desperately trying to avoid reality. Too much right wing media.

Correct. This is the guy who thinks Obama didn't get robbed of a USSC seat IIRC. It's just been "delayed."

Right wing parrots project. It's what they do.

You guys are just avoiding the truth that they purposely use the U3 because it looks better to the average person that doesn't know any better. When in actuality any of the U4, U5 or U6 would be a more truthful number. That is all I am saying.

• U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
• U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
• U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

 

[ivwshane]

You guys are just avoiding the truth that they purposely use the U3 because it looks better to the average person that doesn't know any better. When in actuality any of the U4, U5 or U6 would be a more truthful number. That is all I am saying.

• U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
• U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
• U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Hey dumb fuck, if what you are saying is true then why doesn't everyone use U1 or U2 number? Using those, the unemployment rate looks even better! Genius!

 

[pcgeek11]

Hey dumb fuck, if what you are saying is true then why doesn't everyone use U1 or U2 number? Using those, the unemployment rate looks even better! Genius!

Up to your same old tricks I see.

 

[ivwshane]

Up to your same old tricks I see.

Calling you out on your bullshit and stupidity? Yeah, I ain't going anywhere.

I'll note the fact that you completely ignored my counterpoint. Surprised...no one.

 

[ivwshane]

Here's a little history lesson everyone but pcgeek might find interesting.


http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/origins-of-unemployment.pdf

The manipulation of the numbers has been consistent apparently. /s

 

[pcgeek11]

Calling you out on your bullshit and stupidity? Yeah, I ain't going anywhere.

I'll note the fact that you completely ignored my counterpoint. Surprised...no one.

I have no idea why they don't widely portray those as the real unemployment numbers, but they don't.

Just like they don't use the higher more truthful numbers....

I never said that they were inconsistent either.

Face it there are millions that don't even know there are more than one unemployment figure to go by. They only know what is on the news the U3 number. I'm not saying that the U3 is false just that is is being misrepresented to the general population as THE unemployment number.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys are just avoiding the truth that they purposely use the U3 because it looks better to the average person that doesn't know any better. When in actuality any of the U4, U5 or U6 would be a more truthful number. That is all I am saying.

• U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
• U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
• U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

It would not be more truthful, it would just be different. I mean do you think BLS calculates a wide variety of unemployment measures to give people a choice about how truthful they want to be? U3 is basically 'people who are trying to find work right now and can't'. That's a perfectly reasonable measure of unemployment and if you had to pick one number that's probably what I would pick.

As others mentioned the idea that U3 is used because it looks better makes no sense. If that's what they wanted they would just use U1. Also, the idea of what we consider good or bad is already based on U3. Sure U6's 10% unemployment or whatever is bad if your baseline is U3, but it's not bad for U6.

 

[Bowfinger]

You guys are just avoiding the truth that they purposely use the U3 because it looks better to the average person that doesn't know any better. When in actuality any of the U4, U5 or U6 would be a more truthful number. That is all I am saying.

• U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
• U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
• U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

In this case, "truthful" is a matter of perspective. All the numbers are accurate; they just measure somewhat different things.

Do you remember back in the Bush 43 administration, when his unemployment numbers were so high? There were a lot of people, largely Democrats, who made the same argument you're making now: the "unemployment" rate is rigged, it's really higher than that, we should use the U-6 instead. Bush's supporters, people who are likely just like you, retorted that that was ridiculous. In particular, their defense was that people who won't even bother looking for work should NOT be counted as unemployed. They weren't unemployed, they were lazy.

Which side of that debate were you on back then?

 

[cytg111]

Talking of numbers, this one is mandatory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOu001PQW_Q

 

[pcgeek11]

In this case, "truthful" is a matter of perspective. All the numbers are accurate; they just measure somewhat different things.

Do you remember back in the Bush 43 administration, when his unemployment numbers were so high? There were a lot of people, largely Democrats, who made the same argument you're making now: the "unemployment" rate is rigged, it's really higher than that, we should use the U-6 instead. Bush's supporters, people who are likely just like you, retorted that that was ridiculous. In particular, their defense was that people who won't even bother looking for work should NOT be counted as unemployed. They weren't unemployed, they were lazy.

Which side of that debate were you on back then?

I have always felt that it was under reported. Well at least as long as I have known about it.

 

[Pulsar]

They came to my attention when they (along with numerous other blogs) began to highlight the danger of the sub-prime housing market while the government, Fed and mainstream media tried desperately tried to say it was contained and no big deal; until Lehman Brothers detonated things.

So just by that account, they have been far better than the MSM.

You're an idiot.

Google Zerohedge and collapse. You will find an article, usually twice a month, predicting that the entire market is going to collapse. Going back for close to 5 years.

It's like Dave Mcowned's ongoing gasoline price thread. He's been saying that for going on 6 or 7 years now gasoline was going to go through the roof, to 5 dollars and beyond. The funny part? Eventually, due to natural inflation, he's gonna be right. I can't even say that of Zerohedge and their constant clickbait.