• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

We needs more Stimulus!!! Unemployment at 10.2%

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
This forum used to be an interesting place for debate. As it stands, infested with people like you, it's not worth more than 5 sentences. There hasn't been a good debate here in years, just two groups of children slinging mud at one another. Random jabs are the only thing this forum is good for.
No, you don't get it; you're exactly why P&N has degraded to shit more often than it should. Though with you it's more because you're not capable of contributing further, while most other people do the worthless 1-liners because they're actually busy.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally Posted by jonks
But attacking his character because a projection is off by a percent or two is simply partisan hackery.

Quote:
Not to stir shit, but wouldn't a projection of 8% and a reality of 10% be a 25% ([10-8]/8) error, or is my brain just not on yet?
Relative difference vs absolute difference

Let's say you loan 2 people money. Person A you lend $10, Person B you lend $1000.

Person A pays you back $1, which is 10% of what he owes you, meaning, he still owes your ass Nine Bucks, or 90% of what he borrowed.

Person B pays you back $700, which is 70% of what he owes you, meaning he still owes you $300, or a mere 30% of what he borrowed.

Ya think person B telling you that you should stop whining since he paid back a higher percentage than Person A is going to molify you at all?
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
So you think that those millions of people who actually represent "a percent or two" see it that way?

It's all relative, so no big deal right?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Keep digging your own grave, hack.

You're the one who said it's relative, trying to downplay the "percent or two" that he was off. Millions of people may disagree.

PS: When logic fails, resort to name calling.
 
Last edited:

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Keep digging your own grave, hack.

You're the one who said it's relative, trying to downplay the "percent or two" that he was off. Millions of people may disagree.

PS: When logic fails, resort to name calling.
Alright, take two. Read slowly.

He asked whether his math was correct in saying that the actual unemployment numbers were 25% off. I pointed out this was the difference in metrics between an absolute error and relative error: http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/slh/Absolute Relative Error.pdf

I said nothing even remotely resembling a claim that the millions of jobs lost or people unemployed was "no big deal" because "everything's relative".

No one is downplaying the "percent or two", it was an admitted fact they were off by a percent or two. It's merely inflammatory to say someone is off by 25% when the absolute number is 2%, similar to my money lending example. In this case, the 2% number is the more relevant number, not the relative error percentage. If they had projected 6% and it ended up going to 8%, would they have been any more wrong because the relative error is now 33% despite the same exact number of jobs lost?

PS: when you don't understand what someone said avoid jumping on them and ending up looking like a jackass despite being warned about it.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
How in the hell do you find accurate figures like that (people working part-time but not by choice)??? Estimates are not helpful and cherry picked.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

The US Bureau of labor Statistics keeps figures. See the link above for the table of unemployment. The 10.2% figure may be U-1, the other categories show a higher amount of unemployed.

The 17.5% figure is U-6 (Seasonally Adjusted) for October. You can confirm this on the link above by checking 'seasonally adjusted' for U-6 then hit 'retrieve data'

Fern
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

The US Bureau of labor Statistics keeps figures. See the link above for the table of unemployment. The 10.2% figure may be U-1, the other categories show a higher amount of unemployed.

The 17.5% figure is U-6 (Seasonally Adjusted) for October. You can confirm this on the link above by checking 'seasonally adjusted' for U-6 then hit 'retrieve data'

Fern
Do these numbers and the metrics used to establish these numbers vary with administration or are they consistent? Because if they're consistent I don't think it matters so much what the "actual" number is, so long as we understand that 10% now is as bad as 10% 3 decades ago. If the current admin is cherry picking what stats to include in order to lower the number that would be a different matter.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Do these numbers and the metrics used to establish these numbers vary with administration or are they consistent? Because if they're consistent I don't think it matters so much what the "actual" number is, so long as we understand that 10% now is as bad as 10% 3 decades ago. If the current admin is cherry picking what stats to include in order to lower the number that would be a different matter.
Methods used are the same - however, all administrations have continually played with the numbers when first released and then 1 quarter later, update with more accurate analysis - this usually results in a higher than original value accompanied by some tap dancing to justify the higher number.

Obama's administration is just following Standard Operating Procedure that has gone on since Hoover and Coolidge.

w/ regard to the 8% mark. The administration used the charts and Obama knew what the charts contained. It was stated that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from breaching 8%. Whether Obama stated such, his administration stated such or they implied, it is the same thing. The 8% level was what was used to justify the quick passage.

The administration admitted when 9% was breached, that they were wrong on the 8%.

It does not matter if it is a spokesperson, admin official, cabinet member or the WH itself. Use of such information is authorized from the top.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
w/ regard to the 8&#37; mark. The administration used the charts and Obama knew what the charts contained. It was stated that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from breaching 8%. Whether Obama stated such, his administration stated such or they implied, it is the same thing. The 8% level was what was used to justify the quick passage.

The administration admitted when 9% was breached, that they were wrong on the 8%.

It does not matter if it is a spokesperson, admin official, cabinet member or the WH itself. Use of such information is authorized from the top.
Of course, I was merely responding to the rhetoric. Would you agree calling someone a promise-breaker is more inflammatory than saying someone was wrong? One implies a form of deceptiveness, a bait and switch or intent to deceive.

And given the caveats in that report, claiming a promise was made is simply untrue. The admin stated they projected that the stimulus would prevent unemployment breaching 8%, but if someone had said "so you're saying if we pass the stimulus unemployment will not go above 8%?", any spokesman would have said "well we can't guarantee that, these are our best projections, and certainly the cost of doing nothing is worse..."

Further, the repeated use of "the president made a promise" being said by several republicans reveals it as a coordinated talking point.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Does anyone really have a handle on where The Messiah's Hope and Change are taking us? Are we headed for socialism like, say, Sweden and Norway? Some dingy middle ground like the United Kingdom? Social slavery combined with crony capitalism like Red China? Or are we headed for full-blown slavery a la Cuba and Venezuela? And is our economic collapse part of the plan, or is it queering the plan? I'm assuming Walks-On-Water actually has a plan and this isn't merely incompetence and sloganeering, mind you.

On the business end, I can testify that businesses are scared to invest money not only because of the economy, but also because of potential government activity. We've had several projects that were rush jobs before about mid-2008, but have since become inactive not because of the economy, but because of concerns about costs and prohibitive and/or punitive laws and (even more so) regulations. Nuclear especially is on hold everywhere. Without knowing what the government is going to do with their costs and competitiveness via health care and the VAT, CEOs are running scared. Expanding in slow times is a great way to pull a march on the competition, but expanding in slow times combined with a sudden big increase in expenses can lead to bankruptcy or, just as bad to CEOs, being fired.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Does anyone really have a handle on where The Messiah's Hope and Change are taking us? Are we headed for socialism like, say, Sweden and Norway? Some dingy middle ground like the United Kingdom? Social slavery combined with crony capitalism like Red China? Or are we headed for full-blown slavery a la Cuba and Venezuela? And is our economic collapse part of the plan, or is it queering the plan? I'm assuming Walks-On-Water actually has a plan and this isn't merely incompetence and sloganeering, mind you.

On the business end, I can testify that businesses are scared to invest money not only because of the economy, but also because of potential government activity. We've had several projects that were rush jobs before about mid-2008, but have since become inactive not because of the economy, but because of concerns about costs and prohibitive and/or punitive laws and (even more so) regulations. Nuclear especially is on hold everywhere. Without knowing what the government is going to do with their costs and competitiveness via health care and the VAT, CEOs are running scared. Expanding in slow times is a great way to pull a march on the competition, but expanding in slow times combined with a sudden big increase in expenses can lead to bankruptcy or, just as bad to CEOs, being fired.
I dont' know, but this should codify the obvious - less education has a direct impact on your hiring prospects. We should spend far less resources on those who won't or can't bother to educate themselves, and more on those who do; and spending gobs of money on trying to save the jobs low-education workers in dying fields like automaking is especially pointless.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/172215-chart-of-the-week-unemployment-rates-based-on-education-level
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Majority of the stimulus money was stolen by the government. The Government is a Big Pig so dont feed it!
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Man. No nested quotes anymore.

In any event, I would usually agree but if you look at the value of the dollar, the taking of stimulus monies and their investment over seas, where the economy is improving will not lead to job creation.

If anything much of the gains have been to efficiency - IE the cutting of workforces that have lead to company profits.

The way things are setting up, we are headed for a double dip recession and there is no amount of government printing/spending that can stop it.

In the 70s Jimmy Carter increased the money supply by 13% forcing the FED to raise internet rates to 20% to combat inflation.

The amount of money currently in circulation has increased 120% compared to 2008, how much is the FED going to be forced to raise interest rates?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
^ lmao, WTH? :D Inflation in the 70's was not caused by money supply increases, it was caused by a massive supply shock to oil by the OPEC cartel, and it started more than half a decade before Jimmy Carter. Volcker having to increase interest rates (too much in fact, but he did a good thing generally speaking) had little to do with Carter-era policy.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
^ lmao, WTH? :D Inflation in the 70's was not caused by money supply increases, it was caused by a massive supply shock to oil by the OPEC cartel, and it started more than half a decade before Jimmy Carter. Volcker having to increase interest rates (too much in fact, but he did a good thing generally speaking) had little to do with Carter-era policy.
If the inflation of the 70's was caused by a supply shock to oil from OPEC, then how would raising interest rates fix the problem?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Does anyone really have a handle on where The Messiah's Hope and Change are taking us?

Are we headed for socialism like, say, Sweden and Norway?

Some dingy middle ground like the United Kingdom?

Social slavery combined with crony capitalism like Red China?

Or are we headed for full-blown slavery a la Cuba and Venezuela?
Whatever way pisses off the Rich Republicans the most so they leave is best.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Whatever way pisses off the Rich Republicans the most so they leave is best.
the Republicans (rich or middle class) may be the only thing acting as a check and balance to the Dems royally screwing the middle class.

Someone has to pay for all the handouts and feel good programs for the 47&#37; of people that do not have a Federal Income tax tab.

Remember, Obama and Congress have already determined that they are unable to soak the rich to pay for their pet programs - the middle class is being targeted.

I would expect that you consider yourself to be middle class - bend over - your hero has the shaft waiting for you also.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Whatever way pisses off the Rich Republicans the most so they leave is best.
Interestingly, that's pretty much the position that Governor Patterson took in New York, saying if he had known rich Republicans would be driven away by higher taxes he would have raised them earlier. Now he's saying New York will be broke before Christmas. Anyone with at least half a functioning brain can understand the connection. (Perhaps if you're nice, one of them will explain it to you. I'll give you a hint; there are people who on balance produce wealth, and people who consume it. And it's difficult to fund government from the latter.)

Lord knows I am no fan of Obama or his Mao-loving administration, but I think we can make too much of this promise about the stimulus limiting unemployment to 8.2%. First, the stimulus is obviously not designed to limit unemployment, it's more to reward certain groups and give Democrats a boost in the 2010 elections. Second, all politicians quote numbers and facts about things they can't possibly control or know for sure. Being off by 25% is hardly new in government. Bush did it, Clinton did it, and so on back though history. When Washington said we could beat the British, obviously he meant he had faith we could beat the British. When Obama said the stimulus plan will limit unemployment to 8.2%, obviously he meant he had faith that was true. Or he was flat-out lying, but none of us can know that.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Interestingly, that's pretty much the position that Governor Patterson took in New York, saying if he had known rich Republicans would be driven away by higher taxes he would have raised them earlier. Now he's saying New York will be broke before Christmas.
I'm from New York and was driven away in the first mass exodus from the state in 1988 when they quadrupled property taxes on Long Island. 2 million people left Long Island that year and most settled in South Florida as evidenced by Florida gaining two seats in the house and NY losing two seats.

So I know all about who pays the bills. NY continued to spend as evidenced by the situation they are on now. They need to continue to bleed.

It is the best thing that the rich are leaving. Soon real Americans will be able to take NY back after it goes belly up because of the rich.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY