Unemployment at 17 year low...

[PureX]

Further, it typically does not account for what I like to call "meaningful employment." That is, full time employment with benefits and the like.

And a wage that one could actually live on, and at least partially support a family.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well! This was certainly fun and predictable. Thank you all for playing. Johnny? Do we have some lovely parting gifts for our contestants?

It would help if you would actually support your assertion based on actual evidence of what Trump has done.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what Trump had to do with it....It has been falling for years. What policies do you think he implemented that caused the trend to continue? He may well have influenced it. Glad he didn't reverse the trend.

His term is young, and he has plenty of time to continue his screw up.

 

[Milton Platt]

His term is young, and he has plenty of time to continue his screw up.

The truth is sad.

 

[Sunstone]

Okay. Someone tell me how this is a bad thing and how Trump had absolutely nothing to do with it....I'm waiting...

The Fed is anticipated to raise interest rates in December for the third time this year. If I recall, that will make five raises since the economic crisis in 2008. What do you think will be the most likely impact of December's raise on jobs in the US when the figures are adjusted for seasonal hiring?

If you don't know the answer to that, then how do you propose to convince any knowledgeable person that you know what you're talking about when you suggest Trump had something to do with today's low unemployment?

 

[suncowiam]

Okay. Someone tell me how this is a bad thing and how Trump had absolutely nothing to do with it....I'm waiting...

Trump did have something to do with it by not changing Obama's policies soon enough.

LOL

Damn, I'm reading his tax plans and my real estate investing are going to suck.

Gotta love a plan that doesn't help 100% of the population but only 60% and then hurts the remaining 40%. I guess that 60% will help keep in office.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Well, you seem to be more the expert on Fox News than I, so I'll take your word for it.

But I don't see it as a "trick." The ones doing the tricking are those who compile the data and spin it all around to make it look like something that it's not. Why call it an "unemployment rate" if it doesn't actually mean "unemployment"? If one has to add a number of qualifiers, exceptions, and other parameters in order to achieve a desired result, I would call that "spin," not any kind of useful indicator.

"Well, you seem to be more the expert on Fox News than I, so I'll take your word for it."

I am a stats major, and from time to time, in class and in literature, Foxnews is used as an example of what not to do. Apparently they are the kings of misleading people with statistics.

But let's take your "math". Now you said unemployment rate is about 40%, while the Bureau of Labor puts it at some where around 4% to 5%. What you are doing is what I would consider misleading with proportions and it is a common tactic in misleading statistics. Since understanding proportions means understanding the context they are in, a person can create visual and numeric misleading statements by mismatching them. For instance, 40 is a much larger number than 5, which gives the impression that if your 40% is true then the Bureau of Labor is grossly untrue, but since we are talking about proportion of two different measurements we can not really say 40% is bigger than 5% without looking at what is being measured and how.

Consider this, if you made your own measuring tape and changed the length of a foot to 1/5th its traditional size and measured a man at 30 feet tall it would not mean he is taller than someone that is 6 feet tall, you just changed the scale. You are measuring the same thing but with smaller units and therefore you get a larger number, but that does not mean that your measurement is representing anything different than their measurement. To determine that we would need to actually look at what is being measured and you would have to do actual measurements; not that slap stick nonsense you did.

Now you are claiming a 40% unemployment rate, but not on the traditional unit of measurement, instead you are changing the units while calling it the same thing. I consider that misleading, but putting that aside, if we used your units of measurement, then for all we know 40% may be good. We don't have the needed history to put your measurements in the proper context without doing a bunch of retroactive statistics.

Now, I have not dived too deeply into the statistics of unemployment, but one thing is very clear, with respects to this subject, you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Stevicus]

I am a stats major, and from time to time, in class and in literature, Foxnews is used as an example of what not to do. Apparently they are the kings of misleading people with statistics.

As I said, you seem to be the expert on Fox News. If you wanted to address what I said honestly, that would be one thing, but the fact that you started off by mentioning Fox News, you've lost all credibility.

But let's take your "math". Now you said unemployment rate is about 40%, while the Bureau of Labor puts it at some where around 4% to 5%. What you are doing is what I would consider misleading with proportions and it is a common tactics in misleading statistics. Since understanding proportions means understanding the context they are in, a person can create visual and numeric misleading statements by mismatching them. For instance, 40 is a much larger number than 5, which gives the impression that if your 40% is true then the Bureau of Labor is grossly untrue, but since we are talking about proportion of two different measurements we can not really say 40% is bigger than 5% without looking at what is being measured and how.

Consider this, if you made your own measuring tape and changed the length of a foot to 1/5th its traditional size and measured a man at 30 feet tall it would not mean he is taller than someone that is 6 feet tall, you just changed the scale. You are measuring the same thing but with smaller units and therefore you get a larger number, but that does not mean that your measurement is representing anything different than their measurement. To determine that we would need to actually look at what is being measured and you would have to do actual measurements; not that slap stick nonsense you did.

"Slap stick nonsense"? You see, this is why you have no credibility. If you can't explain something without resorting to BS throwaway remarks, then you have no credibility. And since I did not change any established "units," you can't really tar me with that either.

Now you are claiming a 40% unemployment rate, but not on the traditional unit of measurement,

No, we're talking about parameters and creative definitions of words. That's more in the realm of language and linguistics, not numbers. According to the "traditional" methods of measuring "unemployment," the implication is that "unemployment" means something else than what the term literally implies. That involves the (mis)use of language, not numbers. Get that straight first, before telling people they don't know what they're talking about.

instead you are changing the units while calling it the same thing. I consider that misleading, but putting that aside, if we used your units of measurement, then for all we know 40% may be good. We don't have the needed history to put your measurements in the proper context without doing a bunch of retroactive statistics.

Now, I have not dived too deeply into the statistics of unemployment, but one thing is very clear, with respects to this subject, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Umm...yes, I do. I know damn well how unemployment statistics are compiled by official agencies, and I'm telling you it is a LIE! It's a damn lie. Do you know that means? I didn't think so.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

As I said, you seem to be the expert on Fox News. If you wanted to address what I said honestly, that would be one thing, but the fact that you started off by mentioning Fox News, you've lost all credibility.



"Slap stick nonsense"? You see, this is why you have no credibility. If you can't explain something without resorting to BS throwaway remarks, then you have no credibility. And since I did not change any established "units," you can't really tar me with that either.



No, we're talking about parameters and creative definitions of words. That's more in the realm of language and linguistics, not numbers. According to the "traditional" methods of measuring "unemployment," the implication is that "unemployment" means something else than what the term literally implies. That involves the (mis)use of language, not numbers. Get that straight first, before telling people they don't know what they're talking about.



Umm...yes, I do. I know damn well how unemployment statistics are compiled by official agencies, and I'm telling you it is a LIE! It's a damn lie. Do you know that means? I didn't think so.

"If you wanted to address what I said honestly.

I addressed what you said in detail.

"I know damn well how unemployment statistics are compiled by official agencies"

I think it is clear that you don't. I also think you don't have a clue what statistics actually is, much less how to use it to make informative and honest statements.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Strangely, 94.5 million american are no longer in the labor force and the work force participation in September was around 63% (Labor Force Participation : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
It is important to note that in October, 88,500 of those jobs added were waiters and bartenders - low paid jobs
Looking at this graphic, I wouldn't be that excited:

^^That's the harsh reality since Obama that many haven't realized, acknowledged, or accepted. Sure, people are getting jobs. But they're crap jobs, and the number of actual jobs is about the only improvement since the Recession.

 

[Stevicus]

"If you wanted to address what I said honestly.

I addressed what you said in detail.

"I know damn well how unemployment statistics are compiled by official agencies"

I think it is clear that you don't. I also think you don't have a clue what statistics actually is, much less how to use it to make informative and honest statements.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Your opinion is noted.

I have doubts that you took anything I said seriously.

 

[Stevicus]

I have doubts that you took anything I said seriously.

If you wanted to be taken seriously, you would not have mentioned Fox News, you would not have used the phrase "slap stick nonsense," and you would not have said that I have no clue as to what I'm talking about - because I clearly do (and you haven't proven otherwise).

So, there it stands. I already know what the government says, and I reject it in open defiance. If you were any kind of a free-thinker and weren't so closed-minded, you would understand the nature of my defiance and try to discuss it on that level, rather than presume to lecture me on things I already know.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If you wanted to be taken seriously, you would not have mentioned Fox News, you would not have used the phrase "slap stick nonsense," and you would not have said that I have no clue as to what I'm talking about - because I clearly do (and you haven't proven otherwise).

So, there it stands. I already know what the government says, and I reject it in open defiance. If you were any kind of a free-thinker and weren't so closed-minded, you would understand the nature of my defiance and try to discuss it on that level, rather than presume to lecture me on things I already know.

I don't really care if you take me seriously or not; the loss is yours, not mine; I certainly don't need your inept input. I am also not sure what your hang up with Foxnews is, they they made the same misleading statement you did; I am sorry if you don't like that fact.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't really care if you take me seriously or not; the loss is yours, not mine; I certainly don't need your inept input. I am also not sure what your hang up with Foxnews is, they they made the same misleading statement you did; I am sorry if you don't like that fact.

You're the one who first brought up Fox News with some BS throwaway remark. That's pretty much all you have to offer, and yet, you seriously believe yourself as some kind of "intellectual"? You don't like my "inept input" because you know and I know that you're spouting nothing but crap. I can see through it, and that just bugs the hell out of you, doesn't it?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You're the one who first brought up Fox News with some BS throwaway remark. That's pretty much all you have to offer, and yet, you seriously believe yourself as some kind of "intellectual"? You don't like my "inept input" because you know and I know that you're spouting nothing but crap. I can see through it, and that just bugs the hell out of you, doesn't it?

You just live in your own little world, don't you? Believe whatever you like, it is no skin off my teeth.

 

[metis]

^^That's the harsh reality since Obama that many haven't realized, acknowledged, or accepted. Sure, people are getting jobs. But they're crap jobs, and the number of actual jobs is about the only improvement since the Recession.

But this is not a new trend since wages have stagnated and then fallen since the late 1970's, largely due to the effects of automation, out-sourcing, and the role of investors pressuring companies to produce the most with the lowest cost.

 

[Stevicus]

You just live in your own little world, don't you? Believe whatever you like, it is no skin off my teeth.

The tactics you're using are pointless. I can see through them. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, it would be better if you'd ask questions rather than spew out BS.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The tactics you're using are pointless. I can see through them. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, it would be better if you'd ask questions rather than spew out BS.

I never tried to hide my tactics, in fact I explained myself in concise detail. I have also been very open about my thoughts. I am not interested in hiding anything and I will state very clearly that it is more than obvious, in rearguards to unemployment and statistics in general, you haven't a clue of what you are talking about and due to this ignorance you are making misleading statements.

Let me know if I can make this any clearer to you.

 

[BSM1]

I'm not American so this discussion is quite meaningless to me.

But i do have a point of interest.

Many years ago i visited a communist country when the wall was high and the cold war higher. This country boasted 100% employment. One way they achieved this wonderful ideal was at 8 am, the traffic lights were turned off, a person with 2 paddles, red one side, green the other, would walk to the centre of the junction and spend 2 hours signalling traffic to stop or go. At 10am the lights were turned back on. The same procedure occured from 4 until 6.

Hardly relevant but employment related and, i think interesting.

Another thing i noticed was the proliferation of blue or grey box trucks with Albania written on the side. The sheer number, (i would see 200+ of these trucks each day) peeked my interest as to what could Albania be exporting in such vast quantities. When i returned to the uk i did a little research to discover the only thing Albania exported was electricity. Then i really began to think.

Albania exported electricity in trucks? Wow!