- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
How on earth could it be biased? It's straight math and it would not be possible to have any different answers. The sampling error is straight fact.First, I do not even begin to care what the BLS sites as the accuracy of their claims. That is like a corporation doing an internal audit...totally bias and completely useless.
Neither link supports that claim. A nd you're citing heavily biased sources and the articles contain a lot of "could haves" and "possibly"s. Why do you have two different standards?Second, the BLS has apparently, on occasion, been pressured (and agreed) to cook the numbers for political higher ups.
what would you consider a "straight tabulation?" And of course there's math and modelling. But why do you think the modeling is inaccurate? Present facts and evidence, not your bias or zero hedge' shows.Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report | New York Post of course curbstoning happens; that's why it's watched out for and why Buckmon was fired. There is nothing to show any political motivation and no one is claiming any particular result was asked for or could have been obtained. Read it again and then tell us what the FACTS in that article are. Not speculation, not unsupported claims, but facts.
[QuoteThird, as I believe I have stated before - the CES is NOT a stright tabulation. There is a TON of creative math and modelling going on. The Net Birth/Death Model is just one of them.
CES Net Birth/Death Model
Statistical modeling is not a "Guess."'Birth/Death does not refer to people but to businesses. The BLS guesses how many new companies opened versus how many closed their doors. The BLS then uses that guess to guess again how many jobs those business created or lost.'
I'm confused by your use of "belief." Is it or is it not less adjusted? That's not a matter of belief or opinion.I am not saying the CPS is great either...but I believe their tabulation process is less adjusted by 'modeling'
In over 100 years no one has ever shown they have, and I personally know many of the people involved. So it's not "faith"It's simple, you have faith (apparently) that the BLS is an honorable organization that would never fudge numbers.
You can say it all you want, but it's still a lie. And you clearly don't understand the first thing about statisticI say the BLS regularly fudges the numbers through usually legal tabulation/modelling processes to get the result their superiors desire.
It's No a matter of belief! Factually, numerically, by simple math, the CES is more accurate and that accuracy we m proven every year by comparison to the actual numbers.believe the CPS is the more accurate number (when it is not being deliberately manipulated) - you do not.
Yes, I did. Bias is not possible when talking about error rates. And you have presented neither facts nor unbiased evidence.B]And, with respect, nothing you have provided has factually proven me wrong as I asked for links to unbiased, factual proof that what I said was wrong.
And yours is the typical liberal response when you don't get your way.
your comment
your rebuts are a mess and hard to read.
Let me be clear so as to save you wasting your time...I am interested in only one thing in the economic threads...facts/data from unbiased sources.
How on earth could it be biased? It's straight math and it would not be possible to have any different answers. The sampling error is straight fact.
Neither link supports that claim. A nd you're citing heavily biased sources and the articles contain a lot of "could haves" and "possibly"s. Why do you have two different standards?
what would you consider a "straight tabulation?" And of course there's math and modelling. But why do you think the modeling is inaccurate? Present facts and evidence, not your bias or zero hedge' shows.
Statistical modeling is not a "Guess."
And you're ignoring the QCEW. Which is not a survey, but a full count. The CES is not off by much when compared to the actual numbers.
I'm confused by your use of "belief." Is it or is it not less adjusted? That's not a matter of belief or opinion.
But in any case, less adjusted does not mean more accurate. Modeling and adjustments are made to increase accuracy.
In over 100 years no one has ever shown they have, and I personally know many of the people involved. So it's not "faith"
You can say it all you want, but it's still a lie. And you clearly don't understand the first thing about statistic
And you have no evidence or reason except your own bias or biased sources.
It's No a matter of belief! Factually, numerically, by simple math, the CES is more accurate and that accuracy we m proven every year by comparison to the actual numbers.
Yes, I did. Bias is not possible when talking about error rates. And you have presented neither facts nor unbiased evidence.
From others. You seem to have no problem using biased sources engaging in speculation instead of facts. And you const a burly refer to your opinion or belief.As I told mmi, all I am interested in economic threads is links to data/facts from unbiased sources...NOTHING more.
From others. You seem to have no problem using biased sources engaging in speculation instead of facts. And you const a burly refer to your opinion or belief.
[Quoute]And since the only links you keep providing are from the BLS...which is an INCREDIBLY biased source when discussing the BLS...they interest me little in this discussion.
again, how could facts and technical details be biased????
And those links are not factual and are heavily biased.I believe I generally post links to (attempt to) back up my statements..
Where do you see bias? Stating sample size, methodology, probability error, benchmarks, etc, how is bias possible? They're just facts.I said unbiased sources. When defending the BLS, surely you, a seemingly bright fellow, cannot honestly believe that the BLS is an unbiased source?
I'm waiting for you to live up to the standards you insist on. Give any unbiased source showing data or facts that shows the CPS employment data is more accurate than the CES.but unless you have a link from an UNBIASED source(s) to disprove what I said using ONLY data/facts, then I will not respond to this line of debate further.
And you const a burly refer to your opinion or belief.
Stating sample size, methodology, probability error, benchmarks, etc, how is bias possible? They're just facts.
I am here to learn, teach and kill time.
We are all going to post links that appear to be bias to the other side.
" if I wanted to, saving the clipboard for other material. And yet I choose not to. ☺[/QUOTE]I have every confidence that a typical eight-year-old could follow the format without a bit of difficulty: comments I'm responding to are preceded by two angle brackets; my responses are not. Is it really all that complicated? If it is, just don't bother reading my posts. Problem solved.
>>Use the " Reply with Quote " button, and then copy and paste the beginning and ending of the "Quote" function when you want to make additional replies. I know you can do it
I would simply type "
We have to adapt to your arbitrarily and ad hoc system ?
No, you don't; no one is forcing you or anyone else to read or respond to my posts.
My "system" is not ad hoc; I've used it for many years, most of them as an administrator in a very busy forum. Fwiw, the only people who have had a problem with it are those who disagree with my views and become discouraged at their inability to refute my arguments.
I might otherwise be baffled by claims that it creates any confusion whatsoever; I figure it's just a very weak form of excuse-making. Otoh, I suppose it may be true that some people just aren't very clever, e.g., those who blame the recent near-collapse of the financial sector on the CRA.
I only hope that in my remaining years that I become just half as smart as you THINK you are
I hope you enjoyed yer passive-aggressive mini-rant.
>>you finally have been able to learn the quote system
I continue to post the same way. Are you continuing to have difficultly with it?
>>I have not seen any evidence or valid links to support your statements
Which statements do you feel I have not supported with adequate evidence?
>>I find it absolutely shocking … that people like you ignore actual results
Which actual results am I ignoring?
>>only what you feel matters … blah, blah, government sucks, blah
Same question. What is it in history that I'm not cognizant of? What personal behaviours am I not accounting for properly?
>>I only wish that I had learned in my earlier years how to spend someone else's money, to pass off personal responsibilities, to never accept blame for any mistake or poor choice that I made.
Whose money am I spending? What personal responsibilities am I shirking? What mistakes and poor choices have I made that I'm not accepting blame for?
Or is it others yer concerned about? Maybe the way I've lived my life is (barely) acceptable to you, but I'm an enabler at yer expense. We need more people out of public housing and under bridges. More malnourished children. More people without health insurance. And if they don't have the cash, let 'em bleed out in the ER parking lot.
>>Where have you been my entire life?
Awaiting the twist of fate that would allow me to enlighten you before it's too late. The Lord calls on you, and I am His messenger. Heed my voice.
Post 1211 is right so rather than do it right all the time you resort to liberal tactics of only doing it right when you want to.
Wrong again. What a surprise.That post follows the pattern I always use. The first excerpt is in a linked text box. The second one is from the same person, but from a different post, hence it is in a box as well. The remaining excerpts are from different people … until … you get to the last one. I cite an excerpt from the same member (imagep) and the same post, and so no need, as I see it, to use another quote box. Readers know who said it and where it came from, in case they want the context. Liberalism — consistently correct. ☺
>>typical liberal rant, let's starve kids, kill seniors, pollute the air, force people to live under bridges, let them bleed in the ER parking lots.
Hey, I was just taking a guess at what you meant about forcing people to be responsible for themselves. I see now that you want hospital ERs to provide unpaid services, the cost of which gets passed on to everyone else, instead of helping people get insurance, which lowers costs for a variety of reasons. You want charities to provide food and shelter for those who need it. It may surprise you to know, although it shouldn't, that I would love to see all those needs met by private charities. Doesn't seem to happen.
>>You really have no clue as to what you are talking about as none of that occurs when people take responsibility for their actions.
I'm confused. None of what happens? Poverty? And what should we do when people fail to live up to their responsibilities?
>>homeless shelters are available all over the nation, have you tried to get anyone to use them?
I occasionally visit them in my work. They typically have waiting lists. That lousy Obama economy, don't ya know.
>>You are unbelievable, naive, gullible, and very poorly informed
In what sense?
>>Your answer is never about personal responsibility and accountability, just throw more money at the problem.
When did I say anything like that?
>>Not once have I seen a direct answer from you
An answer to what?
>>what is your solution to the problems since liberalism hasn't solved it.
Oh. An answer to that. My answer starts, I suppose, with private-public partnerships. People working together to solve problems. Basically the work I've been involved in for thirty-five years. Feels kinda lonely sometimes.
Bye, mmi, you aren't worth the effort. Learn how to respond to posts and put them in quotes and I will respond, until then your posts will be ignored. The solutions starts with leadership, something our Community Agitator President doesn't understand nor do his liberal supporters.
And yours is the typical liberal response when you don't get your way. Fact, your post was difficult to read and impossible to respond to point by point but then typical liberalism takes over.Learn how to use this forum and I will be happy to engage you and make you look foolish by offering actual verifiable facts.
If you cannot do that then I suggest you move to another country more in line with your ideology as liberalism is killing this country and its economy. Maybe that is what you want because this economy has survived centuries and generated a lot of personal wealth that you are jealous about.
Just more of the same excuse-making.
As I said, I don't think you have anything to use to make me look foolish, I'm not leaving the country, and I do not seek wealth.
This time, yer discouraged because "effort" doesn't win a debate. Once again, a young child wouldn't have any problem following my posts and responding to them.
By coincidence, I haven't used any angle brackets in this post. Does that make me again "worth the effort," and can I therefore anticipate responses to the questions I asked in my previous post?
President Obama and his liberal base have displayed enough leadership to have brought a number of "solutions" to the country. You know the list by now:
9.2 million private-sector jobs added in four-and-a-half years, a decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%, a profit on TARP — those are some of the highlights anyway.
We haven't yet been able to lead toward achieving immigration reform and raising the minimum wage. Mr. Boehner's weak leadership and the continuing presence of fifty or so Tea Party types in the House are an obstacle we've not yer overcome. Doesn't look like much can be done on that in this cycle, but perhaps in 2016 we can construct an electoral drainpipe to remove a sufficient amount of that material.
able to respond about the CRA if you still want tomorrow.
Just more of the same excuse-making.
As I said, I don't think you have anything to use to make me look foolish, I'm not leaving the country, and I do not seek wealth.
This time, yer discouraged because "effort" doesn't win a debate. Once again, a young child wouldn't have any problem following my posts and responding to them.
By coincidence, I haven't used any angle brackets in this post. Does that make me again "worth the effort," and can I therefore anticipate responses to the questions I asked in my previous post?
President Obama and his liberal base have displayed enough leadership to have brought a number of "solutions" to the country. You know the list by now:
9.2 million private-sector jobs added in four-and-a-half years, a decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%, a profit on TARP — those are some of the highlights anyway.
We haven't yet been able to lead toward achieving immigration reform and raising the minimum wage. Mr. Boehner's weak leadership and the continuing presence of fifty or so Tea Party types in the House are an obstacle we've not yer overcome. Doesn't look like much can be done on that in this cycle, but perhaps in 2016 we can construct an electoral drainpipe to remove a sufficient amount of that material.
Close. The reference period is the week before the survey (usually) so employed are those who during the reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm.Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)
Ummm what do you mean "adjusting for the decline in public sector employment?" Why would you do that? And using the CPS employment data, 145,669,000 in April 2014 minus 138,013,000 in December 2009 equals 7,656,000. How did you get over 9 million? Exactly what adjustments did you make?BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
Hey buddy
Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?
>>4.5 million jobs
Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?
>>what is the criteria for counting them?
Contributions to the DNC?
>>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?
Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)
BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
Hey buddy
Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?
>>4.5 million jobs
Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?
>>what is the criteria for counting them?
Contributions to the DNC?
>>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?
Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)
BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?