• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OK, statisticians and number crunchers, what do you make of these figures?

Doesn't matter.. for the purpose of the BLS and the US Government that's the total working-age. Are there exceptions absolutely, but for the purpose of find the jobs needed full employment you have to know the working age population. No reason to make a mountain of mole hill.

I still don't think that is correct: Civilian Noninstitutional Population and Associated Rate and Ratio Measures for Model-Based Areas

BLS obtains estimates of the civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older, which is the universe for labor force data, from the Census Bureau.
 
Doesn't matter.. for the purpose of the BLS and the US Government that's the total working-age.

No, it's not. "Working age" isn't even a concept used by BLS. The Population used in the Labor Force Statistics is the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population: Everyone in the United States age 16 and older not active duty military, not in prison or other institution.

Easy enough proof: A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race where we see that age categories go up to "75 years and over."

Many European countries have a maximum age for their labor force...the US does not.
 
Since any other definition of "fair" derives from greed or politics or personal viewpoint, then probably the only possible rational definition on fair would be that fair = equal.

Well, there's the Economics version of "fair" where anything that does not result in someone being worse off is fair. If you have $1,000 and I have $100, taking $450 from you and giving it to me makes us equal, but it's not fair in that I gain and you lose.
 
Sorry, I lost focus after the words "numbers and stats," cuz my mind was blown..... Let me take some time to recover and try again. ;) LOL

Hmm. in truth I don't trust the government's data, because I have no faith in the process whereby they determine what constitutes the members of the labor market. I think the figures are under-represented because they do not include the Hidden Unemployed. Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think BLS statistics are a propaganda tool used by government and supported by business interests.

Where would you go to find reliable data on unemployment, then?
 
Where would you go to find reliable data on unemployment, then?

Define reliable.

To me, the government is relying on their figures to try to calm citizens down. Hence their obvious attempt to reduce the numbers as much as possible.

Also, to me, Big Business likes to rely on this methodology because it helps mask the effects of outsourcing, transferring industry, calling someone "full-time" when they only work 28 hours a week, and increasing part-time and temp (contract) workers instead of hiring full-timers. It also makes it seem like the paltry increases in job opportunities are having a greater effect than they really are.

Reliable figures should include all possible sources of competition for jobs. For example, we hear complaints about immigrants and their effect on the job market, but where are these figures in relationship to unemployment? They do compete for jobs, regardless if many of those jobs aren't what "citizens" typically desire. The mere competition created by their willingness to work for ANY small amount "under the table" reduces availability for citizens who are willing to work for minimum wage service jobs. There are also many students who "work under the table," as well as those listed as "marginally attached" or "disgusted." Every "under the table" job means one less available for real employment. Those are just a few examples, and still don't address the potential workers who for whatever reason are not "currently seeking work."

Until these kinds of things are part of the overall calculations we really won't have "reliable figures," just blatant propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Define reliable.

To me, the government is relying on their figures to try to calm citizens down. Hence their obvious attempt to reduce the numbers as much as possible.

Also, to me, Big Business likes to rely on this methodology because it helps reduce demands they take more responsibility for results of outsourcing and transferring industry. It also makes it seem like the paltry increases in job opportunities are having a greater effect than the really are.

Reliable figures should include all possible sources of competition for jobs. For example, we hear complaints about immigrants and their effect on the job market, but where are these figures in relationship to unemployment? They do compete for jobs, regardless if many of those jobs aren't what "citizens" typically desire. The mere competition created by their willingness to work for ANY small amount "under the table" reduces availability for citizens who are willing to work for minimum wage service jobs. There are also many students who "work under the table," as well as those listed as "marginally attached" or "disgusted." Every "under the table" job means one less available for real employment. Those are just a few examples, and still don't address the potential workers who for whatever reason are not "currently seeking work."

Until these kinds of things are part of the overall calculations we really won't have "reliable figures," just blatant propaganda.

Of course the current administration, no matter when "current' happens to be, wants labor statistics to paint as rosy of a picture as possible.

And, of course, the opposition to that administration wants to paint as bleak of a picture as possible.

What does the BLS have to gain by skewing the numbers?
 
Reliable figures should include all possible sources of competition for jobs. For example, we hear complaints about immigrants and their effect on the job market, but where are these figures in relationship to unemployment?
In Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
No questions are asked about immigration status, or taxes, so illegal immigrants and those paid under the table show up in the labor force stats.

Those are just a few examples, and still don't address the potential workers who for whatever reason are not "currently seeking work."
You keep putting that in quotes, implying you don't necessarily believe they're not looking, but you also keep refusing to state why. And you keep ignoring that they are counted and tracked, just not included as unemployed.


Until these kinds of things are part of the overall calculations we really won't have "reliable figures," just blatant propaganda.

But you've said you won't accept a survey. So what source would you accept? Keep in mind it takes 7 months minimum for a full count from UI tax records. And you don't address where Unemployment (however you wish to define it) data would come from.
 
Of course the current administration, no matter when "current' happens to be, wants labor statistics to paint as rosy of a picture as possible.

And, of course, the opposition to that administration wants to paint as bleak of a picture as possible.

What does the BLS have to gain by skewing the numbers?

The BLS is an organ of the Executive branch, not some independent organization. What did the IRS have to gain by cooperating with whichever political party held the White House and instructed them to target their tax investigations?

Simple answer, they do what policy requires of them.
 
Define reliable.

To me, the government is relying on their figures to try to calm citizens down. Hence their obvious attempt to reduce the numbers as much as possible.

Also, to me, Big Business likes to rely on this methodology because it helps mask the effects of outsourcing, transferring industry, calling someone "full-time" when they only work 28 hours a week, and increasing part-time and temp (contract) workers instead of hiring full-timers. It also makes it seem like the paltry increases in job opportunities are having a greater effect than they really are.

Reliable figures should include all possible sources of competition for jobs. For example, we hear complaints about immigrants and their effect on the job market, but where are these figures in relationship to unemployment? They do compete for jobs, regardless if many of those jobs aren't what "citizens" typically desire. The mere competition created by their willingness to work for ANY small amount "under the table" reduces availability for citizens who are willing to work for minimum wage service jobs. There are also many students who "work under the table," as well as those listed as "marginally attached" or "disgusted." Every "under the table" job means one less available for real employment. Those are just a few examples, and still don't address the potential workers who for whatever reason are not "currently seeking work."

Until these kinds of things are part of the overall calculations we really won't have "reliable figures," just blatant propaganda.

My response is the same as above.
 
In Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
No questions are asked about immigration status, or taxes, so illegal immigrants and those paid under the table show up in the labor force stats.

You keep putting that in quotes, implying you don't necessarily believe they're not looking, but you also keep refusing to state why. And you keep ignoring that they are counted and tracked, just not included as unemployed.

But you've said you won't accept a survey. So what source would you accept? Keep in mind it takes 7 months minimum for a full count from UI tax records. And you don't address where Unemployment (however you wish to define it) data would come from.

I appreciate your efforts, and respect them...but you've already heard in this and at least one other thread what I would accept. Going round and round over the same ground serves no useful purpose.
 
The BLS is an organ of the Executive branch, not some independent organization. What did the IRS have to gain by cooperating with whichever political party held the White House and instructed them to target their tax investigations?

Simple answer, they do what policy requires of them.

Neither the executive branch nor the IRS had anything to gain by the latter having embarrassed the former and giving the opposition ammunition to shoot back at them.

While I'm sure that the 7% unemployment figure doesn't tell the whole story, neither does the 47% have full time jobs claim. That's why I've posted all of the figures, so that the members here can draw their own conclusions.

After all figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
 
I appreciate your efforts, and respect them...but you've already heard in this and at least one other thread what I would accept. Going round and round over the same ground serves no useful purpose.

What you would accept is a full census every month...which is ridiculous. Try something realistic.
 
Neither the executive branch nor the IRS had anything to gain by the latter having embarrassed the former and giving the opposition ammunition to shoot back at them.

Perhaps not, but it still happened. Go figure.

Still and all, if you work for me, I set policy. Then you work under that policy or find work elsewhere. The policy used to determine BLS statistics is set by whoever holds the office of Chief Executive and his appointees. The current system satisfies all "interested" parties so it is used.

It does not satisfy me, so I maintain my stance against it's actual value.
 
The BLS is an organ of the Executive branch, not some independent organization.

About BLS
As an independent statistical agency, BLS serves its diverse user communities by providing products and services that are objective, timely, accurate, and relevant.
There is one political appointee in BLS, the commissioner, who is NOT subject to dismissal by the President but appointed for a fixed term. Obama had zero appointees in BLS for his first term and only 2 months ago appointed his first commissioner. No one in the administration has any say in BLS and they are part of the Dept of Labor only in an administrative sense.
 
What you would accept is a full census every month...which is ridiculous. Try something realistic.

No, what I would accept is a figure that excludes only underaged citizens, disabled that are unable to work, soldiers, fully retired persons, prisoners, people in mental or other institutions preventing them from working, and the mentally incapable homeless. There may be one or two more exceptions I have not listed.

Essentially, everyone else not actually working is unemployed. Not hard to figure out.
 
No, what I would accept is a figure that excludes only underaged citizens, disabled that are unable to work, soldiers, fully retired persons, prisoners, people in mental or other institutions preventing them from working, and the mentally incapable homeless. There may be one or two more exceptions I have not listed.

Essentially, everyone else not actually working is unemployed. Not hard to figure out.
And why? What exactly are you trying to measure? The unemployment rate is meant to measure how many people could be working (in reality, not hypothetically) that aren't. You want to include people who don't want to work, or cannot work (for reasons other than disability) as unemployed. Why?

But I was speaking more on collection. You dismiss a sample survey as unreliable, and your only alternative was "tax records" which could not give you the info you want.

But if that's what you want, the info is freely available from BLS.
 
No, it's not. You keep making things up.

Who sets policy? It is an agency under the Department of Labor, headed by the Secretary of Labor, appointed by the President as a part of his cabinet. The Commissioner of Labor Statistics is also an Executive branch appointee.

So, you are saying policy is NOT made by these people?

Hmm, I've seen reports of alleged "fiddling" by the Clinton Administration, regarding household surveys being reduced from 60,000 to 50,000, and figures concerning "disgusted" workers were reduced by 5 million through redefining the period of not seeking. Since I have yet to figure out how to confirm these claims I won't cite them as accurate.

Having little faith in my government and it's obvious submission to banking and corporate interests I personally find some credence in them. I don't require that you do of course.
 
And why? What exactly are you trying to measure? The unemployment rate is meant to measure how many people could be working (in reality, not hypothetically) that aren't. You want to include people who don't want to work, or cannot work (for reasons other than disability) as unemployed. Why?

Again, we've gone over this before. While you may like to keep repeating questions over and over, I do not keep repeating answers to questions I have already responded to more than once. Asked and answered...move on.
 
Again, we've gone over this before. While you may like to keep repeating questions over and over, I do not keep repeating answers to questions I have already responded to more than once. Asked and answered...move on.

No, you have NOT answered them...you have consistantly refused to answer them, as you're doing now.
 
No, you have NOT answered them...you have consistantly refused to answer them, as you're doing now.

I HAVE answered them (even correcting myself when my numerical information was wrong). You just keep refusing to accept my answers. Major difference.
 
Hmm, I've seen reports of alleged "fiddling" by the Clinton Administration, regarding household surveys being reduced from 60,000 to 50,000,
That's not fiddling, that's budget.
and figures concerning "disgusted" workers were reduced by 5 million through redefining the period of not seeking.
From http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_020494.txt
The household survey redesign included a major change in the definition of discouraged workers. Two requirements were added: To be classified as discouraged, one must have searched for work during the prior year and be explicitly reported as currently available for work. Using this new definition, the number of discouraged workers was 600,000 in January, on a not seasonally adjusted basis. (See table A-8.) Under the former, less restrictive definition, the number of discouraged workers had held steady at about 1.1 million (seasonally adjusted) for over 2 years.
So your source misplaced the decimal point....500,000, not 5,000,000

Of course, that change was officially recommended by the Levitan Commission in 1979, (and the recommendation was for a 6 month cutoff for job search) so isn't really Clinton administration fiddling. And of course, it had zero effect on the official unemployment rate.
 
That's not fiddling, that's budget....Of course, that change was officially recommended by the Levitan Commission in 1979, (and the recommendation was for a 6 month cutoff for job search) so isn't really Clinton administration fiddling. And of course, it had zero effect on the official unemployment rate.

Of course it had "zero effect on the unemployment rate," the unemployment rate is government propaganda. As long as you buy into it, nothing is going to have an effect on what they want you to focus on.

I simply don't buy into it. I know there are people out there being dismissed simply because people like you want to buy into the government's excuse that "they don't want to work." They've tried, they keep getting denied, they get frustrated and turn to other means of support, i.e. under the table work, crime, welfare, homelessness.

But people like you don't care...it's completely their fault, because they could find work if they really really tried. So what if there are not enough jobs by an order of magnitude with multitudes competing for each of them? So what if there are undocumented persons also taking even under-the-table jobs away in construction, food and other services? So what if we have students popping in and out too, thinking they can get a little extra spending cash. So what if spouses fill out applications then change their minds.

Who cares that its a buyers market, and employers toss 90% of applications through their own inner triage methods before even bothering to interview? If you can't find a job "its your own damn fault?"

Screw that! If you want to deal with unemployment deal with REAL FIGURES! Who is out there capable of entering the workforce and do we have enough jobs for them? THAT is REAL unemployment. Nothing you can say, statistics be damned, will change this reality.
 
Ahem.







Someone...just got served.
 
Back
Top Bottom