• 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?

Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...
What I find interesting is that you held this position, then made it clear in other threads that you didn't actually know anything about how the UE rate was collected or constructed or who was included. So it seems that your position has never been based on facts, reasoning, or careful analysis, but rather knee-jerk bias.

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."
Click to expand...
Excuse? Someone classified as "does not want a job" if they say "I don't want a job." If they say they want a job, they're classified as "Persons who currently want a job. So how are they being "dismissed" and how is it an "excuse?" I don't get the whole "dismissed" thing either because how a person is classified in the Labor Force Statistics has zero affect at all on the person.

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.
Click to expand...
All of them? Everyone classified as "does not want a job?" Those you are talking about (though under the table work would be "employed" because they're working) would say they want a job and then asked their reasons for not looking.

But people like you don't care...it's completely their fault, because they could find work if they really really tried.
Click to expand...
Your ESP sucks. I've never said anything that could possibly be interpreted that way, so you must have been relying on your mind reading skills...which suck.

First of all, we're talking about measuring the economy here. "Fault" is irrelevant. It makes no difference at all in compiling the stats whose fault anything is.


So what if there are undocumented persons also taking even under-the-table jobs away in construction, food and other services?
Click to expand...
You realize thoe would all be counted as Employed. They're not excluded from the labor force stats.

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.
Click to expand...
What about them? When they're in the labor force, they're in, when they're out, they're out. I'm not sure what your point is
If you can't find a job "its your own damn fault?"
Click to expand...
Besides being nothing like I've ever said or implied, what does that have to do with an objective measure of the labor market?
Who is out there capable of entering the workforce and do we have enough jobs for them?
Click to expand...
And why is "capable" more objective and accurate than "wants to and fails?"

THAT is REAL unemployment. Nothing you can say, statistics be damned, will change this reality.
Click to expand...
And it doesn't bother you at all that no one actually educated in this field agrees with you? No economist, regardless of political affiliation, would agree.
 
pinqy said:
What I find interesting is that you held this position, then made it clear in other threads that you didn't actually know anything about how the UE rate was collected or constructed or who was included. So it seems that your position has never been based on facts, reasoning, or careful analysis, but rather knee-jerk bias.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it might seem that way. But prior to my "education" in this area I had plenty of empirical evidence to draw upon, and after my current "education" I see nothing in your "figures" that serves to change my mind.

The rest of your post is blah blah blah B/S not serving to address the issue of real unemployment. I've gone over most of it with you already, I'm not going to do so again. Stick to your propaganda twisted statistics, I'll keep arguing reality. Skipping to the end now.... :)

pinqy said:
And it doesn't bother you at all that no one actually educated in this field agrees with you? No economist, regardless of political affiliation, would agree.
Click to expand...

Really? I seriously doubt that NO ONE in the ENTIRE FIELD would not agree. That's a pretty bold statement. You personally know everyone in the field? Amazing. In any case thats an appeal to authority fallacy coupled with an appeal to the people fallacy. Besides which, those "political economists" of your stripe get paid to support this crap, or hope to get a job working for whoever pushes it. (Thats MY opinion, not an appeal to any other source).

I'm done with you, there's nothing else we have to say to each other.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Really? I seriously doubt that NO ONE in the ENTIRE FIELD would not agree.
Click to expand...

Find one, then. Good luck with that. Perhaps you'll get lucky and find some hack with no standing in the field of economics. But otherwise...no. No one would support your position because it is fundamentally against the most basic concepts of economics.
 
pinqy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Go fish..

From the BLS via the Fed.
Working-age Population in the United States (USAWFPNA) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom