Top Obama aide: Jobless rate may grow in coming months

[EnigmaO01]

it wont go up if he keeps making up statistics

Au contraire mon fraire. The Bush administration was the one that manipulated stats as in hiding the war spending. This one puts them out for everyone to see. Which do you prefer?

 

[obvious Child]

Au contraire mon fraire. The Bush administration was the one that manipulated stats as in hiding the war spending. This one puts them out for everyone to see. Which do you prefer?

To be fair, Bush was just following the steps of Clinton who kept significant monies off the government's balance sheet. We really haven't had a good set of accounting principles and clean books in federal government for a very long time. Complaining about it now seems like you missed the party by several decades.

 

[EnigmaO01]

To be fair, Bush was just following the steps of Clinton who kept significant monies off the government's balance sheet. We really haven't had a good set of accounting principles and clean books in federal government for a very long time. Complaining about it now seems like you missed the party by several decades.

Are you referring to me?

If so, I'm not complaining, Seems to me I was just responding to the complaint, "if he keeps making up statistics."

And sorry the excuse that Clinton did it, so you can't blame Bush is really lame. Bush didn't have to do anything the way Clinton did and in many respects did not as our deficit skyrocketed under Bush.

 

[Conservative]

hy⋅po⋅thet⋅i⋅cal
  /ˌhaɪpəˈθɛtɪkəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl] Show IPA
Use hypothetical in a Sentence
See web results for hypothetical
See images of hypothetical
–adjective
1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
3. given to making hypotheses.
4. Logic.
a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.

Jesus Boy. Can you understand the written English language?

While I realize you have a real hard problem answering questions, here it is again:

If the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost?

You really are a legend in your own mind. Not sure what this jibberish is above is about but you obviously cannot read a chart. The labor force dropped in November. First of all how can that be? Second a lower labor force and lower unemployment dropped the unemployment rate .2% that will be adjusted upwards later although even at 10% is too high. Not sure why anyone is trumpeting a reduction in the unemployment rate down to 10% and not paying any attention to the drop in labor force.

 

[obvious Child]

Still no answer to this:

If the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost?

And I'm still waiting for you to argue why increasing M0 during inflationary periods is a good thing.

 

[Conservative]

Still no answer to this:

If the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost?

And I'm still waiting for you to argue why increasing M0 during inflationary periods is a good thing.

What does any of that have to do with the chart I posted. The labor force DID NOT STAY THE SAME, it dropped. Why? Where did those workers go?

 

[Kushinator]

Where did those workers go?

That is rather obvious though. They are no longer seeking employment.

 

[Conservative]

That is rather obvious though. They are no longer seeking employment.

Exactly, you figured it out, Obvious hasn't yet thus the foolish statement he made.

 

[obvious Child]

And Conservative still doesn't understand what "hypothetical" means.

Still waiting on these:

If the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost?

Notice, I never argued that the current work force numbers stayed the same. Perhaps you need remedial English?

And I'm still waiting for you to argue why increasing M0 during inflationary periods is a good thing.

 

[Conservative]

And Conservative still doesn't understand what "hypothetical" means.

Still waiting on these:

If the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost?

Notice, I never argued that the current work force numbers stayed the same. Perhaps you need remedial English?

And I'm still waiting for you to argue why increasing M0 during inflationary periods is a good thing.

You say IF the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost. It doesn't but that isn't what happened in November.

You seem to have a serious comprehension problem and divert from what I posted and believe that makes your point. You should seek some help and focus more on answering direct questions than changing to another issue.

In November, the civilian work force number dropped as did the number of unemployed. I asked why the drop in labor force and as usual got no answer from you. Had the labor force remained the same the unempoyment rate wouldn't have dropped at all.

For some reason you have problems answering direct questions.

 

[obvious Child]

You say IF the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost. It doesn't but that isn't what happened in November.

Did I say it happened in November? No. I didn't.

You seem to have a serious comprehension problem and divert from what I posted and believe that makes your point. You should seek some help and focus more on answering direct questions than changing to another issue.

Is your name Strucky? No.

Did I address that post to you? No.

Reading comprehension you say?

For some reason you have problems answering direct questions.

Well, you would know. :rofl

 

[drz-400]

Here are the numbers

QTR 2 QTR3 Sept Oct Nov
Civilian labor force ....| 154,912| 154,362| 154,006| 153,975| 153,877| -
Employment ............| 140,591| 139,518| 138,864| 138,275| 138,502|
Unemployment ..........| 14,321| 14,844| 15,142| 15,700| 15,375| -

15.375 Million unemployed workers in November and the labor force was reduced. How do you explain that?, looks like the stimulus is working, cutting the labor force and increasing unemployment.

Dude, look at it.

The labor force dropped by 98. Unemployment dropped by 325.

325-98=227

This should be how many jobs were created.

138,275 + 227 = 138,502 Yep it checks out.

Of course you could have also just looked at your chart and seen employment also increased.

Unemployment went down and the labor force got smaller. However, unemployment dropped more than the labor force, thereforefore jobs were created in November.

This is a turn around, at least for november, since during september and october your employment row was showing a decrease in employment.

There are many causes for people dropping out of the labor force, they retire, they are not looking for a job anymore, they move out of the county. The key thing is that they are not actively seeking employment. Right now I would agree with you, most are probobly being discurraged because they can't find work. However, employment went up, so in november, the people who made this decision were in the minority.

 

[Conservative]

Did I say it happened in November? No. I didn't.

No, you didn't say it, but that is exactly what happened. Learn to read

 

[obvious Child]

No, you didn't say it, but that is exactly what happened. Learn to read

So you don't actually care what I say. You just bash me on things you make up that I never argued and pretend my entire argument wasn't hypothetical.

Sounds like a formerly banned user has registered a new handle considering what he did in the past prior to his banning.

 

[Conservative]

So you don't actually care what I say. You just bash me on things you make up that I never argued and pretend my entire argument wasn't hypothetical.

Sounds like a formerly banned user has registered a new handle considering what he did in the past prior to his banning.

You are absolutely amazing. I posted a chart from BLS showing the civilian labor force dropping in November and the unemployment number dropping as well. That was the issue so stop playing liberal games of diverting.

What exactly does this have to do with the facts from November 2009?

"You say IF the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost."

You did mention that the unemployment rate dropped and the reality is if the people that dropped out of the civilian labor force in November were added back in where they belong in the unemployed group, the unemployment rate would not have dropped. Further there are millions more unemployed now than in January after the Stimulus Plan was created and passed hardly an endorsement of the massive govt. spending

 

[Whip Comes Down]

You are absolutely amazing. I posted a chart from BLS showing the civilian labor force dropping in November and the unemployment number dropping as well. That was the issue so stop playing liberal games of diverting.

What exactly does this have to do with the facts from November 2009?

"You say IF the work force stays the same, but unemployment goes down, how does that equate to more jobs being lost."

You did mention that the unemployment rate dropped and the reality is if the people that dropped out of the civilian labor force in November were added back in where they belong in the unemployed group, the unemployment rate would not have dropped. Further there are millions more unemployed now than in January after the Stimulus Plan was created and passed hardly an endorsement of the massive govt. spending

Your theory is bogus.

 

[drz-400]

You did mention that the unemployment rate dropped and the reality is if the people that dropped out of the civilian labor force in November were added back in where they belong in the unemployed group, the unemployment rate would not have dropped.

Actually, unemployment would have still dropped according to your numbers, hence my earlier post. I think it would also be fair to say that not all of the civilians that left the labor force left because they got discouraged. I am sure some people did retire in november. So, in reality the number of discouraged workers that left the civilian work force is not as high as all the workers that left the civilian workforce.

Anyways, obvious childs hypothetical did not fit the current situation, but is correct if that situation did arise.

Can we all be happy now?:mrgreen:

 

[Strucky]

Your theory is bogus.

In which way?

 

[Conservative]

Your theory is bogus.

Your one line responses are lame

 

[obvious Child]

I make a hypothetical based on pure math and all you do is bash me on your own fabricated arguments. Where have I seen this before?

Hello Truth Detector. How has your time away from DP been since your banning?

 

[Conservative]

I make a hypothetical based on pure math and all you do is bash me on your own fabricated arguments. Where have I seen this before?

Hello Truth Detector. How has your time away from DP been since your banning?

I have no idea who Truth Detector is but I do know a dodge when I see one. I posted the BLS chart showing a reduction in the labor force and a reduction in the number of unemployed. You ignored what actually happened and put up a hypothetical that doesn't reflect what is happening now. That is what you do best, divert.

 

[obvious Child]

Do you ever stop lying?

Did I argue that the hypothetical happened? No.
Did I argue that the BLS numbers are wrong? No.

And this is exactly what TD did to me. He fabricated obvious lies and bashed me on them.

 

[Conservative]

Do you ever stop lying?

Did I argue that the hypothetical happened? No.
Did I argue that the BLS numbers are wrong? No.

And this is exactly what TD did to me. He fabricated obvious lies and bashed me on them.

Lying? Sounds like a personal attack to me yet you claim I make personal attacks.

Obviously obvious you have no interest in honest debate and do your best to turn everything around. Just a suggestion start back at the beginning of this thread and let's see who really got off track here.

No, you didn't argue that the hypothetical happened, you gave a hypothetical response which didn't respond to the facts posted. The chart from BLS showed a reduction in the civilian labor force and a reduction in unemployment showing people actually dropping out of labor market. Regardless of the issue the unemployment rate is over 10 percent and will continue to grow as the blog topic states.

The BLS numbers are the best we have and present preliminary then final numbers. The preliminary numbers normally are released the first Friday of the month and the revisions are announced the next month. Seldom does the final revised number get much press.

Bottomline, unemployment is too high and rising. The govt. spending will not stem this tide as it will take private business to do it.

 

[obvious Child]

Obviously obvious you have no interest in honest debate and do your best to turn everything around. Just a suggestion start back at the beginning of this thread and let's see who really got off track here.

Interesting coming from a user who refuses to meet the burden of proof and insults everyone who asks him to support his argument.

No, you didn't argue that the hypothetical happened, you gave a hypothetical response which didn't respond to the facts posted.

Did I argue it was suppose to? No.

I made a clear mathematical example of what would constitute an increase in jobs.

You replied with a series of posts endless attacking me personally, many of which were based on outright lies. The exact same behavior TD made to my posts prior to his banning.