Hating Obama

[Lagboltz]

The bureau of labor statistics defines it's methodology. They publish far more that just an unemployment rate and net increase/decrease in seasonally adjusted jobs. They even publish a different rate that's closer to the actual unemployment rate. Next time go read the report instead of the headline.

The same can be said for Bush. My argument stands. If you disagree why don't you go read the report and get back to me.

 

[dogtowner]

The same can be said for Bush. My argument stands. If you disagree why don't you go read the report and get back to me.

I review it and when the went down for him the labortion partition was not pushing record lows.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 

[Lagboltz]

I review it and when the went down for him the labortion partition was not pushing record lows.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

So the labor force participation rate dropped 3.5%. That still doesn't prove anything. What has to be taken into account is the population increase of the labor force in the last 8 years, and the retirement rate, and other data to get the overall picture of how many potential workers gave up.

 

[dogtowner]

So the labor force participation rate dropped 3.5%. That still doesn't prove anything. What has to be taken into account is the population increase of the labor force in the last 8 years, and the retirement rate, and other data to get the overall picture of how many potential workers gave up.

No. But you clearly prefer willfull ignorance.

 

[PLC1]

Note: The unemployment rate is calculated the same way it has always been calculated. If you don't think it's accurate, then you could make a case. If you want to come up with a new way to calculate it, then wring your hands over how it is really so much higher than it was in the past, that can't be supported. If we're to compare the unemployment rate over time and see what the trends are, then we have to use the same formula every time, otherwise there is no baseline to compare it to.

So, deciding to re calculate the unemployment rate, then compare the new formula to the old result is simply a way of attempting to convince people that the economy is a lot worse than it really is. Why would anyone do that, anyway? Are we trying to discredit the president, who has little control over unemployment anyway?

 

[Lagboltz]

No. But you clearly prefer willfull ignorance.

I would say the same for you. There is more to it than you want to go into.
My response is the same as PLC1 above.

 

[dogtowner]

Note: The unemployment rate is calculated the same way it has always been calculated. If you don't think it's accurate, then you could make a case. If you want to come up with a new way to calculate it, then wring your hands over how it is really so much higher than it was in the past, that can't be supported. If we're to compare the unemployment rate over time and see what the trends are, then we have to use the same formula every time, otherwise there is no baseline to compare it to.

So, deciding to re calculate the unemployment rate, then compare the new formula to the old result is simply a way of attempting to convince people that the economy is a lot worse than it really is. Why would anyone do that, anyway? Are we trying to discredit the president, who has little control over unemployment anyway?

We all know the formula is relatively constant, not arguing that, merely pointed out that BLS publishes more than one unemployment rate. The media generally only reports one as the other is higher and so less attractive. Their monthly reports contain lots of information but media has a penchant for the factoid so all we typically hear us the rate and the seasonally adjusted net plus/minus.