Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84

Thread: There are 466,000 LESS Americans employed now then in September - BLS

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    4,051
    Thanks
    2,109
    Thanked 1,113 Times in 890 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 144 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    You said that before, but then did not keep your word.

    Do you mean it this time?
    Maybe now I see your point.

    'We are done here' means EXACTLY what it says.

    We ARE done here...in this thread.
    Not on the entire, fucking board.


    I would have thought you had the common sense to figure that out.
    I see I was wrong.


    Now piss off and go and get a job.
    Or do SOMETHING that is of ANY use.
    Even old losers like you can get a simple, minimum wage job.
    So stop boozing, get off your fat ass and go and make some money.
    Or - at the very least - stop insulting your wife whom is your SOLE source of income (outside of welfare).
    Loser.
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-04-2022 at 05:46 PM.

  2. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    For a scholarly discussion on the this topic from people who actually understand it....

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...f-jobs-created

  3. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post


    School is in

    I have almost no respect for the Establishment Survey.
    Because the BLS freely admits that they MASSIVELY modify those numbers using the 'Birth-Death model'.
    https://www.bls.gov/ces/methods/ces-...birthdeath.htm
    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm
    Every month, the Establishment Survey posts a number that is NOT the number they actually got from the survey.
    It's almost, pure garbage.

    The Household Survey undergoes some modifications (seasonal adjustment, for one).
    But otherwise, it is far closer to the numbers that they tabulated from the surveys.
    It is FAR more reliable than the Establishment Survey...though macroeconomic ignoramuses and bureaucrats will tell you otherwise.

    And the Employment-Population Ratio undergoes ZERO modifications.
    It simply takes one group of numbers and divides them in to another group of numbers.
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e...tion_ratio.asp

    School is out.


    The unemployment rate, the employment-population ratio and the HS employment numbers ALL say that employment has gotten worse in the last two months.
    Yet you knuckleheads (probably Bidenbots), choose to ignore ALL of that?
    And, instead, believe the Establishment Survey - which is massively altered by the Birth-Death model.

    Imbecilic masses.


    We are done here.

    Good day.


    Once again, I DESPISE both parties.
    F
    You go to school and promptly fail all your courses. I am curious how you think the Household survey calculates the population over 16. The use the same birth-death model since they do not call every household in the US. I showed that the CHS shows that November had better employment than August. The .1% change isn't indicative of any trend but is just noise.


    3 data points that are well within the margin of error shouldn't be used to show a trend. Anyone that does so is ignorant of statistics. Calculate the trend using the last 10-12 months. There is no actual trend. There is just you using statistical noise claiming it shows a trend.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    LV426 (12-05-2022)

  5. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    4,051
    Thanks
    2,109
    Thanked 1,113 Times in 890 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 144 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    F
    You go to school and promptly fail all your courses. I am curious how you think the Household survey calculates the population over 16. The use the same birth-death model since they do not call every household in the US.
    WRONG!!!
    You just made that ENTIRE, shit up.

    The BLS uses the CES Net Birth-Death model ONLY for the Establishment Survey.

    'Currently, the CES sample includes about 131,000 businesses and government agencies drawn from a sampling frame of Unemployment Insurance tax accounts which cover approximately 670,000 individual worksites.'
    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm

    They do NOT use this model - or any similar model - on the Household Survey.


    Okay, Mr. Expert?

    Post a link on the BLS website that factually proves that they use 'the same' 'CES Net Birth-Death Model' for the Household Survey?



    If you can't (and you will not be able to - btw).
    Then you will prove that your ENTIRE statement above is made up and you know dick on this subject.
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-05-2022 at 02:37 PM.

  6. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    4,051
    Thanks
    2,109
    Thanked 1,113 Times in 890 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 144 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    3 data points that are well within the margin of error shouldn't be used to show a trend. Anyone that does so is ignorant of statistics. Calculate the trend using the last 10-12 months. There is no actual trend. There is just you using statistical noise claiming it shows a trend.
    Are you saying that is impossible to have a trend over two months?

    Yes or no?



    BTW - if you answer 'yes'?
    You prove that you are - quite possibly - stupid.
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-05-2022 at 01:23 PM.

  7. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Apparently this asshole has never heard about layoffs and retirements.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  8. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    WRONG!!!
    You just made that ENTIRE shit up.

    The BLS uses the CES Net Birth-Death model ONLY for the Establishment Survey.

    'Currently, the CES sample includes about 131,000 businesses and government agencies drawn from a sampling frame of Unemployment Insurance tax accounts which cover approximately 670,000 individual worksites.'
    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm

    They do NOT use this model - or any similar model - on the Household Survey.


    Okay doofus?

    Post a link on the BLS website that factually proves that they use 'the same' 'CES Net Birth-Death Model' for the Household Survey?



    If you can't (and you will not be able to - btw).
    Then you will prove that your ENTIRE statement above is bullshit, you just made it up and you know dick on this subject.
    How do you think the CHS gets its population numbers if they don't use the birth/death model? Do you think they just pull random numbers out of a hat?

    Population controls in the household survey

    Population controls are independent estimates of population used to weight the household survey sample results to reflect the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and older. The U.S. Census Bureau develops the population controls. They are based on decennial census population counts, supplemented with birth and death data and estimates of net international migration.
    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_c...s.htm#concepts

    By the way... the household survey also says this on the same page.
    Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level
    ± 500,000
    The survey clearly says a change of under 500,000 is statistically insignificant and shouldn't be taken as anything other than noise.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  9. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    4,051
    Thanks
    2,109
    Thanked 1,113 Times in 890 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 144 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Apparently this asshole has never heard about layoffs and retirements.


    This emotionally-disturbed woman who - on numerous occasions - has freely admits that she 'hates ALL children'?

    Apparently has no idea how ridiculous her statement is.

    Whatever.

  10. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    This emotionally-disturbed woman who - on numerous occasions - has freely admits that she 'hates ALL children'?
    Nice red herring to avoid dealing with me tearing your shitty post apart with ease.

    What a loser and crybaby.

    BTW - I thought you put me on Ignore. Or was that just you talking out of your ass again?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  11. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Apparently has no idea how ridiculous her statement is.
    You can't handle the fact that you're full of shit here, so you try to distract people with pointless red herrings.

    I see right fuckin' through it.

    You're a coward...and you know it too.

    That's why you're so angry all the time.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  12. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    4,051
    Thanks
    2,109
    Thanked 1,113 Times in 890 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 144 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    How do you think the CHS gets its population numbers if they don't use the birth/death model? Do you think they just pull random numbers out of a hat?
    Who or what the heck is the 'CHS'?



    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_c...s.htm#concepts

    By the way... the household survey also says this on the same page.


    The survey clearly says a change of under 500,000 is statistically insignificant and shouldn't be taken as anything other than noise.

    My question to you was:

    'Post a link on the BLS website that factually proves that they use 'the same' 'CES Net Birth-Death Model' for the Household Survey?

    If you can't (and you will not be able to - btw).
    Then you will prove that your ENTIRE statement above is bullshit and you know dick on this subject.'



    You failed to post said link (because no such link exists).
    Which proves you made up your entire, earlier point that I highlighted.


    On top of which - as I assumed - you do not have the guts to admit that no such link exists.
    Instead?
    You try to strawman your way out of your mistake.


    We are done on this point.
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-05-2022 at 02:54 PM.

  13. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    4,051
    Thanks
    2,109
    Thanked 1,113 Times in 890 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 144 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Nice red herring to avoid dealing with me tearing your shitty post apart with ease.

    What a loser and crybaby.

    BTW - I thought you put me on Ignore. Or was that just you talking out of your ass again?
    You don't seriously expect me to read your reply posts to me...do you?
    You HATE ALL CHILDREN!!!

    You are a seriously-disturbed woman.
    Why would I converse with the likes of you?

    Answer - I would not (unless, maybe, I was INCREDIBLY bored...which I am not).


    GET HELP!
    ONLY A SICK PERSON 'HATES ALL CHILDREN'!
    I MEAN IT!!!
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-05-2022 at 03:04 PM.

  14. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Are you saying that is impossible to have a trend over two months?

    Yes or no?



    BTW - if you answer 'yes'?
    You prove that you are - quite possibly - stupid.
    2 data points don't make a trend. You normally should have 6-7 depending on the accuracy of the data. Two data points within the margin of error certainly don't show a trend.
    Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level
    ± 500,000
    You are attempting to claim that something that is statistically insignificant is a trend when the reality is that the numbers are statistically the same. If you see a change of 1,000,000 then it would be statistically significant but you still can't call it a trend since it could be the result of error or an event that will quickly be over such as a major weather event causing a week of people not working.

    The one thing to look for is in the next 2-3 months we should see all the announced layoffs start to show up in the data. Large companies are required to give 2-3 month notices by law before layoffs. Several companies have done that, Amazon, Google, and Twitter. We should start to see those numbers in January and February as the layoffs occur. Then the question will be whether all those people quickly find a job or show up in the numbers for several months. That will show if there is a trend.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  15. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Who or what the heck is the 'CHS'?

    CPS is the Household Survey. (I wrote it as CHS, thinking household.)


    My question to you was:

    'Post a link on the BLS website that factually proves that they use 'the same' 'CES Net Birth-Death Model' for the Household Survey?

    If you can't (and you will not be able to - btw).
    Then you will prove that your ENTIRE statement above is bullshit and you know dick on this subject.'



    You failed to post said link (because no such link exists).
    Which proves you made up your entire, earlier point that I highlighted.


    On top of which - as I assumed - you do not have the guts to admit that no such link exists.
    Instead?
    You try to strawman your way out of your mistake.


    We are done on this point.
    It looks like there are 2 birth/death statistics used. Birth/death of businesses and birth/death of population. I assumed you were talking about the latter. My mistake.

    Now your turn to admit your mistake in calling 2 datapoints within the margin of error a trend.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  16. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    4,051
    Thanks
    2,109
    Thanked 1,113 Times in 890 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 144 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    2 data points don't make a trend. You normally should have 6-7 depending on the accuracy of the data.
    WRONG!!!

    'trend
    n.
    1. A general tendency or course of events: a warming trend. See Synonyms at tendency.
    2. Current style; vogue: the latest trend in fashion.
    3. The general direction of something: the river's southern trend.'


    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/trend

    There is NO such thing as a minimum, time frame required for something to become a 'trend'.

    Again...you are obviously just guessing/making shit up as you go.

    And tossing out random stats and saying: 'HERE!'
    Even when they prove little/nothing.


    You are OBVIOUSLY yet ANOTHER Bidenbot who goes all to pieces, if anyone posts data that makes the Senile-One look bad.
    Whereas I DESPISE both parties...and have zero, political biases.


    Go and waste someone else's time.


    We are done here.

    Good day.
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-05-2022 at 03:23 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. A record number of Americans quit their jobs in September
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 11-12-2021, 08:27 PM
  2. 44% of Fully Employed Make less then $18.000 a Year
    By katzgar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 12-20-2019, 11:51 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-02-2019, 08:49 AM
  4. I see employed people
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-28-2012, 07:26 AM
  5. 1 in 7 Mexican workers employed in the U.S.
    By NewsBoy in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-2006, 06:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •