Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 84

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

  1. #61 | 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
    You don't seriously expect me to read your reply posts to me...do you?
    LMAO! I know you're reading the posts because your responses are all distractions. I'm so deeply under your skin that you have to lie to me that I'm not.


    You HATE ALL CHILDREN!!!
    Yep.


    You are a seriously-disturbed woman.
    You're the one who supports pulling down kids' pants for the pleasure of pervert Conservatives.


    Why would i converse with the likes of you?
    Because you are insecure and desperate to get the last word in.

    You use my hatred of children as an excuse to avoid debate that you know you're going to lose because you're a dumbass who supports perverted policies like genital inspections.


    GET HELP BEFORE YOU INJURE/KILL A CHILD.
    I'm not the one who thinks we should pull down kids' pants and inspect their genitals.

    But you are.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    arguing economics with liberals is like wrestling a greased pig.
    you just get dirty and they like it.

    they still think Clinton balanced the budget.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  3. #63 | 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!!!

    '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.
    Ok. I guess we can all agree that you are an idiot. Statistics have standards for what is considered a trend. The standard is that 6-7 data points are usually required unless the accuracy of the data is very good. The household survey has a margin of error of 500,000 for 90% confidence level. That means anyone that is reasonable intelligent would know that 2 numbers that are statistically the same do not show a trend up or down.
    "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. #64 | 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

    Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy View Post
    arguing economics with liberals is like wrestling a greased pig.
    you just get dirty and they like it.

    they still think Clinton balanced the budget.
    Presidents can't 'balance a budget' on their own, but there were budget surpluses in multiple years under Clinton. You didn't know that? Wow.

  5. #65 | 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

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Ok. I guess we can all agree that you are an idiot. Statistics have standards for what is considered a trend. The standard is that 6-7 data points are usually required unless the accuracy of the data is very good. The household survey has a margin of error of 500,000 for 90% confidence level. That means anyone that is reasonable intelligent would know that 2 numbers that are statistically the same do not show a trend up or down.
    The last line is a key. The household survey has a very large margin for error with respect to the raw numbers. Which is why it is intended for one purpose, to establish the working status of Americans. It is not, and never has been a measure of job creation. McRocket thinks he is an economic genius, but it's obvious he is simply parroting the notoriously far right pro-Putin website zero hedge. He is clueless.

    And the statement that a trend can be established with two data points is laughable. He must have flunked statistics as well as economics.

  6. #66 | 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

    Ok, so I am bored.

    You want to get into this?
    Let's do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Ok. I guess we can all agree that you are an idiot.
    Wrong.

    My government tested IQ is 125.
    That is at the 95 percentile.
    https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx
    And I have a BS in Economics.

    What is your IQ and schooling?

    Statistics have standards for what is considered a trend. The standard is that 6-7 data points are usually required unless the accuracy of the data is very good.
    Post a link from an unbiased source that proves that 2 months of macroeconomic data is NOT considered a 'very good' trend - by Wall Street standards?

    The household survey has a margin of error of 500,000 for 90% confidence level.
    Post a link to an UNBIASED source that factually proves that the Establishment Survey is significantly, more accurate than the Household Survey?

    That means anyone that is reasonable intelligent would know that 2 numbers that are statistically the same do not show a trend up or down.
    True or False - does Wall Street often move significantly, STRICTLY on ONE, BLS/other data point?
    True or False?



    And you still have not answered this question definitively?
    You said the following above:

    'The use the same birth-death model since they do not call every household in the US.'

    Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the BLS uses their CES Birth-Death Model on the Household Survey?
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-06-2022 at 01:44 PM.

  7. #67 | 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
    Ok, so I am bored.

    You want to get into this?
    Let's do it.



    Wrong.

    My government tested IQ is 125.
    That is at the 95 percentile.
    https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx
    And I have a BS in Economics.

    What is your IQ and schooling?
    Congratulations on posting a meaningless number on the internet. IQ really has little to do with whether someone can think critically or not. Lots of smart people believe lots of specious things. IQ basically tests 3 things, verbal skills, math skills and spatial skills. One can be a genius in one of the 3 areas and average in the other 2 and still have an IQ of 125. The last time I had my IQ tested it was 22 points higher than yours if you really want to know.
    I have 30 years of market watching and trading.

    Post a link from an unbiased source that proves that 2 months of macroeconomic data is NOT considered a 'very good' trend - by Wall Street standards?
    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_c...s.htm#concepts
    About halfway down is a table comparing the household survey with the employment survey. Look at the line titled Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level The requirement for the change to be significant under the CPS is 500,000. You are claiming a change of 466,000 is significant when statistically it clearly isn't based on the methods of the numbers you are using. This is the people that produce the numbers saying 466,000 is not a significant change. You have also ignored the fact that the number for November is less than 50,000 different than the August numbers.


    Post a link to an UNBIASED source that factually proves that the Establishment Survey is significantly, more accurate than the Household Survey?
    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_c...s.htm#concepts
    About halfway down is a table comparing the household survey with the employment survey. Look at the line titled Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level The payroll survey is statistically significant with a change of 120,000 compared to the 500,000 for the household.


    True or False - does Wall Street often move significantly, STRICTLY on ONE, BLS/other data point?
    True or False?
    You confuse emotional reaction trading (betting) with trading based on a careful examination of the data. When data comes out in the morning the market will often jump one way or the other based on the headline number but then when the numbers are examined more closely it will often swing back the other way. Buy on the rumor, sell on the news can often be a big part of this. Stocks are bought or shorted based on the prediction of a number and then the positions are closed on the news.


    And you still have not answered this question definitively?
    You said the following above:

    'The use the same birth-death model since they do not call every household in the US.'

    Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the BLS uses their CES Birth-Death Model on the Household Survey?
    If you go read your original link to birth-death it nowhere mentions birth-death of companies so I assumed it was talking birth-death population. I already explained that to you once. If that is too hard for you to understand since you only have an IQ of 125, let me know and I will simplify it for you.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

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

  8. #68 | 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
    Congratulations on posting a meaningless number on the internet. IQ really has little to do with whether someone can think critically or not. Lots of smart people believe lots of specious things. IQ basically tests 3 things, verbal skills, math skills and spatial skills. One can be a genius in one of the 3 areas and average in the other 2 and still have an IQ of 125. The last time I had my IQ tested it was 22 points higher than yours if you really want to know.
    I have 30 years of market watching and trading.
    So you deride IQ testing.
    And then you brag about yours.

    (and your tests were obviously some online 'Test Your IQ' nonsense)

    My tests (several of them) were by/for the government.
    (though - granted - I cannot prove it without showing my name)

    And what is your education I asked?
    Not 'how long you have been watching CNBC'.

    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_c...s.htm#concepts
    About halfway down is a table comparing the household survey with the employment survey. Look at the line titled Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level The requirement for the change to be significant under the CPS is 500,000. You are claiming a change of 466,000 is significant when statistically it clearly isn't based on the methods of the numbers you are using. This is the people that produce the numbers saying 466,000 is not a significant change. You have also ignored the fact that the number for November is less than 50,000 different than the August numbers.
    STRAWMAN!!!
    See?
    You either deliberately posted a strawman?
    And/or you did not understand my question.

    Your answer and your link have almost, NOTHING to do with my question.
    The BLS is a government agency.
    It is NOT...Wall Street (i.e. the major, US, private business sector).


    I will ask again:

    Post a link from an unbiased source that proves that 2 months of macroeconomic data is NOT considered a 'very good' trend - by Wall Street standards?


    https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_c...s.htm#concepts
    About halfway down is a table comparing the household survey with the employment survey. Look at the line titled Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level The payroll survey is statistically significant with a change of 120,000 compared to the 500,000 for the household.
    I said from an 'unbiased' source.
    The BLS is STAGGERINGLY biased.
    They are under the Department of Labor.
    Headed by the Secretary of Labor.
    Obviously, the Secretary puts pressure on the BLS to put out statistics that put the POTUS/economy in the best possible light (without lying).

    That is why in 1994, Clinton got the BLS to change the unemployment rate (today's 'U-3') to not include 'discouraged workers'...to make the UR look far better than it really is.
    https://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/d...#ixzz29UY5x2Ns
    He, obviously, DELIBERATELY got the BLS to manipulate the data to make the economy look healthier than it was.

    Surely, you are not so INCREDIBLY naive at your age (and experience?) to actually believe that the Department of Labor's, BLS is 'unbiased' about their OWN statistics....
    Or do you automatically believe, everything a company/government entity says about the exactitude of their OWN statistics?

    Post a link to an UNBIASED source that factually proves that the Establishment Survey is significantly, more accurate than the Household Survey?




    You confuse emotional reaction trading (betting) with trading based on a careful examination of the data. When data comes out in the morning the market will often jump one way or the other based on the headline number but then when the numbers are examined more closely it will often swing back the other way. Buy on the rumor, sell on the news can often be a big part of this. Stocks are bought or shorted based on the prediction of a number and then the positions are closed on the news.
    STRAWMAN!!!

    I confused nothing (in this regard).
    ALL, human-instigated trades are at least, partially based on emotion.
    And even the trading computer programs are written by humans to take emotional responses, to various data, into account.
    If you have not learned that - you know little/nothing about equity trading.

    It is a simple question.
    Requiring only a one word answer.

    True or False - does Wall Street often move significantly, STRICTLY on ONE, BLS/other data point?
    True or False?



    If you go read your original link to birth-death it nowhere mentions birth-death of companies so I assumed it was talking birth-death population. I already explained that to you once. If that is too hard for you to understand since you only have an IQ of 125, let me know and I will simplify it for you.
    '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

    Surely, even you cannot believe that 'businesses and government agencies/individual worksites' applies to a 'household survey'?!?!?


    I will ask again:

    'Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the BLS uses their CES Birth-Death Model on the Household Survey?'
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-07-2022 at 03:52 PM.

  9. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    19,771
    Thanks
    13,768
    Thanked 8,903 Times in 6,593 Posts
    Groans
    5,254
    Groaned 537 Times in 514 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    He doesn't understand what the numbers mean, so he keeps posting this stupid shit. The household survey is not intended to measure job creation. Period. End of story. McRocket thinks he's a genius. He is not.
    And he is a twumptard. I agree his claim that he "despises both parties" is total horseshit.
    ================================================== =

    There will come a day where Donald Trump is gone, but the dishonor of those who carried his water will remain.

  10. #70 | 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
    So you deride IQ testing.
    And then you brag about yours.

    (and your tests were obviously some online 'Test Your IQ' nonsense)

    My tests (several of them) were by/for the government.
    (though - granted - I cannot prove it without showing my name)

    And what is your education I asked?
    Not 'how long you have been watching CNBC'.
    My test was not an online test. It was conducted by a government organization. I wasn't bragging but merely pointing out that your bragging doesn't mean anything and claiming an IQ on the internet really doesn't mean much. I can guess most people's IQs based on their posts. Your IQ is similar to Matt Dilons. But your blind spots are quite different.

    Education is lifelong learning. It isn't based solely on taking 12 quarters of classes. Did you not take statistics as part of your economics classes?

    STRAWMAN!!!
    See?
    You either deliberately posted a strawman?
    And/or you did not understand my question.

    Your answer and your link have almost, NOTHING to do with my question.
    The BLS is a government agency.
    It is NOT...Wall Street (i.e. the major, US, private business sector).
    Suddenly the very agency you were relying on is not not a valid source? Did you or did you not post numbers from the BLS? Wall Street is filled with quants. Quants understand statistics and margins of error. They would never claim that 2 numbers that are statistically the same show a trend. If they did, they wouldn't be quants.
    I will ask again:

    Post a link from an unbiased source that proves that 2 months of macroeconomic data is NOT considered a 'very good' trend - by Wall Street standards?
    Now you are posting a strawman. I didn't argue that data can't show a trend. I argued that data that is within the margin of error shouldn't be used to show a trend and limited amount of data shouldn't be used to show a trend. If you have 2 data points that are well outside the margin of error then it likely is showing a trend but it could be nothing more than a temporary blip. The specific data you are pointing to does not indicate any trend. When you include August, we see that November is back to almost identical numbers. Since none of the 4 months are outside the margin of error they do not show a trend. As I already pointed out, we are likely to see a larger shift in 2-3 months when the announced layoffs start to appear in the numbers.




    I said from an 'unbiased' source.
    The BLS is STAGGERINGLY biased.
    They are under the Department of Labor.
    Headed by the Secretary of Labor.
    And yet you used those numbers in this post?
    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

    Plus: the employed numbers have dropped in both October and November.
    the employment-population ratio has dropped two months in a row.
    Why do you think you can rely on biased numbers but others can't use your exact same source? Are you now arguing that your first post is complete bullshit? Or are you arguing that the market is stupid and makes moves based on biased data?


    Obviously, the Secretary puts pressure on the BLS to put out statistics that put the POTUS/economy in the best possible light (without lying).
    Really? Care to show us where that is allowed in the methodology? Making up shit only makes you look shitty. It doesn't prove anything. The methodology used by the Census Bureau is designed to not be subject to political pressure.
    The methodology can be found here:
    https://www2.census.gov/programs-sur...logy/tp-66.pdf

    That is why in 1994, Clinton got the BLS to change the unemployment rate (today's 'U-3') to not include 'discouraged workers'...to make the UR look far better than it really is.
    https://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/d...#ixzz29UY5x2Ns
    He, obviously, DELIBERATELY got the BLS to manipulate the data to make the economy look healthier than it was.

    Surely, you are not so INCREDIBLY naive at your age (and experience?) to actually believe that the Department of Labor's, BLS is 'unbiased' about their OWN statistics....
    Or do you automatically believe, everything a company/government entity says about the exactitude of their OWN statistics?
    That is quite funny. I point out how inaccurate the statistics are in that the margin of error is 500,000 and you argue they are more accurate when you try to claim they show a trend and now you argue that I am the one who is gullible when it comes to the exactitude of the statistics?
    Post a link to an UNBIASED source that factually proves that the Establishment Survey is significantly, more accurate than the Household Survey?
    I have already done that. The methodology creates margins of error. The margin of error is greater in the CPS than in the CES. You are free to point to where in the methodology you think this bias is. You are not free to simply declare your own source which is my source to suddenly be biased. The methodology has changed more than once over time. BLS reports those changes and warns to not compare numbers used with different methodologies.


    STRAWMAN!!!

    I confused nothing (in this regard).
    ALL, human-instigated trades are at least, partially based on emotion.
    And even the trading computer programs are written by humans to take emotional responses, to various data, into account.
    If you have not learned that - you know little/nothing about equity trading.

    It is a simple question.
    Requiring only a one word answer.

    True or False - does Wall Street often move significantly, STRICTLY on ONE, BLS/other data point?
    True or False?
    It is both true and false. I can find days where numbers were released and little to no movement occurs and days were large swings happen. The swings don't normally occur simply because of the numbers. The market anticipates what the numbers will be and trades based on that assumption. If the numbers are close to the assumption then the market doesn't move much. If the assumptions are off from the numbers then the market will have a larger swing. The significant move is not based solely on the number but based on the number compared to the number the markets were predicting.



    '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

    Surely, even you cannot believe that 'businesses and government agencies/individual worksites' applies to a 'household survey'?!?!?


    I will ask again:

    'Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the BLS uses their CES Birth-Death Model on the Household Survey?'
    I have already answered this. At this point I think you have autism since you appear unable to process certain information.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

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

  11. #71 | 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
    My test was not an online test. It was conducted by a government organization. I wasn't bragging but merely pointing out that your bragging doesn't mean anything and claiming an IQ on the internet really doesn't mean much. I can guess most people's IQs based on their posts. Your IQ is similar to Matt Dilons. But your blind spots are quite different.

    Education is lifelong learning. It isn't based solely on taking 12 quarters of classes. Did you not take statistics as part of your economics classes?
    Not buying your IQ number.
    Though I doubt you are 'stupid'.

    But I sincerely hope your IQ is government tested at 147.
    For my sake.

    And clearly - you have no, post-secondary education.
    And ZERO, formal training in economics.

    You would - obviously - mention it/them if you had.

    So noted.

    This part is done for me.


    Suddenly the very agency you were relying on is not not a valid source? Did you or did you not post numbers from the BLS?
    I never said I respected the numbers. But since 'everyone' uses them - they are a basis for comparison. I will not discuss this further. You don't believe me - I really, don't much care. And this post is growing, ridiculously long.
    Wall Street is filled with quants. Quants understand statistics and margins of error. They would never claim that 2 numbers that are statistically the same show a trend. If they did, they wouldn't be quants.
    You are claiming that two of a group of people?
    99.9+% of whom you probably do not know?
    Would 'never' claim something?

    Riiiiight.
    And you don't see what a nonsensical statement that is?



    We are done on this part.

    Now you are posting a strawman. I didn't argue that data can't show a trend.


    1) WRONG!!!
    Your memory ain't too good.
    Mr. 147 IQ.

    You typed above:
    'There is no actual trend. There is just you using statistical noise claiming it shows a trend.'
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...67#post5396367
    AND
    'Statistics have standards for what is considered a trend. The standard is that 6-7 data points are usually required unless the accuracy of the data is very good.'
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...66#post5398066

    I will ask again:

    Post a link from an unbiased source that proves that 2 months of macroeconomic data is NOT considered a 'very good' trend - by Wall Street standards?

    Jeez, Troll.

    You started the point.
    I am simply asking you to prove it.
    Which - so far - you have failed MISERABLY to do.


    2) Why do you keep mentioning the Census Bureau?
    They are in an ENTIRELY, DIFFERENT department than the BLS.
    They have NOTHING to so with this discussion.

    I am beginning to think that you are/were a loser bureaucrat who works/worked for the Census Bureau.
    Or maybe, the BLS?
    You sure speak like a lifetime, bureaucratic loser.
    And they don't need big schooling to hire people.
    They take almost ANYONE.


    I have already done that. The methodology creates margins of error. The margin of error is greater in the CPS than in the CES. You are free to point to where in the methodology you think this bias is. You are not free to simply declare your own source which is my source to suddenly be biased. The methodology has changed more than once over time. BLS reports those changes and warns to not compare numbers used with different methodologies.
    Soooo...your link to an unbiased source - as to the credibility of the BLS's methods?
    Is to post link(s)......to the BLS?




    So noted.
    No need to go further on this since you apparently do not understand what the word 'unbiased' even means in this regard.


    We are done on this part.


    It is both true and false.
    3) Cop out answer.

    I will make it simpler for you - 'dumb it down':

    True or False?

    Has the DOW - in the last 20 years - ever dropped more than 4% in a day on just ONE, principal, data point?
    True or False?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...strial_Average



    I have already answered this. At this point I think you have autism since you appear unable to process certain information.
    Strawman AND Ad Hominem.

    You have not posted a link that provides unbiased, factual proof that the BLS uses their CES Birth-Death Model on the Household Survey.

    Again - just so others (with an open mind) can see how ridiculous you are being on this:
    'CES Net Birth-Death Model
    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


    4) I will ask again:

    'Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the BLS uses their CES Birth-Death Model on the Household Survey?'
    Last edited by McRocket; 12-07-2022 at 10:50 PM.

  12. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,805
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,640 Times in 4,091 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    So not much of a change.
    Here's the thing: People are acting as if the fallout from the Covid shut down just under 2 years has ended. So with that mentality, any negative economic news can be blamed on the current administration.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Taichiliberal For This Post:

    AProudLefty (12-07-2022)

  14. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Where Woke Goes to Die
    Posts
    14,127
    Thanks
    10,362
    Thanked 8,959 Times in 6,246 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 483 Times in 453 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Presidents can't 'balance a budget' on their own, but there were budget surpluses in multiple years under Clinton. You didn't know that? Wow.
    He was the beneficiary of the dot com bubble.

  15. #74 | 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 Concart View Post
    Presidents can't 'balance a budget' on their own, but there were budget surpluses in multiple years under Clinton. You didn't know that? Wow.
    Of course they can.
    They can post a balanced budget to Congress.
    What Congress does with it is a separate matter.

    The only time a POTUS can slither out of Congress finalizing an unbalanced budget is if that POTUS had originally posted a balanced budget to Congress - for that FY.


    And yes, Clinton did a great job with the budget.

  16. #75 | 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
    Not buying your IQ number.
    Though I doubt you are 'stupid'.

    But I sincerely hope your IQ is government tested at 147.
    For my sake.

    And clearly - you have no, post-secondary education.
    And ZERO, formal training in economics.

    You would - obviously - mention it/them if you had.

    So noted.

    This part is done for me.
    This is why talking about IQ and education on the internet is silly. Anyone can make any claims and anyone else can not believe those claims. Not only do I have a post-secondary education, I also taught at a 4 year post-secondary institution for 2 years. But all that is meaningless as well. Sitting in a class doesn't make someone smart about a subject. I know many people that were able to pass a class but one year later couldn't remember anything about what the class taught.
    Did you ever take a statistics class or calculus? If you did you certainly have forgotten some of the most important parts about those classes.

    I never said I respected the numbers. But since 'everyone' uses them - they are a basis for comparison. I will not discuss this further. You don't believe me - I really, don't much care. And this post is growing, ridiculously long.
    So you are arguing that you are comparing meaningless and useless numbers? The problem you have is that the numbers do have meaning. It's just that you don't understand their meaning.

    You are claiming that two of a group of people?
    99.9+% of whom you probably do not know?
    Would 'never' claim something?

    Riiiiight.
    And you don't see what a nonsensical statement that is?



    We are done on this part.
    I am claiming that people that understand statistics and calculus would not make the claim you are making because it violates some of the basic tenets of being accurate in those subjects.


    1) WRONG!!!
    Your memory ain't too good.
    Mr. 147 IQ.

    You typed above:
    'There is no actual trend. There is just you using statistical noise claiming it shows a trend.'
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...67#post5396367
    AND
    'Statistics have standards for what is considered a trend. The standard is that 6-7 data points are usually required unless the accuracy of the data is very good.'
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...66#post5398066
    Data can show a trend when it meets certain standards. The data you were using doesn't show a trend. The reason your data doesn't show a trend is because it is within the margin of error and doesn't include enough data points to overcome that margin of error problem. (*It looks like you are only average in your verbal skills and maybe below average in your math skills. You must be a whiz at tetris.) Both of my statements are accurate. Are you now arguing that the data put out by BLS is extremely accurate? Since it isn't extremely accurate more data points are required.



    *Since you appear to want to get in a pissing contest about your IQ.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

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

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
  •