What Does AOC Have That Boebert Does Not?

[Flash]

In your first paragraph, you've just answered your own question as to the sheer illogic and inaccuracy of the current economic indicators regarding actual employment and unemployed numbers. My example is based on fact (i.e., the famous GW Bush town hall where a woman tells of working 3 jobs to make ends meet. Subsequent reports of a lower rate of unemployment does not include that little caveat....never did. If you can find such, let us know.

Your personal experience is NOT an indicator of reality. When I was unemployed once, there was a mandate that in order to receive unemployment insurance you had to show up and get interviewed by a personnel manager who would assist you in your job search. So just sitting around wasn't an option, because failure to comply with those employment suspended your payments.

Yes, that is still a requirement to be "looking" for jobs. People just make calls to a business and ask if they are hiring and put that business on the list of places they checked. You do not have to take a job making much less than your previous work.

How does a woman telling Bush she was working three jobs show it was being counted as three jobs? The measure is the proportion of the workforce holding jobs, not how many jobs a person holds.

To see how the government determines unemployment see the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

How the Government Measures Unemployment (bls.gov)

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
In your first paragraph, you've just answered your own question as to the sheer illogic and inaccuracy of the current economic indicators regarding actual employment and unemployed numbers. My example is based on fact (i.e., the famous GW Bush town hall where a woman tells of working 3 jobs to make ends meet). Subsequent reports of a lower rate of unemployment does not include that little caveat....never did. If you can find such, let us know.

Your personal experience is NOT an indicator of reality. When I was unemployed once, there was a mandate that in order to receive unemployment insurance you had to show up and get interviewed by a personnel manager who would assist you in your job search. So just sitting around wasn't an option, because failure to comply with those employment suspended your payments.

Yes, that is still a requirement to be "looking" for jobs. People just make calls to a business and ask if they are hiring and put that business on the list of places they checked. You do not have to take a job making much less than your previous work.

How does a woman telling Bush she was working three jobs show it was being counted as three jobs? The measure is the proportion of the workforce holding jobs, not how many jobs a person holds.

To see how the government determines unemployment see the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

How the Government Measures Unemployment (bls.gov)

Your first paragraph does NOT validate your initial story of your friends just sitting around collecting unemployment and not looking for a job. Again, there is a mandate to have a physical meeting with a case worker (or whatever the title is) at the local office at some point....failure to do so stops your benefits. So your friends only have a limited time to goof off/game the system.

To your second paragraph, you stated "....The measure is the proportion of the workforce holding jobs, not how many jobs a person holds." That is precisely my point! "Workforce" is reported as job slots opened and filled. Period. The actual number of people employed is NOT part of that tally. So given my example, it's one person being employed, NOT 3. That effects the accuracy of employed/unemployed tally. Period.


The major flaw in the calculations is capsulized in this quote from the source, ".... There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey." Hell, in NYC you have MILLIONS of people. Regardless of switching which households are sampled on a monthly basis, that is NOT an accurate tally, but an ESTIMATE.

Factor in my previous point to how the DOL calculates unemployment, and you see the inherent flaw.

[Flash]

Your first paragraph does NOT validate your initial story of your friends just sitting around collecting unemployment and not looking for a job. Again, there is a mandate to have a physical meeting with a case worker (or whatever the title is) at the local office at some point....failure to do so stops your benefits. So your friends only have a limited time to goof off/game the system.

To your second paragraph, you stated "....The measure is the proportion of the workforce holding jobs, not how many jobs a person holds." That is precisely my point! "Workforce" is reported as job slots opened and filled. Period. The actual number of people employed is NOT part of that tally. So given my example, it's one person being employed, NOT 3. That effects the accuracy of employed/unemployed tally. Period.


The major flaw in the calculations is capsulized in this quote from the source, ".... There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey." Hell, in NYC you have MILLIONS of people. Regardless of switching which households are sampled on a monthly basis, that is NOT an accurate tally, but an ESTIMATE.

Factor in my previous point to how the DOL calculates unemployment, and you see the inherent flaw.

Having to do an interview is not spending much time looking for a job. You have to submit a job search log (online). This takes little time. If a person wants to collect benefits until they expire it is not difficult to do so. Specifics vary by state.

I never commented about the accuracy or flaws of determining unemployment. My only point was that AOL was incorrect when she said unemployment was dropping because people were working 2-3 jobs. I think you are wrong when you say workforce is the number of job slots opened and filled. It is the percentage of the work force who are working.

Unemployment is about 3.8% but there are 11 million unfilled job slots. If there are 11 million unfilled jobs unemployment would be much higher than 3.8% if they measured unemployment by the number of unfilled jobs.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Your first paragraph does NOT validate your initial story of your friends just sitting around collecting unemployment and not looking for a job. Again, there is a mandate to have a physical meeting with a case worker (or whatever the title is) at the local office at some point....failure to do so stops your benefits. So your friends only have a limited time to goof off/game the system.

To your second paragraph, you stated "....The measure is the proportion of the workforce holding jobs, not how many jobs a person holds." That is precisely my point! "Workforce" is reported as job slots opened and filled. Period. The actual number of people employed is NOT part of that tally. So given my example, it's one person being employed, NOT 3. That effects the accuracy of employed/unemployed tally. Period.

The major flaw in the calculations is capsulized in this quote from the source, ".... There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey." Hell, in NYC you have MILLIONS of people. Regardless of switching which households are sampled on a monthly basis, that is NOT an accurate tally, but an ESTIMATE.

Factor in my previous point to how the DOL calculates unemployment, and you see the inherent flaw.

Having to do an interview is not spending much time looking for a job. You have to submit a job search log (online). This takes little time. If a person wants to collect benefits until they expire it is not difficult to do so. Specifics vary by state.

I never commented about the accuracy or flaws of determining unemployment. My only point was that AOL was incorrect when she said unemployment was dropping because people were working 2-3 jobs. I think you are wrong when you say workforce is the number of job slots opened and filled. It is the percentage of the work force who are working.

Unemployment is about 3.8% but there are 11 million unfilled job slots. If there are 11 million unfilled jobs unemployment would be much higher than 3.8% if they measured unemployment by the number of unfilled jobs.

You first paragraph is a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong on this point. Your initial claim was flat out wrong. Period. Not even your link supports it, nor does it support your subsequent supposition and conjecture. You'd have to provide proof of what you say...that a state does NOT require any face time with a Dept. of Labor official regarding unemployment. That's were the computer log is reviewed. Believe it or not, benefits have been suspended and folk have been required to use the DOL personnel dept. to assist in their job search.

Your repeating yourself, and the conclusion is the same which resulted in our exchanges. If you thought otherwise, our conversation would have been much shorter. Clearly, you can't muddle the waters on this as your personal opinion does not shake out. Like it or not AOC was not far off the track in her statement, as I've logically deduced here.

Your last paragraph is just another version of what you originally proposed...and as I previously demonstrated you are consistenty (if not purposely) ignoring a reality factor in order to make your statement. Year 1 - 5 job slots are open. Year 2 - 3 job slots are filled, but by the same person. So logically, there a 2 people out there who do not have a job....BUT....no matter how the DOJ juggles it, they cannot estimate or conclude that...they can only point to what jobs have been filled. Couple this with the fact that when those 2 people's unemployment insurance is used up, they are NOT officially counted as being back to work or still unemployed. So the conclusions of an unemployment rate or off.

We've done this dance several ways....you want to believe in the possibility that the estimates are correct...I point out to the logical fact that they are not. That's it. Anything else is just repetition. You may have the last word.

[Flash]

You first paragraph is a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong on this point. Your initial claim was flat out wrong. Period. Not even your link supports it, nor does it support your subsequent supposition and conjecture. You'd have to provide proof of what you say...that a state does NOT require any face time with a Dept. of Labor official regarding unemployment. That's were the computer log is reviewed. Believe it or not, benefits have been suspended and folk have been required to use the DOL personnel dept. to assist in their job search.

Your repeating yourself, and the conclusion is the same which resulted in our exchanges. If you thought otherwise, our conversation would have been much shorter. Clearly, you can't muddle the waters on this as your personal opinion does not shake out. Like it or not AOC was not far off the track in her statement, as I've logically deduced here.

Your last paragraph is just another version of what you originally proposed...and as I previously demonstrated you are consistenty (if not purposely) ignoring a reality factor in order to make your statement. Year 1 - 5 job slots are open. Year 2 - 3 job slots are filled, but by the same person. So logically, there a 2 people out there who do not have a job....BUT....no matter how the DOJ juggles it, they cannot estimate or conclude that...they can only point to what jobs have been filled. Couple this with the fact that when those 2 people's unemployment insurance is used up, they are NOT officially counted as being back to work or still unemployed. So the conclusions of an unemployment rate or off.

We've done this dance several ways....you want to believe in the possibility that the estimates are correct...I point out to the logical fact that they are not. That's it. Anything else is just repetition. You may have the last word.

You keep getting bogged down in trivia. My point is simply that a person does not have to spend much time searching for jobs while collecting unemployment. Having an in-person interview and completing a search log take very little time.

"Unemployment is not low because more people are working two jobs. Employed people, whether they hold one or more jobs, are only counted once in the unemployment rate calculation. Nor is it true that as the unemployment rate has declined, the percentage of employed people who are working two or more job has increased."
“Whether someone has multiple jobs doesn’t enter into the construction of the unemployment rate,” explained Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, an economics professor at Harvard. “The unemployment rate is calculated from a survey of individuals where each individual is classified as having a job, without a job and on temporary layoff or actively searching for work, or out of the labor force. The number of unemployed is the count of individuals classified as the second category, i.e. those without a job and on temporary layoff or actively searching for work. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed divided by the sum of the number of unemployed and those with a job. Having two jobs doesn’t make someone count twice because the classification is by individual.”

Ocasio-Cortez Wrong on Cause of Low Unemployment - FactCheck.org

[Into Тhe Night]

The Republicans actually make fun of AOC for having been working class.

Let that sink in.

[Yakuda]

The Republicans actually make fun of AOC for having been working class.

Let that sink in.

It's not for that. This is his stupid you people are. She is made fun of because she's an idiot.

[McRocket]

.

A college degree.

Okaaay.

And what does one have to do with the other?

[McRocket]

I didn't know - nor much care - who this Boebart gal is.

But after seeing this thread.
I looked her up...for the heck of it.


Apparently, the guy she was dating: 'In January 2004, he was arrested after allegedly exposing his penis to two women at a bowling alley, according to an arrest affidavit. Lauren Boebert (then age 17 and known as Lauren Opal Roberts) was also there. Jayson Boebert pleaded guilty to public indecency and lewd exposure, earning himself four days in jail and two years’ probation.'

Then...also, whilst she was dating this same guy:

'In February 2004, he was booked on a domestic violence charge, against Lauren Boebert. He “did unlawfully strike, shove or kick … and subjected her to physical contact,”
Jayson Boebert ultimately served seven days in jail.'

https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/gop-re...ed-up-arrests/

And she later married this loser?


Doesn't mean she is a bad politician, in and of itself.
But it does mean she IS one, fucked up woman.

[Flash]

I didn't know - nor much care - who this Boebart gal is.

But after seeing this thread.
I looked her up...for the heck of it.


Apparently, the guy she was dating: 'In January 2004, he was arrested after allegedly exposing his penis to two women at a bowling alley, according to an arrest affidavit. Lauren Boebert (then age 17 and known as Lauren Opal Roberts) was also there. Jayson Boebert pleaded guilty to public indecency and lewd exposure, earning himself four days in jail and two years’ probation.'

Then...also, whilst she was dating this same guy:

'In February 2004, he was booked on a domestic violence charge, against Lauren Boebert. He “did unlawfully strike, shove or kick … and subjected her to physical contact,”
Jayson Boebert ultimately served seven days in jail.'

https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/gop-re...ed-up-arrests/

And she later married this loser?


Doesn't mean she is a bad politician, in and of itself.
But it does mean she IS one, fucked up woman.

She must have liked what she saw at the bowling alley.

[McRocket]

She must have liked what she saw at the bowling alley.

She married a guy who flashes minors and assaults her...on the basis of seeing his flaccid penis in a bowling alley?
Umm....okaaaaaaay.

And this is what you assume, most women look for in a man?
So noted.


Good day.

[Frank Apisa]

.

A college degree.

Okay...and class!

[NiftyNiblick]

If America has a future, AOC will be a major part of it.

Right now, though, it's not easy to project that America has a future.
I personally can't see it.
The republic is in tatters.

AOC and I share an Alma Mater, btw. We have degrees from the same place, so she has to be pretty smart, obviously.

[Doc Dutch]

It's not for that. This is his stupid you people are. She is made fun of because she's an idiot.

Now you know why I make fun of you, Yak. LOL

[Doc Dutch]

Brains and class.

...and real boobs. Jus' Sayin' because it's true.

Yes, your two categories are more important, especially for elected leaders, but I'm a guy sooooo I felt it important to be stated.

FWIW, I like real, small, average or large. Plastic, except for reconstructive, is a vanity thing. Notice how many current, prominent Republican women, including Fox News, are plastic. It's all for show. No substance.