Mason Michaels
Verified User
Where I live businesses are still begging for employees
There are 466,000 LESS Americans employed now then in September - BLS
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
Where I live businesses are still begging for employees
This is an interesting post on your part. You claim we have to accept the data as accurate and then you ignore the data.
The employment-population ratio has dropped but the number of discouraged workers has also dropped. That means that more people are leaving the workforce entirely. Somewhere between 250,000 to 300,000 baby boomers are turning 65 each month. Many of those are retiring when they hit 65 of 66 years and 3 months when their SS benefits kick in at the full amount. September had 485 million discouraged workers and November had 405 million.
But the other thing you have to understand about the numbers is they are estimates based on a survey. That means there is a margin of error. What you are claiming is a problem is well within that margin of error and is really not much more than statistical noise.Well the November numbers are worse than September, they are better than August and certainly better than January and February of this year.
The bottom line is you can't claim a .1% change shows a major change in the economy.
Althea
Althea told me...
Pretty much everywhere. Maybe Ironside should ship those Texas immigrants to the areas that need employees?
Same for DeathSantis.
Althea
Althea told me...
I tried to explain that earlier, but this topic is too complex for the OP
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-quarterly-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/employment_to_population_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.
Last edited:
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:
For a scholarly discussion on the this topic from people who actually understand it....
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...hold-survey-isn%92t-a-measure-of-jobs-created
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...hold-survey-isn%92t-a-measure-of-jobs-created
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-quarterly-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/employment_to_population_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.
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:
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:
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?
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.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.
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.
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 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.
Who or what the heck is the 'CHS'?
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:
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:
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.
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.
CPS is the Household Survey. (I wrote it as CHS, thinking household.)
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.
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: