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

[LV426]

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.

 

[Celticguy]

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

 

[Concart]

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.

 

[Concart]

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.

 

[McRocket]

Ok, so I am bored.

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

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?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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_cps_trends.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_cps_trends.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.

 

[McRocket]

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_cps_trends.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_cps_trends.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/...nd-create-americas-nilf-island/#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?'

 

[LurchAddams]

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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?

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-surveys/cps/methodology/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/...nd-create-americas-nilf-island/#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.

 

[McRocket]

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/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5396367#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/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5398066#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.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/methodology/tp-66.pdf

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_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_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?'

 

[Taichiliberal]

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.

 

[Life is Golden]

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.

 

[McRocket]

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5396367#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/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5398066#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.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

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.

And the Household Data is what the unemployment rate is based on.
As usual - the Establishment data - being hugely altered, using models by the BLS...is nonsense.
You cannot quote/credit the unemployment rate as valid and also, disregard the numbers it is based on (unless you are a colossal hypocrite on this).


AMERICA'S ECONOMY IS HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

No matter how much Biden/Dems claim it is not.



Once again...I DESPISE, both parties.

Retirement causes people to stop working. The current labor shortage was predicted decades ago, as the people of my generation, the Boomers, reached retirement age. The pandemic caused a bubble of earlier-than-planned retirements as well.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I looked at the chart. I only see very tiny changes, both positive and negative. I don't get it?

He's a Debbie Downer dumbass. See my post right above this one.

 

[McRocket]

1) What did you do for a living (I assume you are old/retired)?
I am an X-Gen investor and writer, BTW.

Data can show a trend when it meets certain standards. The data you were using doesn't show a trend.

You REALLY seem to be having trouble learning and remembering what the word 'trend', actually means...out here in the 'real' world.
As opposed to your fantasy, 'bean counter' world.

Once again:

'trend
1 of 2
noun
ˈtrend
1
a
: a prevailing tendency or inclination : DRIFT
current trends in education
b
: a general movement : SWING
the trend toward suburban living
c
: a current style or preference : VOGUE
new fashion trends
d
: a line of development : APPROACH
new trends in cancer research
2
: the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change
also : a statistical curve reflecting such a change
3
: a line of general direction or movement'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trend


2) By definition of the word, do two data points, covering two, consecutive months...constitute a 'trend'?
Yes or No?

(*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.)

So, to cover up the fact that you cannot/will not answer even the simplest questions?
You try and deflect the debate with ad hominem's.

Whatever, pal.


3) You typed above:
'There is no actual trend. There is just you using statistical noise claiming it shows a trend.'
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5396367#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/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5398066#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?


4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average

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?


5) 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

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?'
(in this case - I will accept even the BLS admitting they do...since it is their model)


Have a nice day.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

1) What did you do for a living (I assume you are old/retired)?
I am an X-Gen investor and writer, BTW.

I have done a lot of things over my life. Much of it dealt with handling data and being able understand it and use it properly. I am currently a business owner and dealing with year end data.

I have been doing online trading, including options, since 1994. I was following the market long before that.

You REALLY seem to be having trouble learning and remembering what the word 'trend', actually means...out here in the 'real' world.
As opposed to your fantasy, 'bean counter' world.

Once again:

'trend
1 of 2
noun
ˈtrend
1
a
: a prevailing tendency or inclination : DRIFT
current trends in education

In order to be a trend it has to be prevailing. Two data points within the margin of error does not a trend make.

b
: a general movement : SWING
the trend toward suburban living

In order to be a trend it has to be an actual movement. If 2 people out of 10,000 move to the suburbs that is not a trend since the general action in that circumstance is to not move to the suburbs

c
: a current style or preference : VOGUE
new fashion trends

The current preference is that the numbers from the BLS are used when talking about unemployment. That doesn't make two data points a trend.

d
: a line of development : APPROACH
new trends in cancer research

Clearly the trend is for you to make increasingly more and more stupid arguments.

2
: the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change
also : a statistical curve reflecting such a change

This is precisely what I am pointing out. There is no statistically detectable change in the number since the change is not significant based on the methodology used. Let me repeat that...
NO statistically detectable change in the data you are claiming is a trend.

3
: a line of general direction or movement'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trend

Once again, the word general is required for there to be a trend. Why don't you post the meaning of the word general as an adjective and we can then dissect that as well. According to this definition if you have many months of data, then 2 data points would not show a trend but instead you would need to see if there is a trend in more of the data.

2) By definition of the word, do two data points, covering two, consecutive months...constitute a 'trend'?
Yes or No?

Once again, it depends on the data. In the cases of data that is not completely accurate it would not be considered a trend under the majority of the definitions you provided. In the case of 2 data points in a time series, it would not be considered a trend.

So, to cover up the fact that you cannot/will not answer even the simplest questions?
You try and deflect the debate with ad hominem's.

Whatever, pal.

My wife would be appalled at your use of an apostrophe where it is not required.

The problem is not that I am not answering your questions because I am answering them. The problem is that you are trying to create logical fallacy traps that I am not falling into.

3) You typed above:
'There is no actual trend. There is just you using statistical noise claiming it shows a trend.'
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5396367#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/s...w-then-in-September-BLS&p=5398066#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?

https://fortune.com/2022/12/02/jobs...k-experts-weigh-in-federal-reserve-inflation/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackke...-dampening-future-job-growth/?sh=5f26209f30e0
Wall Street does not see the November numbers as a downward trend since they are concerned the STRONG numbers will cause more Fed interest rate hikes.

Here is a white paper on the FED creating a trend line in unemployment using a two-variable vector autoregression (VAR). You can't create that type of regression with 2 data points or 3 data points.
https://www.clevelandfed.org/public...ons-and-the-trend-in-the-us-unemployment-rate
Now I suppose you are going to argue that Wall Street doesn't care what the FED does.

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average

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?

Of course the DOW has dropped by 4% in a single day. But a one day drop does not a trend make.

Has the DOW ever dropped one day and then risen to a new high the next day? True or False? Would you consider the drop to be a trend? Do you consider trends to occur between every data point?

 

[McRocket]

So, apparently, you:

- have no, post-secondary education, whatsoever (though claim to have an IQ nearish to genius level).
- have little/no macroeconomic experience/schooling (making a few trades means nothing - almost anyone can do that) - though you act/claim otherwise.
- are - probably - unemployed BUT 'run' a token 'business' so you can tell yourself/others that you are not 'unemployed'.
- read lots of literature on bean counting.
- frequently troll on chat forums.
- and live with your wife who gets 'appalled' by improper use of apostrophes.

Honor and Excitement?
Thy name is Poor Richard Saunders.



I am done on this part.
Thank you.

Once again, the word general is required for there to be a trend. Why don't you post the meaning of the word general as an adjective and we can then dissect that as well. According to this definition if you have many months of data, then 2 data points would not show a trend but instead you would need to see if there is a trend in more of the data.

1)
I will try again:
By English language, general definition(s) of the word - do two data points, covering two, consecutive months...constitute a 'trend'?
Yes or No?

You should know - when I see you refusing to answer my questions?
I usually just skip over all the 'justifications' you give for not answering the simple questions.

Oh...and I largely skipped your 'PRS's Personal Definitions of Words' novella.


2)

https://fortune.com/2022/12/02/jobs-...rve-inflation/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkel...h=5f26209f30e0
https://www.clevelandfed.org/publica...mployment-rate

Okay...all of your links do not answer the question.
None of them even mentions it (I skipped the Fed nonsense).

The BLS are bad enough.
But the Fed are STAGGERINGLY corrupt.
Plus, are seemingly filled with macroeconomically ignorant, bean counters (like you seem to be - no offense).
The fact that the Fed, COMPLETELY missed the start of the Great Recession - which was obvious to most - largely, proves this.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fed-missed-the-housing-bust/


I will ask again - only simpler:
Post a link from an unbiased source that proves that 2 months of macroeconomic data is NEVER considered a 'very good' trend - by Wall Street standards?

(btw - the answer should be INCREDIBLY obvious, imo.)

My wife would be appalled at your use of an apostrophe where it is not required.

The woman would literally be 'appalled' by someone's improper use of an 'apostrophe'?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appalled
Of all the horrors and injustices on our planet?
Your wife gets 'appalled' by the improper use of an 'apostrophe'.

Okaaaaaay.
She sounds like a barrel of fun.


But yes - my punctuation is nowhere near where I wish it to be...sadly.
Though - even though you obviously meant it as an ad hominem?
https://www.wordnik.com/words/ad hominem
I will try and learn from the criticism.


3)

Of course the DOW has dropped by 4% in a single day. But a one day drop does not a trend make.

My question has NOTHING, directly to do with 'trends'.
You seem to be seeing words that do not exist.

Once again (again updated to make it easier for you):

Has the DOW - in the last 20 years - NEVER dropped more than 4% in a day on just ONE, principal, data point?
True or False?



Additional - (I added some extras for convenience)

(i) Has the DOW ever dropped one day and then risen to a new high the next day? True or False? (ii) Would you consider the drop to be a trend? (iii) Do you consider trends to occur between every data point?

(i) Probably. I do not know with 100% certainty at this moment. But I assume it has. Probably, numerous times.
(ii) Depends on the data and the background of said data and any other data points/events/opinions that might have affected said drop.
(iii) Same as (ii).


See how easy it is for me to answer your questions?
Pity you seem to be having such trouble with mine.

The reason is obvious, imo.

You simply CANNOT admit you were wrong.
And/or, you are too delusional to let yourself believe you are wrong.
So you toss out all the strawman/ad hominems you can POSSIBLY come up with.
All trying to dislodge my arguments and try and turn the discussion into a complete, unrecognizable muddle.
Typical troll behavior.

I, sincerely, cannot remember the last time I debated with someone who threw out SO MANY, strawman arguments.
https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/




Have a nice day.