Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
The only reason you can "make numbers say whatever you want" is because people are ignorant to what is being done. That is why I like the actual data myself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unemployment at 17 year low...
- Thread starter BSM1
- Start date
The only reason you can "make numbers say whatever you want" is because people are ignorant to what is being done. That is why I like the actual data myself.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Does not matter if you watched Foxnews, that was basically the same trick they used. Looking at the individual level and looking at household level are two different things, and it is misleading to suggest that an analysis done at the household level is wrong because of your very loosely defined individual level. Not what you did was real statistics, but the two considerations would be two different analyses.
Given that Trump supports global warming, and global warming contributed to the terrible hurricanes, and that the damage from the hurricanes led to an increase in jobs to rebuild the hurricane hit areas, then I guess you can say Trump is partly responsible, but he's also responsible for the hurricane damage if you buy into that line of reasoning.
I didn't think it did have anything to do with Fox News. I've just always had this beef with how the "unemployment rate" is calculated, because it makes it seem that far less of the population is actually idle than it really is.
How has Trump anything to do with it?
Well, you seem to be more the expert on Fox News than I, so I'll take your word for it.
But I don't see it as a "trick." The ones doing the tricking are those who compile the data and spin it all around to make it look like something that it's not. Why call it an "unemployment rate" if it doesn't actually mean "unemployment"? If one has to add a number of qualifiers, exceptions, and other parameters in order to achieve a desired result, I would call that "spin," not any kind of useful indicator.
With his loosening of regulations on corporations Trump has made investors happy and the stock market reflect this. But the big question is how many Americans own stock and where does this leave those who don't?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And the corporations are flush with money whereas tax breaks for them are not likely to have any significant impact on wage increases for the average Joe & Mary. Investors are happy, and we're seeing many of them selling off businesses that have less profitability and investing and/or merging with others in areas with higher returns.
So, while my mom was running a home and raising 6 kids and volunteering as girl scout troop leader and tutor at our school. ..
You think she was "unemployed" ?
Tom
You might try to read up on how these figures are determined, and different kinds of "employment" and "unemployment" are determined, and yes, there are several different kinds.
To begin with, you don't count active-duty military, so that has to be accounted for. Then, there are some people over the age of 64 who do work, even when they are "retired," so adjustments need to be made for that tidbit. Those in prison or jail are not included. The numbers include those over age 16, not starting at 18. Those who are disabled and unable to work are accounted for. The self-employed are not included. And, there are a significant number of adults who, for various reasons, do not wish to work, and are not actively seeking employment, including the retired and spouses/partners. Part-time workers, and those who work two or more jobs must be accounted for.
Then, the current rates are determined based on a model of the economy, and includes data from a number of different sources, including monthly surveys of households, news reports, employer reports to government, etc., etc.
It's complicated because life is complicated, and while the DOL does report a simple number such as you suggest, that statistic is almost worthless to various consumers of employment data, including the states, localities, nonprofits, etc., who have to administer various programs that might have to deal with the unemployed in some way or another.
Yeah, there's actually fairly thick documentation to read about how and why the figures are determined the way they are. Needless to say, business and industry, state and local governments, nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations of various kinds, academics, other federal agencies, and so on need consistent, comparable numbers for planning and programmatic purposes. Every step of the process is tightly controlled and independently monitored by all the other parties.
Not a bad thing, but not Stump named Trump thing.
If you look at the eight year trend of reduced unemployment under Obama the trend simply follows this downward trend. It is likely neither Obama nor Trump that are responsible. It is simply a natural economic recovery after a recession/depression recovery. There is also a problem of what kind of employment is increasing. This is a recent historical problem.
Actually Trump has done absolutely nothing specific in terms of legislation, or policy changes to effect this normal recovery trend. He has done a lot of threatening, bullying and boasting, but no substantive changes.
Last edited:
Akivah
Well-Known Member
If this statistic had gone the other way, you wouldn't have had to wait any time at all for people to blame Trump.
At this point I would neither blame nor give credit to Stump the Trump for any changes in the past year. The natural recovery trend for the past 9 years happened despite the government involvement.
for the purposes of determining employment and unemployment rates, no, she wasn't. And if you dig around in the reports put out by the DOL and Census Bureau, and the literature of labor studies and economics, you'll find lengthy discussions of why and how such "employment" can be and actually is accounted for.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Well, now that Republicans control both houses and the White House I imagine we'll start hearing more and more good news like this daily.
I understand that. I was responding to a ridiculous assertion that I quoted.
I was hoping it helped illustrate why unemployment numbers are so complex. The best bet is to look for trends in the numbers from the same source, and compare many different sources. No single number from one month will tell you any more than one frame from a movie will tell you about cinema.
Tom
Do you understand who is considered unemployed and be counted? This woman would not be counted as unemployed.
Like we did in 2004?
Tom