- This topic has 1 reply, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”sweikert925″]This horse expired quite some time ago but I am going to beat it one more time in the hopes that SOME light penetrates the dark corners of some of your minds.
[quote=”lvc1028″]He talks about what he reads…not what he lives. “Because I said so”, is not how I live as he says. I based my opinion on what I see…not what I read.
[/quote]Incorrect. I base my opinions on my own experiences [b]AS WELL[/b] as what I read. And what I read is simply what others’ experiences are – including yours. You seem to believe that your experience – and [b]ONLY YOUR[/b] experience – matters in determining what is going on in the entire US economy. I can only imagine what kind of abuse I would get here if I had the arrogance to suggest that only my own opinions and experiences matter.
Why is that only [b]YOUR[/b] personal experience matters? Why not mine or those of imxploring or of my bank teller or of the guy who prepares your taxes or some randomly selected person in Dubuque Iowa or San Jose California or Bangor Maine? The statistics you dismiss so contemptuously are simply experiences gathered from all of those people but you seem to think they are less valuable than just your own. Why is that? I find that bizarre and completely illogical.
[quote=”lvc1028″]I wonder how he figures into the equation all of the people that are no longer collecting UI benefits. They are unemployed, right? So, those millions no longer collecting a weenickel…what would that do to the 7+% rate?
[/quote]Apparently you are unaware that the BLS issues numerous statistics every month on the unemployment situation and one of them – called U-6 – takes exactly those people into account. It tends not to get reported in the media so most people don’t know about it. For June of this year, that figure went up – significantly – from 13.8% in May to 14.3% last month. A very bad number. But that’s only one month’s data. Over the previous 12 months, the number is still lower than it was – 14.8% in June 2012 and 14.3% this June. In 2011 the monthly average was 15.9%, in 2010-16.7%, in 2009-16.2%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
To imxploring: If, as you insist with no evidence, the BLS engages in publishes lies to make the situation look better than it is, why would they publish that number?
[/quote]Steve I’m very aware of the various metrics the government uses in reporting economic activity, unemployment, money supply and how it relates to the FRB’s monetary policy.
The manipulation is two fold. As you are aware there are different metrics reported with unemployment as there are with money supply(m1, m2, m3, etc). I strongly disagree with the method by which they are calculated, was the inclusion of the members of the military years ago to bring down the unemployment numbers an honest change in reporting unemployment or was it a means by which the BLS was able to massage the numbers to make them look better at the time? Think for a moment, does the census actually capture EVERYONE? What makes anyone think a weekly or month employment statistic is any more accurate or not subject to manipulation?
The second part of the manipulation is NOT the media’s failure to report the CORRECT measure of unemployment/underemployment. IT’S the government’s goal and their efforts to keep that number out of the spotlight. While we might know that there are other unemployment measures and numbers that are much higher and a truer representation of the problem they are never mentioned by our elected officials, just the lowest number possible. The FEDS own meeting minutes and the public statements made by Bernanke about easing off on QE only refer to the lowest possible metric in measuring unemployment. Why, because they count on most people not knowing the truth and believing that “unemployment” is at about 7% and getting better!
Is that the media “manipulating” the situation, nope, that’s the government doing so!
You might find this link interesting. Old info but it gives some interesting insights to the issue.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15768195/ns/business-answer_desk/t/who-does-government-count-employed/
So who was on that presidential commission? Who appointed them? And what do you think their agenda was in adjusting the method by which unemployment was calculated? I seem to remember the numbers went down. What I don’t remember was a lot of the “professionals” at the BLS taking issue with the changes made.
Be sure to read the question and answer from Tony. Seems when they changed the methodology again in the 1990’s it was because the military and they way they reported information wasn’t clear enough for the BLS. So what crystal ball does the BLS use now with the general public if our own military was unable to provide numbers the BLS felt were accurate enough? More of an educated guess I’m thinking, with a little bit of agenda sprinkled in from our elected officials!
Imxploring
ignore this TROLL.. this is the only thing to do as he will lead you into the mindless endless loop of his delusions
This guy probably has never even visited costa rica at all.. I am going to contact Lundquist and see if he repeats his nonsense in other forums.
I must admit I have even been sucked into this at times.. but that is what a Troll does
no matter what logic you throw at him he will be the same..
here are a few things to say to quiet him down
“geeezz Sweikert… your right!!!””
“wow.. you sure are a smart guy sweikert”
“how does it feel to be you”
and so on and so on
[quote=”imxploring”][quote=”sweikert925″]This horse expired quite some time ago but I am going to beat it one more time in the hopes that SOME light penetrates the dark corners of some of your minds.
[quote=”lvc1028″]He talks about what he reads…not what he lives. “Because I said so”, is not how I live as he says. I based my opinion on what I see…not what I read.
[/quote]Incorrect. I base my opinions on my own experiences [b]AS WELL[/b] as what I read. And what I read is simply what others’ experiences are – including yours. You seem to believe that your experience – and [b]ONLY YOUR[/b] experience – matters in determining what is going on in the entire US economy. I can only imagine what kind of abuse I would get here if I had the arrogance to suggest that only my own opinions and experiences matter.
Why is that only [b]YOUR[/b] personal experience matters? Why not mine or those of imxploring or of my bank teller or of the guy who prepares your taxes or some randomly selected person in Dubuque Iowa or San Jose California or Bangor Maine? The statistics you dismiss so contemptuously are simply experiences gathered from all of those people but you seem to think they are less valuable than just your own. Why is that? I find that bizarre and completely illogical.
[quote=”lvc1028″]I wonder how he figures into the equation all of the people that are no longer collecting UI benefits. They are unemployed, right? So, those millions no longer collecting a weenickel…what would that do to the 7+% rate?
[/quote]Apparently you are unaware that the BLS issues numerous statistics every month on the unemployment situation and one of them – called U-6 – takes exactly those people into account. It tends not to get reported in the media so most people don’t know about it. For June of this year, that figure went up – significantly – from 13.8% in May to 14.3% last month. A very bad number. But that’s only one month’s data. Over the previous 12 months, the number is still lower than it was – 14.8% in June 2012 and 14.3% this June. In 2011 the monthly average was 15.9%, in 2010-16.7%, in 2009-16.2%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
To imxploring: If, as you insist with no evidence, the BLS engages in publishes lies to make the situation look better than it is, why would they publish that number?
[/quote]Steve I’m very aware of the various metrics the government uses in reporting economic activity, unemployment, money supply and how it relates to the FRB’s monetary policy.
The manipulation is two fold. As you are aware there are different metrics reported with unemployment as there are with money supply(m1, m2, m3, etc). I strong disagree with the method by which they are calculated, was the inclusion of the members of the military years ago to bring down the unemployment numbers an honest change in reporting unemployment or was it a means by which the BLS was able to massage the numbers to make them look better at the time? Think for a moment, does the census actually capture EVERYONE? What makes anyone think a weekly or month employment statistic is any more accurate or not subject to manipulation?
The second part of the manipulation is NOT the media’s failure to report the CORRECT measure of unemployment/underemployment. IT’S the government’s goal and their efforts to keep that number out of the spotlight. While we might know that there are other unemployment measures and numbers that are much higher and a truer representation of the problem they are never mentioned by our elected officials, just the lowest number possible. The FEDS own meeting minutes and the public statements made by Bernanke about easing off on QE only refer to the lowest possible metric in measuring unemployment. Why, because they count on most people not knowing the truth and believing that “unemployment” is at about 7% and getting better!
Is that the media “manipulating” the situation, nope, that’s the government doing so!
You might find this link interesting. Old info but it gives some interesting insights to the issue.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15768195/ns/business-answer_desk/t/who-does-government-count-employed/
So who was on that presidential commission? Who appointed them? And what do you think their agenda was in adjusting the method by which unemployment was calculated? I seem to remember the numbers went down. What I don’t remember was a lot of the “professionals” at the BLS taking issue with the changes made.
Be sure to read the question and answer from Tony. Seems when they changed the methodology again in the 1990’s it was because the military and they way they reported information wasn’t clear enough for the BLS. So what crystal ball does the BLS use now with the general public if our own military was unable to provide numbers the BLS felt were accurate enough? More of an educated guess I’m thinking, with a little bit of agenda sprinkled in from our elected officials![/quote]
Sweikert
resident WLCR clown
coming from you I take that as a compliment!!!! 🙂
thank you
I do have to congratulate you!!!!!
why???
and maybe I can get some feedback from long term members here
Sweikert has brought a level of stupidity to this forum that I have never experienced before.
I don’t think I have ever experienced this kind of trolling anywhere else
anyway
enjoy your sunday
David AKA the resident WLC Clown
quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”lvc1028″]I go to the store and spend $1.50 on an apple or a green pepper–and they’re grown here locally.
[/quote]I suggest you shop elsewhere for apples. Here in Chicago at my grocery store the price for red delicious apples is currently $1.59 a POUND. Since a single apple weighs about 2/3 of a pound that makes the price per apple about $1.07.
As it happens, the US Department of Agriculture publishes the average weekly national prices of all kinds of fruits and vegetables (I can already hear the groans from some of you), and according to their latest reports the national price per pound of apples ranged from $1.06/pound for the Gala variety to $2.49/pound for the Jonathan variety.
I would provide the link, but you would insist it was totally irrelevant, imxploring would insist that it was all lies and the resident WLCR clown would simply post another link to a story about the murder rate in Chicago plus another to a totally irrelevant youtube video.
[quote=”lvc1028″]
And,BTW, gas is still $3.70 a gallon here.
[/quote]There is a website called GasBuddy that keeps track of the average national price of a gallon of gas and has statistics that go back 11 years. It is NOT an arm of the federal government but a collective effort of many people who individually report the prices that they experience in their local communities. Precisely the kind of information you should be prepared to accept. According to that, the nationwide average price is currently $3.617/gallon – pretty close to what you report. But if you look at the average over the past 3 years the price has fluctuated but not increased much. It’s nowhere near the peak price of $4.12/gallon that we hit in August 2008.
[quote=”lvc1028″]There are people with open minds and those that dig their heels in. [/quote]
We agree on that. But I have already stated repeatedly and explicitly that I don’t believe that the US economy is doing well. I point people to sources that show evidence of both good and bad economic trends. You insist that only your personal experience on this matters and I say that the experiences of all of us should be taken into account. So which of us has an open mind on this and which of us has his mind hermetically sealed shut?[/quote]
I don’t recall contemplating who was in charge of gas prices. I simply said that it is very expensive to live and inflation seems to be more than is stated. I’m grateful gas is ‘only’ $3.70 a gallon instead of $4.00. what a relief. I think it’s still at least 10% higher than on jan 1. I’ll start ‘shopping’ for food. we have 3 chains here but please tell me where to get the $1.59 lb apples. The cheapest I’ve found is $1.99 per pound. Sorry, produce is very expensive and I don’t think $1.07 is very reasonable either. What does that equate to for cost in eating 5-7 servings of various fruit and vegs per day? I don’t know many people who could afford that for themselves let alone a family.
I am glad you’re part of the world is doing well. But our local economy is not. Things are bad enough here that the city is planning on closing down one of our much needed fire stations and the police dept is very short staffed. Our taxes are so high yet we were told that it still isn’t enough to even pay for the health care costs of the public employees.
It is what it is. I should correct myself. Our city is in bad shape–shouldn’t have spoken for the whole country.
My error.[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]I strong disagree with the method by which they are calculated, was the inclusion of the members of the military years ago to bring down the unemployment numbers an honest change in reporting unemployment or was it a means by which the BLS was able to massage the numbers to make them look better at the time?
[/quote]Including the armed forces would make the unemployment rate SMALLER, not larger. Counting another 1.5 million people (the current size of the armed forces) would make the official unemployment rate 7.4% instead of 7.6%. Why? because every one of those 1.5 million people in the armed forces is employed. The civilian labor force as of June is 155,835,000 and the number of unemployed is officially 11,777,000. 11,777,000 divided by 155,835,000 is 7.55%. 11,777,000 divided by 157,335,000 (civilians plus military) is 7.49%.
In any case the change to the metric was done 20 years ago and that means that it’s not relevant any discussion of the trend in unemployment because the measurement has been consistent since then.
And from your own source that you provided:
[i]”Finally, very few of the people who use the employment data —analysts, academics and economists — actually used the military numbers. One reason is that including or excluding military workers makes very little difference in the unemployment rate. For one thing, these workers make up a relatively small portion of the total workforce. And changes in military employment occur very gradually and don’t necessarily tell you much about changes in the wider economy.”[/i]
[quote=”imxploring”]
The second part of the manipulation is NOT the media’s failure to report the CORRECT measure of unemployment/underemployment. IT’S the government’s goal and their efforts to keep that number out of the spotlight.
[/quote]The monthly BLS press release that the media report from can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
It includes the U-6 number and always has. If the media don’t report that it is their choice. I hardly think that can be categorized as “keeping that number out of the spotlight”. It also explcitly mentions the number of long-term unemployed and how many are working part time for economic reasons – all those things you and others complain that the US government is “hiding”.
[/quote]
Steve, you missed my points. They included the military for just that purpose at the time. Manipulating the pool and including the military had the effect of reducing “unemployment”! Then in 1994 when they changed the rules again they did so because counting the military (the BLS) felt was too convoluted because they couldn’t get a good handle on the numbers. REALLY…. the government couldn’t figure out who they were employing in their own military on a monthly basis? Does that sound reasonable?
So the BLS puts out the U-6 numbers in an obscure press release! How many Main street Americans know that…. or even understand that? Americans for the most part are spoon fed their “news” in small bite size chuncks. The media is no better and reports the simplest information since their few consumers don’t understand much more.
The political machine keeps it simple. Unemployment is at about 7%…. but WE both know that the true numbers are higher when looking at those no longer counted or underemployed! With 70% of the US economy based on consumer spending shouldn’t the FED be talking about underemployment as well as unemployment since lower incomes have a SERIOUS impact on the current economy as well as future growth?
Shouldn’t Bernanke be talking about the LARGER problem rather than the smaller ones? Or perhaps that just not politically convenient?
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”lvc1028″]I am glad you’re part of the world is doing well. But our local economy is not. [/quote]
I’m sincerely sorry to hear that your part of the world is not doing well. And I’m also sorry if some of my comments to you were harsher than they needed to be.
Chicago and to a larger extent Illinois are NOT doing well, our unemployment rate is higher than the national average but maybe they’ll discover oil shale somewhere here and we can benefit from the new oil boom.
Most of Illinois’ financial problems are man-made – the stupidity and corruption of our public officials is WAY higher than the national average.
What tickles me to no end though is that last week our governor vetoed the portion of the state budget that is used to pay the salaries of the state legislature because he pointed out (correctly) they weren’t doing their jobs. If that stands, they won’t get any paychecks a week from Friday. If only we could apply that method everywhere![/quote]
And you didn’t even mention the financial Armageddon that Illinois is facing with it’s state pension system. THAT on a smaller scale will be a preview of what is to come at the national level with the programs the Federal government runs!
“…. the stupidity and corruption of our public officials is WAY higher than the national average.”
Does your use of the word “corruption” include a willingness on their part to lie or otherwise manipulate facts to serve their own purposes?
As to the use of stupidity, I beg to differ there… these folks know exactly what they’re doing and why. Don’t excuse or confuse malicious self-serving conduct with stupidity!
Step up your plans Steve, you’re a smart guy, you see where this is headed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
