Unemployment down to 8.6% - .4% drop in November

So no answer?????

 

Hello, 1-liner nothing. As I wrote and you haven't addressed, this happened last year and the same articles were written, I recall explicitly having the same arguments with others and they said the same thing. So what this year? Who knows, we'll wait and see, but what we do know is the economy is slowly, more slowly than I'd like recovering. I'm sorry to you and yours that the economy and the country isn't taking, that is obviously what would make you happy, but even under GWB I was pulling for betterment, I guess that seperates the D's from the R's.

So you agree with the rest then, ok.

 

So we agree, apparently you aren't smart enough to see that. U-6 vs U-3; that means the former is the real gross # of all unemployed, the latter the # the BLS gives us based upon all of their criteria. As long as it's apples/apples we're ok. Again, in the Great Republican Depression, U-3 was 25%, u-6 according to my graph was 37%: http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...eat-depression

Fascist pig Ronnie U-3 peaked at 10.8%, U-6 was probably over 20% easily. So your fantasy that this phenomenon initiated under Clinton is about as worthless as most of what you post.

 

Not according to Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/gallup-daily-workforce.aspx

 

So you did not read my link.

 

No, the BLS has certain criteria used under all presidents. These may or may not change over time, but they are implemented and tabulated per these criteria. Economists realize this is not an absolute number so they stratify the data and they do so by assigning U-1 to U-6, this is shown 1/2 way down the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

So the BLS data isn't a lie, it's just the way they want to address unemployment but make no claim this this U-6 or absolute number of people out of work. Conspiracy lunatics like you think the gov is out to get us and morph it into that when in fact they make no claim, no lies about their U-3 number. Now, maybe you can get your mommy to help you understand this process and data.

 

Sure, here goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

1/2 way down, look at the definitions.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also calculates six alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6, that measure different aspects of unemployment:[74]
U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[2] U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).[/I]

Notice the U3 states those who have looked in the last 4 weeks. Same with many licenses or even email addresses, they want current data. Let your email sit vacant and the addy goes bye-bye, essentially times out. With the FAA, don't get a physical and the FAA deems you uncurrent, therefore not a pilot. That's all thsi data does, establishes who's actually looking, they make no claims as to that being the entire number of people out of work. You accuse them of that for obvious reasons stemming from lack of education, AKA ignorance.

Look at everything higer than U3, they start to accumulate the one previous to that number until U6 which is allegedly all people out of work, looking or not. See, education tends to relieve the ignorance and make us better understand things.

 

Where exactly did I type:

'I need help understanding U3, U6, etc' - as you claim I did?

 

It was more your brother, but you both seem to have a hard time understanding Econ 101 in regard to unemployment figures.

 

I simply warned you (in PM) that if you are going to insult others (besides me) that I am going to report those particular posts to the mods since you continuously do it.

Hey, I would prefer there was no such rule.

But there is and if we all have to follow it...so should you.

 

Then why did you type it under my name?

And who is my 'brother'?

 

You did not answer my first question.

Strange how you expect others to answer every little question of yours - but do not answer those you do not wish to.


And where did I type that I was a 'Neo-con'?

And who is this other person you refer to?

 

ptif 219 = your brother

Don't care if you're a neo-con, in denial, neo-nazi or neo-fascist, I just want you to answer the substance.

 

You want me to answer the 'substance'?

LOLOL.

Okaaaaay.

And what 'substance' that you are so desperate for me to 'answer'?


And btw - so you think I have no right to correct you when you call me things that I am not (like a 'neo-con')?

Or when you say I typed things that I never did?

Or when you call other people 'losers' simply because they post things you do not agree with or not in the way you wish them to?

 

This thread is now closed. Personal attacks and insults are not allowed.