Liberal Forum

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 5:12 pm » wrote: You want to prove it's not "probably 20%" or do we just take your word for it?

You were already shown this, dishonest jackass.

During the televised press conference in which he announced his tax plan, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump returned to a claim he has made before -- that the official unemployment rate -- currently 5.1 percent -- woefully undercounts the percentage of people who are unemployed.

During the Sept. 28, 2015, media event, Trump described an unemployment rate in the range of 5 percent as "such a phony number."

"The number isn't reflective," he said. "I've seen numbers of 24 percent -- I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." He continued, "5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-42-perc/

The official U.S. unemployment rate is 5.1% the lowest in seven years, but Donald Trump calls that a "joke."
On Monday, he claimed he'd seen numbers that show America's real unemployment rate is as high as 42%.
Donald Trump's wild claim: Unemployment is 42%

"Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5% unemployment. The number's probably 28%, 29%, as high as 35%, in fact, I even heard recently 42%," Trump stated.
Trump: Don't Believe Unemployment Is 5%, As High As 35, 42%

Donald Trump Says the “Real” Unemployment Rate Is 42 Percent

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 1:20 pm » wrote: No, it's the same, having been changed in 1994. However we didn't have chronically unemployed people that we do now, not counted because they had given up looking for work, and people transferring from unemployment to disability to ensure they keep getting government handouts.

More **** from goofy

Following the official end of the 2001 recession in November 2001, unemployment continued to rise for some 19 months. The unemployment rate reached a peak of 6.3 percent in June 2003 before trending down to 5.0 percent in June 2005. Even when the overall unemployment rate started to decline, however, there was no immediate improvement in the number of unemployed who had been jobless for 27 weeks or more, often referred to as the long-term unemployed. Indeed, it was late 2003 before long-term unemployment peaked and early 2004 before it began to recede. In fact, in the aftermath of each of the last two recessions, long-term joblessness continued to climb far longer than it did during the downturns of the mid- 1970s and early 1980s.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/a-g ... ns-pdf.pdf

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 8:29 am » wrote:
So let's look at the numbers, shall we?
BLS says that labor participation rate is 62.7%
That means 37.3% are not participating in the job market.
And that market excludes anyone under 16.

So yea, I'd say that Trump's number is really close.

^^^^
Thinks Trump was right (in "his number")to claim 40% of people are unemployed. Later after being beaten down claims: he didn't say that.
Well why'd you say he was right here?

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 12:09 am » wrote: So, my 77 year old retired mom is "unemployed?"

You're a **** idiot.

Stupidly dishonnest. As Misty said.

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2016 4:26 am » wrote: ^^^^
Thinks Trump was right (in "his number")to claim 40% of people are unemployed. Later after being beaten down claims: he didn't say that.
Well why'd you say he was right here?

Gotta wonder what kind of *** admits he's wrong, then repeats himself.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 6:32 pm » wrote:I rechecked that quote. It was actually from David Stockman from mistys link. It's where Trump got the figure he threw out there. My apologies.
He did think it was worth repeating however then sort of kind of settled on 20. I'll let you prove any of this **** is true.

You've already admitted Trump didn't claim 42% of people are unemployed.
20<>42%

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2016 2:19 am » wrote: More **** from goofy
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/a-g ... ns-pdf.pdf

another liberal that quotes the government when everyone acknowledges the government number is wrong.
The question is only "how wrong" the number is.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 12:28 am » wrote:
It was reagan who changed the way the numbers were calculated, to effect PRECISELY that outcome, ****.

Wow, I didn't know Reagan was President in 1994. Well, that IS news.

golfboy » 17 Feb 2016 7:38 am » wrote: You've already admitted Trump didn't claim 42% of people are unemployed.
20<>42%

It's only been directly quoted to you in large font, *** licker.

golfboy » 17 Feb 2016 7:40 am » wrote: Wow, I didn't know Reagan was President in 1994. Well, that IS news.

Link, *** hat?

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 7:42 am » wrote: Link, *** hat?

I already supplied one to Oz when she asked, but here's another:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecul ... 3bcf153438

In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force. A smaller denominator with the same number employed leads to a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate. Ask yourself how much sense this makes in today’s world where the average unemployment duration is 40 weeks and there have been several years where unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks.

You're welcome.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 7:42 am » wrote: It's only been directly quoted to you in large font, *** licker.

You mean where he said it was 21%?

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 7:42 am » wrote: It's only been directly quoted to you in large font, *** licker.

In fairness, Trump said he had heard it as if it were credible and golfboy defended that figure. But Trump after throwing around a half dozen uncredible numbers finally hedged on "probably 20%"
It was all very scientific you see and it's up to us to disprove his wild accusation.

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2016 7:53 am » wrote: In fairness, Trump said he had heard it as if it were credible and golfboy defended that figure. But Trump after throwing around a half dozen uncredible numbers finally hedged on "probably 20%"
It was all very scientific you see and it's up to us to disprove his wild accusation.

I HEARD golfboy sucks dicks, but the *** will still think it's saying me he's a dick sucker - not the guy I heard it from. In FAIRNESS, we bug spray golfboi.

golfboy » 17 Feb 2016 7:48 am » wrote: I already supplied one to Oz when she asked, but here's another:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecul ... 3bcf153438
You're welcome.

And this proves Reagan was Prssident in 1994 how?

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 8:24 am » wrote: And this proves Reagan was Prssident in 1994 how?

Come on man, I was laughing at your claim that Reagan was President when the unemployment number scheme was last changed.
Don't be an *** about being wrong. Or at least try not to be such an obvious ***.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 8:24 am » wrote: And this proves Reagan was Prssident in 1994 how?

Are you being contrary because you believe what you are saying although GBs link says it was changed in 1994 OR is that boring today so you want to invent a flame war?

And if so, will it be great?

Reagan changed the CPI, not the method to count the U6 unemployment rate:

Question: You are already in depression territory, not approachment. The statistic from the BLS is one of the reasons the economic crisis went undetected for so long — an economic indicator that is deceptive. The statistic is relative only to the number employed and there is a time constraint on this number.

If you are looking to do another report on a statistic that is out of alignment then look at the CPI, consumer price index. Definition changed many times to accommodate the accelerated rate of inflation. To diminish the true rate of inflation. Starting during the Reagan administration the items in the basket were changed to bring down the CPI. The true rate of inflation is unknown since only items with the smallest increment increases make up the CPI. Items like health care or college tuition would never be in the CPI basket. A deceptive, practice maybe even criminal, since this was one of the indicators that masked the 2007 economic crisis and is masking future economic disasters.

Paul Solman: We’ve done considerable work on the unemployment statistic, Mr. Bianco. See our story, Undercounting Unemployment, which defines the different unemployment rates (called U-3, U-4, U-5 and U-6). The key points are that, compared to the way the headline unemployment rate (U-3) was officially calculated back when it hit its post-WWII high of 10.8% (1982), there have been major changes. Here they are:

1) The population is older and thus should have a LOWER unemployment rate, since older workers work more than younger ones do;

2) The number of Americans receiving government disability, virtually nil in 1982, is over 5 million today, and a significant percentage of them would presumably be unemployed if in the labor market;

3) Same for America’s prison population, which has risen by some 2 million since 1982. Estimates of unemployment among ex-convicts range up to 80%

4) Finally, the point you’re presumably making when you write about “a time restraint”: there are far more “discouraged” workers now than in the 1980s who don’t affect the unemployment rate at all. Starting in 1994, once you hadn’t looked for work for more than a year, you were officially removed from the workforce. Entirely. And that, as with items (2) and (3), above, reduces the headline rate – U-3 – and all the broader measures of unemployment as well.

One more point about unemployment before touching on the CPI issue you raise. Right now (as of May’s data), the broadest measure — U-6 — stands at 16.6 percent. If you included working-age Americans who haven’t looked for work in the past year — and who WERE included back in 1982 — the number would be a lot higher. And indeed, the main reason the unemployment rate didn’t go down last month, despite the surge of Census Bureau workers, was that many of them began looking for work again, thus “rejoining” the officially counted workforce.

Now, on to the CPI. I’ve covered the story of this statistic since the early ’90s, well before the so-called “Boskin Commission” revised the calculation in 1996. I could go on and on about this — and indeed I sometimes have. But the bottom line is that I honestly don’t think the adjustments make that much of a difference. I certainly don’t think they masked the crisis or that they’re especially deceptive, much less “criminal.”

For the most skeptical look at these measures, you can look at John Williams’ ShadowStats website. We’ve interviewed Williams on several occasions.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... -mask-the/

Huey » 17 Feb 2016 8:28 am » wrote:
Are you being contrary because you believe what you are saying although GBs link says it was changed in 1994 OR is that boring today so you want to invent a flame war?

And if so, will it be great?

Just juttin' my chin at a chin jutter, boss.

What happens from there is gonna be just between us chin jutters.

I didn't see any link proving his claim that Reagan was pResident in 94 - did you?

golfboy » 17 Feb 2016 8:27 am » wrote: Come on man, I was laughing at your claim that Reagan was President when the unemployment number scheme was last changed.
Don't be an *** about being wrong. Or at least try not to be such an obvious ***.

Who are you to call for reasonable behavior?

You were shown trump stating with his mouth that unemployment was 42% - yet perist in your north american man boy love association narrative.

I am simply refuting your thesis that reagan was this nation's pResident in 1994.

That was your claim and it was FALSE, SIR!

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 8:55 am » wrote: Just juttin' my chin at a chin jutter, boss.

What happens from there is gonna be just between us chin jutters.

I didn't see any link proving his claim that Reagan was pResident in 94 - did you?

No. But I didn't see anyone claiming he was. I saw a claim that Reagan changed how U3 or U6 unemployment is counted. That would be impossible because it was done in 94/96 and he wasn't president. He did change how service members were counted, counting them as employed. Which is true.