Dishonest Unemployment Numbers and the Democrat party MSM

reply to post by PvtHudson

First off all, I'm not mad. You're the one throwing around the left wing talking point about Fox. It's a common angry liberal response.

Okay then.

Second, I'm just exposing the media for it's completely contradictory reporting.

Okay then.

It seems 7.8% is good if you're a Democrat and 5.4% is bad if you're a Republican.

I think you are missing a key point. Its not about the number being "good" its about them being better.

You guys always want to complain about Fox, but have nothing but excuses and deflections when it comes to the greater mass media and their deception in defense of the Democrat party.

What do you want me to defend? The way it was reported by the abstract concept known as the "liberal media", something completely irrelevant to the state of the economy, or the numbers themselves???

No, I know what it is. You just want to whine about how the "liberal media" is so awful and evil. That is all.

reply to post by PvtHudson

You can go down the list of things the MSM incited outrage over under Bush, but now covers up in defense of their guy. From Gitmo, gas prices, drone strikes and unemployment. I guess you'll all dismiss it as long as Jon Stewart (the left wing entertainer) is dismissing it eh?

There are things i am not to thrilled about with this presidency. I am, however, not a one issue voter.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You stated "real unemployment" is at 20%, prove it.

Or just admit you talked before knowing the facts, confirmed by you now posting the U6 at 14.7% as your "proof" that you have any clue what you are talking about.

So please, show me the data that shows "real" unemployment at 20%, or just admit you made that number up in your head.

No kidding. But according to Obama's utopia vision, this is possible. And yet after nearly four years he hasn't done it. He hasn't even come close. Therefore, he really can't go around bragging about a 'blip'.

Please show where Obama has ever claimed that U6 can go down to 5%. You are again just making things up and trying to pass them off as fact, all to cover your own mistake.

You are hilarious, because now you are claiming that you knew all along that the U6 can't get down to 5%. When you said, and I quote

Get the 'real unemployment' number down to 5.0% and we can say that progress has been made.

I guess now you are saying that you were just joking or being sarcastic, right?

The far left is clinging to this 7.8% like it's a magical number. It's not. It's an awful number
And unless there is a repeat ... It's just a blip.

The number is just one more in the chain of improving unemployment numbers. You can go ahead and keep cheering for the demise of the American economy because you hate an individual, but I am glad the economy is continuing to recovery.




The fact is that you spoke out of ignorance, got called on it, finally went and looked up some information, and are trying to claim you knew this all along.

You keep repeating 20% in multiple threads, please show me some facts that back up that number.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

What do you want me to defend? The way it was reported by the abstract concept known as the "liberal media", something completely irrelevant to the state of the economy, or the numbers themselves???

They are the ones who set the narrative and tone that the public should take. Most of you dutifully follow as you are right now.

I also never called it "the liberal media". I specifically called it the Democrat party media.

No, I know what it is. You just want to whine about how the "liberal media" is so awful and evil. That is all.

This from a guy who's very first response was to whine about Fox News. You really don't see your own hypocrisy, do you?

reply to post by PvtHudson

They are the ones who set the narrative and tone that the public should take. Most of you dutifully follow as you are right now.

"You are all sheep!" Bla bla. I get it, i get it.

also never called it "the liberal media". I specifically called it the Democrat party media.

Lol

This from a guy who's very first response was to whine about Fox News. You really don't see your own hypocrisy, do you?

I dont whine about FOX news, I roll my eyes and make fun of them.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
"You are all sheep!" Bla bla. I get it, i get it.

You do realize that your first post was to suggest this is all some Fox conspiracy, right? You cannot honestly be so dense as to not see your hypocrisy. You just can't be!

I dont whine about FOX news, I roll my eyes and make fun of them.

You apparently are.... Sad.

reply to post by PvtHudson

You do realize that your first post was to suggest this is all some Fox conspiracy, right? You cannot honestly be so dense as to not see your hypocrisy. You just can't be!

Please explain to me how you creating a thread specifically to bash liberals(that's all you have been doing) is equal to me making a throwaway joke about FOX.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Please explain to me how you creating a thread specifically to bash liberals(that's all you have been doing) is equal to me making a throwaway joke about FOX.

I'd really appreciate it if you just stopped derailing the thread with your deflections and spin. This thread is about exposing a media double standard and show how they spin for their team. It's got nothing to do with "liberals". Where do you even see "liberal" in the OP?


I get it, you're angry that these lies are exposed. Why don't you just find another thread to unload your butt hurt?

reply to post by PvtHudson

I'd really appreciate it if you just stopped derailing the thread with your deflections and spin. This thread is about exposing a media double standard and show how they spin for their team. It's got nothing to do with "liberals". Where do you even see "liberal" in the OP?

Except you focused on the "Liberal media" or the "Democratic media" as you so lovingly renamed it. So, is this about exposing "media bias" or exposing "democratic media bias"?

I get it, you're angry that these lies are exposed.

What lies??

Why don't you just find another thread to unload your butt hurt?

Me? Butt hurt? You are the one who created a thread that is butt hurt over better unemployment numbers, that work in Obama's favor, along with a juxtaposition that allegedly shows media bias in favor of Obama over Bush. And then, when someone questions it, you call them sheep's.

reply to post by PvtHudson


You don't appear to want to discuss the topic anyway. I told you exactly why the media reacted differently in 2004 and today. But you have decided to ignore that.

So it seems this thread is dead anyway, because you don't even want to discuss your own topic.

Hey they aren't "unemployed" they are "Job challenged" HAHAHA


At least that is what the MSM and politicians would classify some meaning they won't count in the unemployment numbers.

You might want to try this guy's site. Very informed.

www.shadowstats.com...

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers. The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

U3 vs U6 vs SGL ALT
www.shadowstats.com...

Here is the labor force versus population data:
www.shadowstats.com...

And a good one by industry sector. With the exception of education and health services, everything has dropped since 2007. Not much of a surprise. From 2007 to 2011, the economy lost 6.5 millions jobs. Makes that whole 7.whatever% pretty meaningless.
www.shadowstats.com...

The economy is not doing well, never mind wall street. At one time it may have been a good indicator of the real economy but not so much anymore. Don't believe me? Try this one out. What is your dollar worth?
www.shadowstats.com...

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by PvtHudson

 

You don't appear to want to discuss the topic anyway. I told you exactly why the media reacted differently in 2004 and today. But you have decided to ignore that.

So it seems this thread is dead anyway, because you don't even want to discuss your own topic.

I understand your labor force argument. You're saying that basically because the labor force is shrinking, the same amount of new jobs would have the three point impact rather than the one point impact of 2004.

But the new jobs data is arrived at by the increase of payroll taxes being collected. Because there were 144,000 new taxpayers in the payroll tax category, there were 144,000 new jobs. That part was already predicted and forecasted. No one is debating that. The uptick in the employment numbers though has nothing to do with payroll taxes determining new jobs. It was the household survey where the uptick appeared.

The unemployment rate is based on two parts, payroll taxes decreasing or increasing and secondly, the household survey. The paytoll tax did not show an increase of enough taxpayers to warrent a three point decrease in unemployment. It was the household survey that offset the number of new payroll taxpayers. The survey is not based on hard data. It's a survey done by phonecalls. It's the survey that's out of kilter with the expectations and the general trend and that's where the three point decrease in unemployment is derived. That only 144,000 jobs were created points to the fact that either the people who were surveyed were less than honest, the sample was a statistical fluke or a significant amount of people who became employed in the last month aren't paying a payroll tax.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
I love how you try to use official BLS numbers to debunk BLS numbers, not very logical.

No kidding.

I listened to a whole radio talk show session about the BLS and how they come up with their numbers.

Very interesting - - - very complex. And a month behind - - because they spend a month or so verifying the numbers.

its been said many times. these numbers dont take into account people that no longer receive unemployment benefits and those that are under employed. if these were taken into account the number would be quite a bit higher

reply to post by MastaShake


The same formula has been used for years and years and years, it's absolutely true that it is not an accurate count of the unemployed. It never has been. It is absolutely false that suddenly the numbers have been cooked to make Obama look better, certainly a .5% drop isn't much at all... it hasn't been said by the administration nor by any media source that the numbers were goo, that a miracle had taken place. It has only been said that slow steady progress continues.

No one better call me a f%$#ing liberal because I have been a registered Republican for a long time.

Now...

I find it interesting that when the BLS reports numbers that are unfavorable to the current administration, they are totallllllly reliable in the eyes of the "conservative" punditry - and that includes people here on ATS. But, once they show an ever so slight improvement, it MUST be a conspiracy, one that would involve thousands of people no less, and is now NOT RELIABLE. Wow! What a coincidence!

Not to mention that the number has shown a pattern of falling almost every month this year. So how is this somehow a scheme before the election?

The unemployment rate/numbers in and of itself is a faulty system, and really in no way reflects the problems we face nor how well this country is doing in terms of economic growth. Yet both sides want to use it as ammo against the other - while completely and utterly missing the point and fudging it up big time.

Controversy Over U.S. Unemployment Rate Masks The Real Issue Underlying America's Crisis

There is another dimension to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data which demonstrates its utter irrelevancy to the overall health of the economy. The numbers in the BLS report, or the claims by the Obama campaign regarding total jobs creation since the president took office, not to mention GOP candidate Mitt Romney's boast that as president, he would somehow "create" 12 million new jobs, miss what is most relevant to a comprehensive economic recovery in the United States. The real issue is the decline in purchasing power by the U.S. labor force, concomitant with a parallel increase in economic power of a very small financial oligarchy. As is well known by labor statisticians, frequently the new jobs created (or promised) are actually lower paying full-time jobs, or part-time positions with significantly reduced levels of compensation. The cumulative impact of this phenomenon has been the erosion in the size and collective purchasing power of America's middle-income labor force, leading to weaker consumer demand and a collapse in housing values. Neither President Obama nor Governor Romney has on offer a realistic and cogent plan to address the real core issue underlying the factors that have left the U.S. labor force diminished not only in its employee count, but more importantly, in its financial capacity. Until the latter issue is addressed, all the promises made by American politicians for a future economic recovery are political rhetoric and nothing more.

Carry on with the partisan crap...