|
|
On October 12 2012 14:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. I dont see what is inaccurate about this picture. EDIT: The government workers thing might be called into question, but that may be based off of the number of people that used to work for the government that no longer do.
1. Unemployed government worker makes no sense no matter how you spin it.
2. Unemployment has fallen since the height (trough?) of the recession no matter which unemployment statistic you look at.
|
On October 12 2012 14:08 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:07 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. I dont see what is inaccurate about this picture. Do you see the fox logo on the bottom left? Oh, so it came from some other news source and somebody changed it to a fox logo? Or are you just making a jab at fox for some reason?
No just taking a friendly jab at fox news. I'm sure they get their numbers from somewhere credible, but I always found that the switch to using the "real unemployment rate" over the past few years to be kind of odd since in the past BLS statistics were usually used and those tend to be lower.
|
On October 12 2012 14:11 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:08 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 12 2012 14:07 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. I dont see what is inaccurate about this picture. Do you see the fox logo on the bottom left? Oh, so it came from some other news source and somebody changed it to a fox logo? Or are you just making a jab at fox for some reason? No just taking a friendly jab at fox news. I'm sure they get their numbers from somewhere credible, but I always found that the switch to using the "real unemployment rate" over the past few years to be kind of odd since in the past BLS statistics were usually used and those tend to be lower.
I don't find it odd, it better serves their purpose. EDIT: Yeah, you were probably just saying what I said T_T
|
On October 12 2012 14:11 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. I dont see what is inaccurate about this picture. EDIT: The government workers thing might be called into question, but that may be based off of the number of people that used to work for the government that no longer do. 1. Unemployed government worker makes no sense no matter how you spin it. 2. Unemployment has fallen since the height (trough?) of the recession no matter which unemployment statistic you look at.
1. There is definitely a way to work out unemployed government workers if you know how many were employed at some previous time (say 2011) and how many are employed now. It is definitely a goofy metric though.
2. The picture doesnt debate that.
I just looked up the employment statistics and they do lie though. Or rather, twist the truth heavily.
7.8% in 2009 used U3 measure. 14.7% uses U-6 measure.
|
On October 12 2012 14:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. Government worker unemployment??? What does that even mean? You can define government worker. You can defined unemployed. But how can you defined unemployed government worker? 1 minus #Government workers divided by #searching for government work? It's a completely undefinable and meaningless number. Government employment is falling like crazy. If there was more stimulus to keep it growing like the rate under Bush, employment would be more like 7%. ![[image loading]](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/public-private.png)
Misleading chart is misleading. Show me what the graph looks like before Bush took office, and before Obama took office. Hurts to know math and how charts work, doesn't it? It's all in the trends. Looks bad right now, but let me see what the before chart looks like please. 99/00 while under Clinton and 07/08 under Bush.
There was a huge surge of jobs because we had just started going to war, and everyone knows going to war gets the economy up and running.
|
On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:Whatever the census employee wants it to be.
What? That doesn't answer my questions.
#Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force.
#Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what??
And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron.
|
On October 12 2012 14:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator? Whatever the census employee wants it to be. What? That doesn't answer my questions. #Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force. #Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what?? And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron.
You could probably look at # of people seeking government jobs/# of government workers, I dunno. I just liked that it was thrown in there to get people mad at "Big Government" while neglecting public sector losses.
The main point is that they compare U6 to U3 and then throw up some bullshit number with "underemployed" people and people who are not looking.
|
On October 12 2012 14:20 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator? Whatever the census employee wants it to be. What? That doesn't answer my questions. #Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force. #Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what?? And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron. You could probably look at # of people seeking government jobs/# of government workers, I dunno. I just liked that it was thrown in there to get people mad at "Big Government" while neglecting public sector losses. The main point is that they compare U6 to U3 and then throw up some bullshit number with "underemployed" people.
I love "underemployed", can anyone explain to me how they come up with the number of "underemployed" workers?
|
On October 12 2012 14:15 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. Government worker unemployment??? What does that even mean? You can define government worker. You can defined unemployed. But how can you defined unemployed government worker? 1 minus #Government workers divided by #searching for government work? It's a completely undefinable and meaningless number. Government employment is falling like crazy. If there was more stimulus to keep it growing like the rate under Bush, employment would be more like 7%. Misleading chart is misleading. Show me what the graph looks like before Bush took office, and before Obama took office. Hurts to know math and how charts work, doesn't it? It's all in the trends. Looks bad right now, but let me see what the before chart looks like please. 99/00 while under Clinton and 07/08 under Bush. There was a huge surge of jobs because we had just started going to war, and everyone knows going to war gets the economy up and running.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USPRIV
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USGOVT
|
On October 12 2012 14:22 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:20 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 14:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator? Whatever the census employee wants it to be. What? That doesn't answer my questions. #Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force. #Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what?? And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron. You could probably look at # of people seeking government jobs/# of government workers, I dunno. I just liked that it was thrown in there to get people mad at "Big Government" while neglecting public sector losses. The main point is that they compare U6 to U3 and then throw up some bullshit number with "underemployed" people. I love "underemployed", can anyone explain to me how they come up with the number of "underemployed" workers?
Underemployed workers are people who are no longer looking for jobs or have taken part-time jobs. This is generally spun that the economy is so bad that people gave up looking for work
|
On October 12 2012 14:22 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:20 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 14:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator? Whatever the census employee wants it to be. What? That doesn't answer my questions. #Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force. #Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what?? And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron. You could probably look at # of people seeking government jobs/# of government workers, I dunno. I just liked that it was thrown in there to get people mad at "Big Government" while neglecting public sector losses. The main point is that they compare U6 to U3 and then throw up some bullshit number with "underemployed" people. I love "underemployed", can anyone explain to me how they come up with the number of "underemployed" workers?
They ask respondent if they want to work more hours.
|
On October 12 2012 14:22 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:20 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 14:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator? Whatever the census employee wants it to be. What? That doesn't answer my questions. #Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force. #Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what?? And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron. You could probably look at # of people seeking government jobs/# of government workers, I dunno. I just liked that it was thrown in there to get people mad at "Big Government" while neglecting public sector losses. The main point is that they compare U6 to U3 and then throw up some bullshit number with "underemployed" people. I love "underemployed", can anyone explain to me how they come up with the number of "underemployed" workers?
People who want a full time job but have had to settle with part time.
|
On October 12 2012 14:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. Government worker unemployment??? What does that even mean? You can define government worker. You can defined unemployed. But how can you defined unemployed government worker? 1 minus #Government workers divided by #searching for government work? It's a completely undefinable and meaningless number. Government employment is falling like crazy. If there was more stimulus to keep it growing like the rate under Bush, employment would be more like 7%.
No, they should can crap government workers like the TSA and use the savings to do needed bunches of stuff.
|
On October 12 2012 14:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:22 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 14:20 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 14:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator? Whatever the census employee wants it to be. What? That doesn't answer my questions. #Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force. #Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what?? And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron. You could probably look at # of people seeking government jobs/# of government workers, I dunno. I just liked that it was thrown in there to get people mad at "Big Government" while neglecting public sector losses. The main point is that they compare U6 to U3 and then throw up some bullshit number with "underemployed" people. I love "underemployed", can anyone explain to me how they come up with the number of "underemployed" workers? They ask respondent if they want to work more hours.
And people actually say no, they don't want to for more hours and get more pay? Ofc the majority of part-time workers want to be full-time. The only ones who don't want to be full-time are students or old people in retirement working to keep busy.
|
I'm employed part-time and I don't want more hours.
I'm a little unusual though. But "there exists"
|
And Mothers/Fathers that like to share time with their children?
And for various other reasons (like being lazy and being able to live from a 80% job)?
Part time work is very common here... In the US i guess not? At least not if you don't have too?
|
On October 12 2012 16:06 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:22 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 14:20 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 14:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:07 RCMDVA wrote:On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator? Whatever the census employee wants it to be. What? That doesn't answer my questions. #Unemployment rate = #Unemployed & in labor force / #In labor force. #Government unemployment rate = #Unemployed government worker & in ??what?? / ??what?? And how is #Unemployed government worker defined? An "unemployed government worker" is an oxymoron. You could probably look at # of people seeking government jobs/# of government workers, I dunno. I just liked that it was thrown in there to get people mad at "Big Government" while neglecting public sector losses. The main point is that they compare U6 to U3 and then throw up some bullshit number with "underemployed" people. I love "underemployed", can anyone explain to me how they come up with the number of "underemployed" workers? They ask respondent if they want to work more hours. And people actually say no, they don't want to for more hours and get more pay? Ofc the majority of part-time workers want to be full-time. The only ones who don't want to be full-time are students or old people in retirement working to keep busy.
Yes, there are part time people who don't want to work more hours.
The BLS's job is not to judge these people, it is to record their answer.
|
On October 12 2012 16:07 Velr wrote:
And Mothers/Fathers that like to share time with their children?
And for various other reasons (like being lazy and being able to live from a 80% job)?
Part time work is very common here... In the US i guess not? At least not if you don't have too?
In the US full time work is preferred because part-time jobs do not include benefits such as health insurance for their families (since we don't have universal healthcare this is a big deal). Part-time employees are also typically paid less per hour. Finally, most decent jobs are full-time only.
|
On October 12 2012 16:26 sunprince wrote:Finally, most decent jobs are full-time only.
Yes but there is a trend towards increasing numbers of part-time jobs in order to avoid paying benefits. I know lots of people whose employers keep them like 1 hour below various benefits cutoffs.
edit: they're probably not "decent jobs," but hey, a decent job is hard to find these days
|
On October 12 2012 16:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:26 sunprince wrote:Finally, most decent jobs are full-time only. Yes but there is a trend towards increasing numbers of part-time jobs in order to avoid paying benefits. I know lots of people whose employers keep them like 1 hour below various benefits cutoffs. edit: they're probably not "decent jobs," but hey, a decent job is hard to find these days
Thats the situation I'm in. Boss keeps me 1hour under full-time worker cap so I don't get any benefits and less pay. Pisses me off as I would love to work 40hours a week easy. I'm a hard worker but nope, it's about the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen9777D716-1BE3-2F15-D79B-085DE4572DAD.jpg&width=600)
