unemployment drops to 7.8%

[joshh]

So you have no solution or any idea whatsoever how the sampling could be more accurate, yet criticize it? Have you actually ever read the methodologies? Or the stated limitations and confidence intervals? Or just completely ignorant and uneducated crying boo hoo about it without any basis? Can you even point out why "it's not fucking accurate" in your opinion, or just repeating what Drudge says?

So what is your definition of "real growth" vs. ?? fake growth? I don't think you even know what an argument is since you clearly cannot make one for the life of you.

Eyes covered? I'm not the only claiming stuff about things I'm haven't cared to be informed about.

Why are they "false"? They are the results of their definition, it's your inability to understand that which is why you don't get it.

Jesus fucking Christ you're thick. Or you're just on one of your rampages of ridiculousness because you know I've made a point you're now having to scramble around.

Damn right I'm going to criticise it because I already spelled out to you why it's wrong.

Seeing the fact you love to call 1.4% GDP or so "growth" so badly. Lets carry that out long term and see how that would work out for this country. It wouldn't....6,000,000 people a year enter the job force in this country not including those already in the workforce. At 1.4% you wouldn't even keep up with demand of those entering the job market let alone those trying to find work again. Specially with the way this administration is spending money.

Keep scrambling...lol.

[rwh11385]

It doesn't matter. The point is it's not fucking accurate. Whether I personally have the solution or jot is not the point.

Oh that's precious.
So you want to argue semantics that I didn't give a 1.4 GDP growth a "growth". When in fact 2.5 is what it takes just for our economy to make real growth. So in fact you're arguing my point for me. Much appreciated!

Yes keep your eyes covered. 4.5 million Americans being put back to work should definitely pull the unemployment rate down to 7.8%. The unemployment stats are false.

So you have no solution or any idea whatsoever how the sampling could be more accurate, yet criticize it? Have you actually ever read the methodologies? Or the stated limitations and confidence intervals? Or just completely ignorant and uneducated crying boo hoo about it without any basis? Can you even point out why "it's not fucking accurate" in your opinion, or just repeating what Drudge says?

So what is your definition of "real growth" vs. ?? fake growth? I don't think you even know what an argument is since you clearly cannot make one for the life of you.

Eyes covered? I'm not the only claiming stuff about things I'm haven't cared to be informed about.

Why are they "false"? They are the results of their definition, it's your inability to understand that which is why you don't get it.

[joshh]

What is your grand idea of a "more accurate sample"? REALLY looking forward to your genius in action here.

So are you saying that the economy has improved in the last 4 years?


That was you in April 2011.

And yet, what happened:



You had the pre-conclusion that it was going to crumble down.

And apparently decided to re-define words:

Because you didn't want to acknowledge growth as growth?

For as obsessed are you were to pointed out when the ISM manufacturing index hit 49.7, you seem to have ignored that it is expanding by much more than it was ever contracting and the non-manufacturing index was larger than expected, and people thought it was going to slow.

Just "cherry picking" what you care to focus on, eh?


Anyway, what was the purpose of this thread exactly?


Point out your lack of knowledge about the BLS two surveys and that you failed to realize that the payroll information and household data were separate, and that they sometimes diverge and there is numerous studies about this? Sounds pretty much like a thread to point out your lack of understanding... no one on this forum needs the help to see that.

The two aren't mathematically related. But yet you declare for certain that it is impossible.

It doesn't matter. The point is it's not fucking accurate. Whether I personally have the solution or jot is not the point.

Oh that's precious.
So you want to argue semantics that I didn't give a 1.4 GDP growth a "growth". When in fact 2.5 is what it takes just for our economy to make real growth. So in fact you're arguing my point for me. Much appreciated!

Yeah and interest rates are at an all time low. But banks still aren't loaning unless you have cash on hand. And now the Fed is printing cash. That should really help things out.

Yes keep your eyes covered. 4.5 million Americans being put back to work should definitely pull the unemployment rate down to 7.8%. The unemployment stats are false.

[Fusion]

You're still only going 40mph, which would be too slow for you to post so many replies.

[rwh11385]

Your average speed is still 40 miles per hour.

Wow... I'm flabbergasted how you are so stupid and still not getting this.

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour?

1 - 50 mph
2 - 50 mph
3 - 50 mph
4 - 50 mph
5 - stationary
6 - stationary
7 - 50 mph
8 - 50 mph
9 - 50 mph
10 - 50 mph

Distance covered = 400 miles
Average speed = 40 mph

Did not go 40 mph in hour 5 or 6. (nor traveled at all in those two hours)

At least this points out how your arguments are so horrible in P&R threads, you have the critical thinking ability of a toddler.

[Fusion]

Your average speed is still 40 miles per hour.

[rwh11385]

Yes, your average speed is 40mph.
Are you seriously getting all butt-hurt over a number? No wonder you avoid real life conversation and rather spend more time on a car forum arguing numbers. I couldn't stand being around a hissy egomanic like you for ten minutes.

No. Can you not read English or are just that bad at math?

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour? Basic math dude.

I can take a lunch break for two hours and travel no distance during that time. I can drive 50 mph in the other 8 hours to have my average speed be 40 mph but there is nothing that necessitates that I am going 40 mph during every hour.

Ha at you trying to judge my life or ability to converse or socialize based on my criticism of your completely lack of math understanding.

[Fusion]

No, your retarded ass assuming that 5 posts a day on average means I posted 5 times every day. You're an idiot.

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour? Basic math dude.

Yes, your average speed is 40mph.
Are you seriously getting all butt-hurt over a number? No wonder you avoid real life conversation and rather spend more time on a car forum arguing numbers. I couldn't stand being around a hissy egomanic like you for ten minutes.

Cant make a real argument so go to an ad hominem attack. Nice.

Retard math.
Go have fun with your stickers bro.

your retarded ass

You're an idiot.

[rwh11385]

I'm not making any arguments in this dicussion, just a fun fact.



Also known as a forum statistic.

No, I'm talking about your retarded ass assuming that 5 posts a day on average means I posted 5 times every day. You're an idiot.

If I drive 400 miles in 10 hours, does that mean I must be driving 40 mph every hour? Basic math skills dude.

your patience to post and research past posts truly astounds me. what's your reddit name?

Research skills have developed over the years and end up being useful for other things than just forum arguments. But I'm not on reddit, or post any significant amount on any other forums.

Cant make a real argument so go to an ad hominem attack. Nice.

Watch out, you have even more posts than me, so therefore Fusion is judging your life as well.

[Fusion]

I'm not making any arguments in this dicussion, just pointing out a fun fact.

Retard math.

Also known as a forum statistic.

[nando]

Cant make a real argument so go to an ad hominem attack. Nice.

[rwh11385]

5 posts a day, every day, for 9 years
Consider the unemployment rate important? How bout looking at the get-a-life rate?

Retard math.

Lol. I know math is not your strong suit. [Nor logic] You're assuming a 9 year average as current rate... I posted a lot more in the first 5 years. Although, once every 4 years there are people making ridiculous claims that aren't based in logic or facts and plenty of opportunity to debate.

But more math... If I didn't make a single post for two years... I'd still be at over 4 posts per day. That's 120 posts a month. Did that mean I made 120 posts a month over the course of the two years?

Go have fun with your stickers bro.

[Fusion]

5 posts a day, every day, for 9 years
Consider the unemployment rate important? How bout looking at the get-a-life rate?

[Kershaw]

your patience to post and research past posts truly astounds me. what's your reddit name?

[rwh11385]

No you fucking moron, a more accurate sample.

Oh there you go again having to lie about what I've said in the past and even today to fit in with your view of what it is you'd love for me to have said. I said and have said the economy has been very very slow to move forward. Not that it is falling or dying. Keep the twist rocking.
The economy is the same as last year when we were arguing...slow as fuck. But yet here we are again and here I am seeing the same slow ass economy as I expected to see. As I said time and time again.

What is your grand idea of a "more accurate sample"? REALLY looking forward to your genius in action here.

So are you saying that the economy has improved in the last 4 years?

The home market is in a shit hole, why? Because people don't have money. There are a lot of people who think Americans are saving and "just not spending their money" HELLO McFLY THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY TO PUT DOWN ON A HOME! Let that sink in for a few minutes. They don't have money.

That was you in April 2011.

And yet, what happened:

That graph sucks and only proves what I'm talking about. Sweet we have a few months of "recovery" and a drop at the end.
It isn't over till more indicators show themselves as gain.

You had the pre-conclusion that it was going to crumble down.

And apparently decided to re-define words:

I stopped arguing with the guy when he couldn't even confront the fact that all of last year the economy grew at a rate of 1.7% being too slow to make it a growing economy.

Because you didn't want to acknowledge growth as growth?

For as obsessed are you were to pointed out when the ISM manufacturing index hit 49.7, you seem to have ignored that it is expanding by much more than it was ever contracting and the non-manufacturing index was larger than expected, and people thought it was going to slow.

Just "cherry picking" what you care to focus on, eh?


Anyway, what was the purpose of this thread exactly?

114,000 jobs were added last month. Now explain how that can possibly drop the unemployment rate by .3%.
It's mathematically impossible...

Point out your lack of knowledge about the BLS two surveys and that you failed to realize that the payroll information and household data were separate, and that they sometimes diverge and there is numerous studies about this? Sounds pretty much like a thread to point out your lack of understanding... no one on this forum needs the help to see that.

The two aren't mathematically related. But yet you declare for certain that it is impossible.