unemployment drops to 7.8%

[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]

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]

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure you have actually ever made a point. But pathetic you think you have.

What exactly is wrong with the sampling accuracy? I must have not been able to find where you spelled that out between your rants.

What is a GDP growth rate between 1% and 2.5% to you? A decline??? Maybe you should find a new word for your "target growth rate" instead of saying growth really isn't growth because it is not high enough. Inflation is still inflation, even if it is below the target inflation rate. Deflation is still deflation though and different from low inflation.

Right. Whatever you say man.

[joshh]

Yeah, I'm not sure you have actually ever made a point. But pathetic you think you have.

What exactly is wrong with the sampling accuracy? I must have not been able to find where you spelled that out between your rants.

What is a GDP growth rate between 1% and 2.5% to you? A decline??? Maybe you should find a new word for your "target growth rate" instead of saying growth really isn't growth because it is not high enough. Inflation is still inflation, even if it is below the target inflation rate. Deflation is still deflation though and different from low inflation.

Right. Whatever you say man.

Sucks when someone makes a valid point you have nothing to contend with, doesn't it.

And there you go with the semantics again.

This economy will eventually die with long term GDP under 2.5%. Argue all you like about growth under 2.5%. This economy has barely been hanging on for the last two years despite all the money thrown into the system from the bailout.

[rwh11385]

Sucks when someone makes a valid point you have nothing to contend with, doesn't it.

And there you go with the semantics again.

This economy will eventually die with long term GDP under 2.5%. Argue all you like about growth under 2.5%. This economy has barely been hanging on for the last two years despite all the money thrown into the system from the bailout.

I wouldn't know in this thread, honestly. Once again, what is your issue with the BLS sampling? What point do you think you proved me on? I have no idea why you are patting yourself on the back.

The economy will die if GDP growth is less than 2.5%? Are you serious?

Traditionally, the U.S. economy's average growth rate has been between 2.5% and 3.0%. This is why many economists believe that this range represents the sustainable (or 'natural') long-run growth rate of potential output. Economic growth above this 'natural' growth rate cannot be sustained for too long: it can cause inflation and lead the Federal Reserve to increase the Fed Funds rate to tighten monetary policy in order to slow growth and prevent a pickup in inflation.

Most long-term potential growth rates look at 2.5%, average, which means some years will be under and some over. Treating 2% like it's a recession (<0%) is a bit skewed.

The GDP growth rate under GWB was 2.04%. Everyone seems to want to act like credit-frenzied, negative-savings-rate, housing-bubbled Post-9/11 economy was amazing.

Weidner and Williams examined the relationship between real economic growth and the strength of past recoveries. The economists estimate that potential output growth was comparatively rapid during the initial expansions of the 1960s through 1980s (at 3.6%). In contrast, potential output was much more moderate (2.5%) during the first two years of recovery from the 1990-1991 and 2001 recessions. They estimate potential GDP growth at the outset of the recovery from the Great Recession was a more sluggish 2.1% due to the slow rate of labor force growth.

If they are correct, real economic growth greater than 2.1% would likely produce a falling unemployment rate.

IMO, growth should be called growth and is better than a recession. Obviously we want to get back to 3% if possible, but it's not like someone to going to wave a magic want a POOF, the economy is what it was before the financial crisis. Is that what you expect??

[Kershaw]

http://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth.htm

I thought this site had some interesting data sets. Thoughts?

[M-technik-3]

So California was not including in oh last weeks report on unemployment. And Guess what the numbers were askew They are higher than 8.1%.

Guess that guy from GE knows a few things.

This was being reported by MSNBC.

[rwh11385]

So California was not including in oh last weeks report on unemployment. And Guess what the numbers were askew They are higher than 8.1%.

Guess that guy from GE knows a few things.

This was being reported by MSNBC.

WHAT?

Sorry Greg, it appears you are completely lost.

Initial claims and a state's unexpected seasonal effects, and then the BLS's household survey are not one in the same.



The news should stop feeding the conspiracy trolls.

[Ryan Stewart]

Its basically the same everyone was saying (including I). A state was behind and underreported, this one will be low but the next one will be high. So the next one came out, and its high. But if you take the 4 week average its on par with how its been for some time.

[rwh11385]

http://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth.htm

I thought this site had some interesting data sets. Thoughts?

Eh, it is unclear how many years they compared before/after, and might be expecting instant and temporary effects with no "announcement" influence. Plus, not all "economies" are the same. Wars had effects on industrial demands and obviously post-9/11 had some effects on businesses, along with technological advances along the way.

There's got to be better studies on the subject than a few cherry picked years and limited simplistic analysis. Like multiple regression including other variables.

edit: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf This might be more robust than your link - but only focus on the top tax rates, ignoring Reagan and W cuts which were across the board and simplifies things a bit.

I could go for balanced analysis from bipartisan effort with factors of growth including human capital, population growth, technology, etc.
Plus a little bit of this: http://www.iareg.org/fileadmin/iareg...ers/WP2_04.pdf <- Influence of trust within society for political entities, membership in service organizations, education, etc.

This focused on family income growth and economic mobility as well as economic growth, from the opposing side: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf
But doesn't factor in enough other trends. Like analysis similarly of the 90s doesn't usually control for a technology boom, etc. The world is vastly more complex than the interaction of just two variables, yet so many people would like to compare two things as if correlation explains all causation.

The truth of the matter is that if Congress really cared about economic growth, they would have found a compromise on the rates to avoid the fiscal cliff, as well as sometime in the vast amount of opportunity available to come to agreement on spending cuts. Arguing like they did when the delay to raise the debt limit almost made the country go into default underlines how worthless they are and also how poorly prepared they are to discuss and deal with an aging workforce, shifting global economic and population dynamics, as well as our own mixture of human capital in transition.

A more thorough analysis of the influence of the economy drawing in all factors could underline elements and factors that are most crucial and improve on those, while optimizing tax rates. A key element will hopefully be simplification and reduction in tax breaks and exceptions. But also could really beef up our application of BLS career outlook and helping to align training and education with future labor demand.

[M-technik-3]

I can't rewind it but I know they said it ended higher.

[rwh11385]

I can't rewind it but I know they said it ended higher.

It did. But if seasonality effects assumes all that Halloween retail sales start in the 2nd week and controls for that, but a crapton of retail people don't get fired in the 1st week then they will drop the initial claims number in the first week and have it level out in the second week. And that was expected by anyone who had an once of understanding of the subject. (Not saying all were halloween costume stores but the primary change was in retail sales, and a quick easy example of why it should have been and understood as a one-week offsetting effect)

The fact that some people are not understanding that effect or that the 4 week average isn't really that much different doesn't mean that the conspiracy theorists at ZeroHedge about initial claims shenanigans were accurately reporting or that it has anything to do with the BLS report or that senile Jack Welch. The problem with the media is that it caters to people who don't read the actual reports or what goes into them.

The same thing with seasonality did happen with school year starting a week early and kids leaving the workforce in August's BLS report. When the seasonality effect of people being back in school hit later than the change occurring, it was part that made September numbers look so much better than August. October numbers will therefore look worse by comparison of the one month-to-month change, but wouldn't be shocked if it was back at 8%.

[Turf1600]

Hey heeter -

I in no way have the will, patience or even the educational base to do as much research as you do on this stuff - but I sincerely appreciate that you do and I enjoy your posts.

[gwb72tii]

U6 unemployment is a better statistic and shows absolutely no job growth since 2009

[rwh11385]

Hey heeter -

I in no way have the will, patience or even the educational base to do as much research as you do on this stuff - but I sincerely appreciate that you do and I enjoy your posts.

Thank you Patrick.

U6 unemployment is a better statistic and shows absolutely no job growth since 2009

Once again, complete lack of data to back up your claims leave you free to mislead with broad statements. I guess I don't see today the same as 2009... but maybe the chart looks different to a RWNJ.