Iraq and oil prices

uscitizen said:
it is a net job figure and not just a new job figure as I understand it.
ie if we add 20,000 jobs and lose 40,000 we had a net loss of 20,000 ?

And yes I understand the survey aspect of the unemployment figure.

smart assed college kids, admit ignorance on something and they just insult you.
how rude.
Click to expand...

Given that we JUST went over this... yes, I am going to make fun of you.

The net job figure is ALSO a survey.
 
But it is a net job figure right ?

and once payroll taxes start rolling in it can be an actual job figure.
just pull quarterly from the SS rolls.

Or would that method burst someones political bubble.
And hey contrary to your beliefs I don't pay close attention to all the threads around here. so many threads so little time.
 
uscitizen said:
But it is a net job figure right ?

and once payroll taxes start rolling in it can be an actual job figure.
just pull quarterly from the SS rolls.

Or would that method burst someones political bubble.
And hey contrary to your beliefs I don't pay close attention to all the threads around here. so many threads so little time.
Click to expand...

yes, it is a net job number computed from the results of the survey. They randomly call businesses and ask... over time frame "x"... did you add employees, reduce the number of employees or did you stay the same? If the answer is one of the first two, then they follow up with.... by how many?

No, they never go off payroll taxes to attempt to create an actual figure, because again it is far too great a burden to try to keep up with the changes for all companies. It would take too long. Thus, they use the survey as a guage. Everyone understands it is just a guage and everyone who uses this data knows how it is calculated and knows that it only represents bigger businesses. But it is a fairly accurate guage and thus it is used in combo with unemployment rate to paint a pretty current picture.

I understand you don't pay attention to all the threads.... but on the thread I am referring to, YOU and I went over how the unemployment rate was calculated.
 
why would it be too big of a burden to have the SS admin just run a batch to count the number of SS accounts that paid in in the last qtr ?
 
Topspin said:
Blackass, as typical of a brother you don't know jack shit about money.
Whitey has kept you down and you rebel against any authority, it's kinda sad.
You would be laughed out of any serious discussion besides black panthers and moveon.morons group if you held to us going to kick Sadam out of Kuwait to make oil more expensive. That's comical really.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying your racist beliefs so I no longer have to treat you as an equal. You're not.

I have a degree in IT, an Oracle DBA, worked for the US Congress, my white business partner and I just developed software that we're selling at a rapid pace, respected, sought after and published writer and campaign analyst, own two beautiful homes inside and out, beautiful family, daughter accepted at Spelman with academic scholarship .. sweet life motherfucker and fuck you very much.

You write like a moron and obviously aren't very trained or learned .. AND seem incapable of constructing an intelligent argument. I asked you to support your mindlessly stupid beliefs that no one believes and all you could produce was unsupported dumb one-liners and racism.

You make a fool of yourself.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
blackascoal said:
Added to four consecutive months of job loss.

Your point?

The economy NEEDS to add new jobs to keep pace with population.
Click to expand...
*sigh* we are attempting to educate uscitizen on HOW the numbers are figured. Where did I report any numbers or make an opinion on the state of the economy?
 
yeah and i think you steered me wrong damo. It is net jobs not just new jobs created I think. Or am I wrong ?
a loss of 20,000 jobs means 20,000 fewer total jobs in the USA, right ? Per a survey of course, for the nit pickers.
 
Damocles said:
*sigh* we are attempting to educate uscitizen on HOW the numbers are figured. Where did I report any numbers or make an opinion on the state of the economy?
Click to expand...

You didn't .. that's why I asking what your point was.

The numbers are indicative of a bad economy no matter how they get spinned un;ess you have a different perspective.

Hopefully you don't have any problem clarifying your point, which is all I'm asking.

Of course I recognize it could just be "humor", "sarcasm", or now "play."
 
blackascoal said:
You didn't .. that's why I asking what your point was.

The numbers are indicative of a bad economy no matter how they get spinned un;ess you have a different perspective.

Hopefully you don't have any problem clarifying your point, which is all I'm asking.

Of course I recognize it could just be "humor", "sarcasm", or now "play."
Click to expand...
It is none of those.

I was making no assessment of the state of the economy. I was explaining how the jobs numbers are figured, that is all.

The jobs numbers are not indicative of all jobs, therefore people may be getting employed at the same time the other report says that it was negative.

And no, both numbers do not indicate a poor economy. A 5% unemployment rate, were Clinton President, would be hailed as positive news.
 
Damocles said:
It is none of those.

I was making no assessment of the state of the economy. I was explaining how the jobs numbers are figured, that is all.

The jobs numbers are not indicative of all jobs, therefore people may be getting employed at the same time the other report says that it was negative.

And no, both numbers do not indicate a poor economy. A 5% unemployment rate, were Clinton President, would be hailed as positive news.
Click to expand...

Thanks .. some of what you say I agree with .. however, Clinton's economy averaged gaining 236,000 additional jobs per month, or 2.3 million in 10 months.

Four consectutive months of job loss is bad news no matter how its looked at.
 
hahha blackass where from morehead state. JK
You sound just like the other fucking IT dorks on here. Right, good job good money. Shit for brains on basic economics. Mix a black militant with an IT degree and fuck all the laws of supply and demand. Thanks your as funny as Chris Rock
 
blackascoal said:
Thanks .. some of what you say I agree with .. however, Clinton's economy averaged gaining 236,000 additional jobs per month, or 2.3 million in 10 months.

Four consectutive months of job loss is bad news no matter how its looked at.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I said, that is true. It is bad to lose jobs. Even if it is only in the larger companies.
 
even if only in the larger companies ? you mean the ones that have the best health care benefits and pay and such ?
Yeah such a trivial thing. Unless you are the one losing your job.
 
uscitizen said:
even if only in the larger companies ? you mean the ones that have the best health care benefits and pay and such ?
Yeah such a trivial thing. Unless you are the one losing your job.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Dude.

They survey only the largest companies when tallying the number, it is why there can be a jobs "loss" while unemployment drops.
 
Damocles said:
*sigh*

Dude.

They survey only the largest companies when tallying the number, it is why there can be a jobs "loss" while unemployment drops.
Click to expand...
Basically it comes down to this:

There are two surveys. Though the two factors the surveys are measuring are related, each measures a different aspect using different data sources. Different factors can affect one data source and not affect the other. The jobs loss of big business affect jobs growth.

But the survey of unemployment asks people if they are working or not, and if they are not working, are they seeking work. People not seeking work are toss out of the survey. Now here is where the two methods separate and can get conflicting results: The jobs growth survey is limited to big business. But the unemployment survey is not. So the unemployment surveys sample cross section contains a disproportionately low number of people laid off from big business because they count ALL people who are without work for whatever reason. That skews the change in unemployment away from the big business sector between surveys. Second, many people laid off from big business jobs find employment in small business, or start their own small business, etc. taking themselves out of the job-seeking market that is not reflected in the jobs growth survey.

As such, one data source can show a drop which SHOULD correspond to a rise in the other factor. BUT, since the other survey is using a different survey type measuring a different data source, different factors can push that result down also, ending in what seems to be results that conflict with each other.
 
Desh said:
Bush said "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" and declared that "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

How many years ago was he standing on an aircraft carrier saying this shit with a big banner saying "Mission accomplished"?
Click to expand...

True, but we still re-elected the prick. What does that say about us as a nation? Who was the journalist that said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top